Universal Declaration of Human Rights and UN Convention on Genocide

Tony Lloyd Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Convention on Genocide.

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve with you as Chair of the proceedings, Ms McDonagh. It is a long time since I have engaged in this art form.

I will begin by expressing my regret that the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) cannot be with us today; unfortunately, he is not well. He was the co-sponsor, along with me, of at least part of this debate, and I count him as a good ally on matters concerning human rights. The hon. Member for Henley leads the UK delegation to the Assembly of the Council of Europe, which gives him prominence in the human rights debate.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I join the hon. Member for Rochdale in expressing our dismay at my hon. Friend the Member for Henley not being here to speak on a subject on which, as the hon. Gentleman generously said, he is extremely expert. I am sure that the whole House would want to wish him a speedy recovery.

[Tony Lloyd]

I will pass the Minister’s words on to the hon. Member; I think we would all agree on that.

On a happier note, we meet today to celebrate the fact that it is now some 75 years since two important universal documents appeared. The universal declaration of human rights was brought into being on 10 December 1948, and, of course, there was the equivalent declaration on genocide. I shall not trespass on to the genocide declaration, because my identical twin, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), will speak on that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Not completely identical.

[Tony Lloyd]

Some identical twins differ more than others; that is all I will say. Nevertheless, he will speak on that declaration with great knowledge.

The only thing that I will say about the genocide declaration is that it is sometimes very narrowly interpreted as being concerned solely with the partial extermination—the killing—of populations when, in fact, it is much broader than that. It is very important both in the way that the public perceive it and in creating a legal base for many other activities. I will begin by saying what a tremendous thing it was that the United Nations was able to bring that together. It was very much influenced by Eleanor Roosevelt, the spouse of President Roosevelt. It was particularly important because the world had just lived through the most astonishing atrocities: the dehumanisation of the individual, with six million Jews killed in the death camps along with untold numbers of gypsies, gay people and Slavs. Even though those were Hitler’s evil crimes, it is, perhaps, worth quoting Stalin, who said that one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic. That chilling comment almost summarises what took place during the second world war and how those in the generation that brought into being the universal declaration were able instead to say, “No, we are not prepared to accept that; each human being is valid in their own right”.

The preamble to the universal declaration of human rights says:

“Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”.

That is the rights of “all members”, without consideration of gender or any other of what we would now regard as protected characteristics. In that context, this was a major change in attitude to the concentration on the individual.

As a slightly barbed comment, I will just say that we even heard in the main Chamber recently a Minister talking about the situation in Gaza and Palestine and saying that the killing of Palestinians was a “by-product”. That may have been an infelicitous use of words, but it is the kind of verbal usage that we must be very careful to guard against, because the life of every individual must be treated as being valid, which is exactly what the universal declaration of human rights reminds us of.

Of course, in this era we can ask, “Has the universal declaration been a success or a failure?” Its level of aspiration is extraordinary: prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex or religion; the right to life and liberty; the prohibition of slavery; prohibition of torture; prohibition of arbitrary arrest, detention and exile; the right to a fair trial; freedom of religion; freedom of expression; freedom of assembly and association; the right to work, which interestingly includes the right to equal pay for equal work and the right to form or join a trade union; and the right to education.

Referring back to equal pay for equal work, it took another two and a half decades before our country even legislated on that issue, when Barbara Castle brought in the equal pay legislation. However, the universal declaration of human rights was developed back in the 1940s, so this profound declaration established the principle of equal pay for equal work.

If we look across the nations of the world, it is not that difficult to be dismayed in this era by the breaching of the commitments that many countries have made to the universal declaration of human rights. I will run through some of those countries; I know that other hon. Members will have other countries that they prefer to talk about.

Let us take the situation in Syria. A terrible war has taken place there, and now 2.4 million children have no access to education and 55% of Syrians are food-insecure. Both of those things are in contravention of articles of the declaration.

Regarding Saudi Arabia, we know about the unlawful killing of Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi embassy in Ankara. That still screams out as an abuse by the Saudi authorities. And of course Raif Badawi is a Saudi blogger and activist who has been sentenced to 10 years in prison for creating an online forum for public debate, and he now faces a 10-year travel ban after his release.

In Iran, the debate about the right of a woman to choose whether or not to wear the hijab, or the scarf was put to the test by the death of Mahsa Amini in September 2022. She died in police custody after being severely beaten and tortured. That led to literally millions of people protesting to challenge the Iranian regime’s actions. The result was that 19,000 people were arrested and 551 people were killed.

Oddly, of course, while the Iranians want to dictate that women should wear the veil or scarf in certain circumstances, in France the hijab is banned under certain circumstances, in contravention of these rights that I am discussing.

Russia is now a major abuser of rights. In the Bucha massacre—let us say genocide—in Ukraine, 450 people were murdered, and mass rape and torture took place. In addition, 16,000 Ukrainian children have been kidnapped; only 300 of them have been returned from Russia or, possibly, Belarus. There is also the case of Arshak Makichyan, a climate activist who is charged with terrorism; he has also been stripped of his Russian citizenship and left stateless.

In Serbia, we know that the attacks in northern Kosovo, including the so-called Banjska attack in October this year, were planned by armed Serbian militants, but they were almost certainly organised by Milan Radoičić, who has strong links to the Serbian president. In Serbia, of course, they continue to deny the genocide that took place in a previous era.

On a different continent, in the Philippines unlawful killings have been carried out under the war on drugs, which was launched by former President Duterte. It is believed that maybe over 6,000 people were killed during that period. I met a Filipino priest this week who cannot return to the Philippines because he would be charged by an army officer who wanted to indict him for the criticisms he made of that army officer.

I could go on, with many more cases in Colombia. We know that 182 killings of human rights and environmental defenders took place there in the previous calendar year. There is legislation to protect those defenders, but it is not implemented. Impunity is a major problem.

I will not go through every country in the world, but I want to touch on one or two others. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, war has been endemic for many years: mineral wealth is stolen by the DRC’s neighbours, but routine torture of its citizens also takes place. I met an asylum seeker this week who was granted asylum and now lives in this country as a refugee. In Zimbabwe, arbitrary arrest takes place. In Mali, the Malian and allied security forces have been implicated in hundreds of unlawful killings. There is also no doubt that in India, systematic discrimination against and stigmatisation of religious and other minorities, particularly Muslims, is endemic. In January, photographs of 100 Muslim women, including journalists and activists, were displayed on an app that said they were for sale, in order to humiliate and intimidate them; in October, police in Gujarat publicly flogged Muslim men accused of disrupting a Hindu festival; and in Indian-occupied Kashmir, the actions of the Indian authorities are outrageous. Those very often slip through the net of things to which we are able to pay attention.

I cannot fail to mention the situation at the moment in the middle east with Israel and Gaza. The attacks on Jewish women and the level of brutality meted out by Hamas scream out against everything we believe in. We need to condemn Hamas and the activists who perpetrated those attacks. Equally, however, I have to condemn the actions of the Israeli forces when we see the denial of food and water and of power to hospitals, which, again, are in breach of Israel’s convention obligations. Across the world, there is a pattern of abuse that is both tragic and, perhaps more legalistically, in gross contempt of those countries’ obligations.

The challenges come closer to those who were the driving forces for the universal declaration. The United States is not free of criticism. We have seen people arrested without charge and without process in Guantanamo Bay, for example. Again, the world ought to pay attention to that. In the United States, the right to health is rationed by the power of the dollar, so the poor do not have access to their declaration rights to health. The death penalty—both the so-called legal death penalty and the death penalty sometimes at the hands of the police and other forces—is also something that shames America.

In case people think I am ignoring our own country, we have not ratified the protection for migrant women under the Istanbul convention, for example. We really need to begin to move on that. We have made laws that allow us to strip individuals of their citizenship, leaving them stateless. That cannot be right and is contrary to convention rights. The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 will almost certainly come before the European Court of Human Rights—it needs to do so—because it offers de facto an amnesty from prosecution for the most serious crimes of murder and unlawful killing. Last night, we heard the Home Secretary’s view that he could declare by statute Rwanda to be a safe country. I remind Members that the United States State Department described Rwanda as a country whose human rights breaches include unlawful killing and the use of cruel and discriminatory policies, including torture. By any standards that does not make Rwanda, even by statute, a safe country.

[Mr Mitchell]

One must be careful when talking about Rwanda, a country I know extremely well. This is a country that, in the last 30 years, suffered a genocide where 1 million people were killed in 90 days. It is an extraordinary success story of a country that has lifted itself up from the very depths to be one of the safest and most stable countries in Africa today. Do not forget either that, dealing with the aftermath of a genocide, the Gacaca court system was incredibly successful at processing people who had committed murder in their hundreds of thousands and reintegrating them back into society. That is an extraordinary and pretty much unprecedented achievement.

[Tony Lloyd]

I have also visited Rwanda and met the same President the Minister will have spoken to. I recognise where Rwanda has come from, but I also recognise that in any journey we expect progress. The US Department of State’s critique is real and we ought to take it into consideration, in particular when we seek, by statute, to declare Rwanda to be a “safe” country. We can argue about the history, but we need to look at the present as well. There are still some unsavoury things—unsavoury is a kind word—that take place in Rwanda and we should recognise that.

[Mr Mitchell]

I do not want to prolong the debate at this point on Rwanda, but in the opinion of the British Government, and more widely, it is indeed a safe country. The hon. Gentleman may or may not know this, but if we look at the statistics Kigali is a safer city than London.

[Tony Lloyd]

Well, I am a Mancunian and we have different views on these things. I shall be leaving London sometime this evening, and not to go to Kigali.

What we must acknowledge is that a debate is taking place in the Minister’s party about the relevance of international law. I hope it will conclude that, as a nation, we are better protected when we are a part of collective security and collective law. To describe the European Court of Human Rights as a foreign court is unhelpful. It is not a foreign court; it is a court that we helped to establish. I hope the fact that there is a debate will ensure that we recommit to the values of the universal declaration of human rights.

On the positive side—I have gone through some of the negatives—the universal declaration has been the foundation of international human rights law. Nine binding treaties stem from it and the majority of United Nations members have signed up to four or more of them, so international human rights law exists and is now actionable, sometimes through national legislation, as we have in our own country, and sometimes through other bodies, such as the European Court of Human Rights. The international covenant on civil and political rights guarantees the right to life and equality before the law. The international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights provides for the right to freedom of expression and the right to work, to social security and to education—all very important freedoms and rights. We also have the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and those who have been involved know how important that is.

Around the world, we have seen the expansion of concern—particularly in this country, but in others as well it has to be said—of non-governmental organisations. I will not name them all, but we had a number of them in Parliament this week, ranging from Amnesty International to country-specific NGOs. We recognise the growth of human rights and environmental defenders around the world, and—I mentioned the hon. Member for Henley—the important role of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Council of Europe system itself in underpinning human rights in this country.

There is no doubt that the universal declaration has been a success. Here in our own Parliament, many structures and bodies are devoted to human rights, but there are challenges, which I put to the Minister in the hope that he will respond, including that defenders of human rights and the environment are under enormous pressure all around the world. They are killed, or they are charged with artificial crimes. We know about that pressure. We, as a country, should defend the defenders of human rights and the environment.

I was a Minister in the Foreign Office in my time, so I know how difficult it is to engage in human rights conversations. I had the delight of talking to President Milošević in his day, when he was about to murder Kosovans—I do not remember him being very responsive to my entreaties on human rights, so I recognise how difficult it can be. Nevertheless, there is a moral and practical obligation on our Government to ensure that the case for human rights is embedded in everything that our Foreign Office does, including striking trade deals. It must show concern about environmental protections and workers’ rights. We must recognise when striking security deals, including those involving the transfer of arms or technologies such as surveillance equipment, that such hardware can be used for the wrong purposes.

We know with near certainty that Yemenis have been carpet-bombed using weapons made in this country. We must take that on board.

I also ask the Minister to follow the model of the Bribery Act 2010 and seriously consider the establishment of mandatory supply chain due diligence to protect the human rights of those working in supply chains, as well as protect the environment that supply chains can put under pressure.

Finally, I think the Minister will definitely be on board with my final suggestion, because it is implicit in his own White Paper. We need to get upstream on these things to ensure that we are building capacity around human rights defenders and environmental defenders, on issues such as impunity and on issues such as environmental protections more generally. In the end, we must build capacity to ensure that crisis does not automatically lead to violence. Those would be enormous gains. I pay tribute to the Minister for being on the more endearing end of the Government—I apologise to the Minister; he will never live that down. I nevertheless look forward to a positive response to our demands, which ought to strike favour as we celebrate the establishment of the universal declaration of human rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McDonagh, and to speak in this debate on the 75th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights and the UN genocide convention. I am pleased that the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), is here to respond this afternoon. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) and the hon. Members for Henley (John Howell) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate. I also thank Dr Kate Ferguson and the whole team at Protection Approaches as well as the teams at the Aegis Trust, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, Remembering Srebrenica and the young people from Hampton School, who have campaign called “Genocide 80/20”, and who are campaigning tirelessly on preventing genocides and mass atrocities.

In the 1990s, long before being elected to this place, I worked in Bosnia during and after the war; more recently, I visited the site of the Srebrenica memorial to the genocide. I have also visited Yad Vashem in Israel and the Holodomor memorial in Kyiv, which I went to last year with other MPs.

Given that background and those visits, I am honoured to be the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the prevention of genocide and crimes against humanity. I became chair four years ago, when I was elected— I cannot believe it has been four years—because I am so passionate about not seeing an endless train of atrocities. Some of the most important decisions that we will make as parliamentarians will be about atrocities, but when we see them it is too late for many people.

I will focus on early warning and prevention, and especially the call for a national strategy on mass atrocity crimes. This is not an abstract policy area; we have seen it with our own eyes. I have seen the real and devastating impact that hate has when it is left unchecked. The convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide was the first human rights treaty— adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, 75 years ago this Saturday. It signified the international community’s commitment to make sure that the incomprehensible horrors of the past could never be repeated. That commitment to “never again” has resounded down through those 75 years, and it must really mean something.

The convention means that the international community has committed to doing whatever it takes to make sure that the early-warning systems are in place and that there are no excuses for inaction. It sets out a definition of genocide as the

“intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.

It is that special “intent” that makes it a uniquely difficult crime to determine.

While the convention was a signal of the intention of 152 states to finally end genocide once and for all, its implementation in the real world falls short of its bold ambitions, as we have seen over these 75 years. Responses are too frequently focused on acknowledging that a genocide has already occurred, and sometimes punishing those responsible. That is absolutely important—it is important that justice is seen—but it falls short of fulfilling the original intention of the genocide convention: there is not enough focus on identifying potential genocides and preventing them before they metastasise into a cancer of hate and suffering.

The APPG on the prevention of genocide, which I chair, has set out the case for the need for a consistent response to mass-atrocity crimes—a need for a national strategy. There is not enough strategic oversight from the Government to pick out those early indications or risks, or to respond to urgent warnings. Modern atrocity crimes all share very similar features and should be met with policies that address them.

I have heard people in my constituency say, “I can’t watch the news at the moment—it’s too much.” It feels so overwhelming when we hear about all the situations happening. However, saying that there is something is similar about them—that they can be addressed early on, that they can be spotted and that action can be taken—gives power back to Governments, back to us, and to our embassies and high commissions around the world, so that we can take action.

Those broad causes can be broken down into separate elements. First, modern atrocities are often motivated or legitimised through politics of identity-based grievance, discrimination and often a lack of human rights. Secondly, they can be through an organised conspiracy by state or non-state actors. Thirdly, modern atrocities frequently arise from a group taking advantage of unchecked power. If that power remains unchecked, escalation can then take place faster than the international community can respond, leading to widespread violence and systematic human rights violations.

Those may sound like extreme and rare occurrences, but that is not the case. Across the world, mass atrocities occur much more frequently than we would like to think, and many have been raised by other members in this debate. Just look at Ukraine or the persecution of Ahmadis in Pakistan, which the hon. Member for Strangford has already referred to and which we saw when we visited Pakistan earlier this year. There is a report with many recommendations for both our Government and the Government of Pakistan, which I hope the Minister will look at and consider as well.

Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Tigray, Myanmar, Xinjiang, the Hazaras, the Yazidis, and what is happening in Israel and Palestine are all examples of ongoing atrocities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale said, we condemn the actions of Hamas against the Jews, who are living peacefully—the rape of women, the killing and hostage-taking. We also condemn the disproportionate use of force by Israel—the use of access to water, food, medicines and fuel as a weapon of war, and the forced displacement of 1.7 million people and rising. The incidence of mass atrocities is rising across the world because inequality, social fracture, democratic backsliding, resource scarcity, arms proliferation, climate change and the internationalisation of malign, non-state actors are all moving us in the wrong direction.

Although that news is deeply concerning, we know that mass atrocities are predictable and often preventable. Early intervention is the key. Not only is that more likely to succeed in saving lives, but it will have a lower financial, military and diplomatic cost as well; it is good value for money to save lives by early intervention when it is seen that atrocities are on their way to being committed. As I have said, to intervene early enough we need a coherent strategy backed up with strong political will that is consistently monitoring and responding to the causes that I have outlined. Early intervention is not good only in itself; it is fundamental to our security in the UK. Preventing mass atrocity crimes is not a nice-to-have or a concern simply for those of us committed to human rights; it is fundamental to our national security.

Let me first commend the progress made in recent years. Since I became chair of the all-party parliamentary group on prevention of genocide and crimes against humanity, we have been monitoring the situation closely, and we have seen progress. There is commitment to prioritising mass atrocity prevention in the integrated review and in the new 2030 foreign policy framework.

There was the creation of the new mass atrocity prevention hub, which sits in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Although it is welcome, that hub must have teeth and the scope to work across Government Departments, with clear lines of accountable political leadership with the means to prevent, mitigate, respond and punish. At the moment, we do not have an approach for how to foresee and respond to the pathologised violence of mass atrocity crimes, which is different from violent conflict. The hub must be preventive in nature, in line with the UK’s commitment.

It is also encouraging to see the integration of atrocity prevention in several countries’ strategies—meaning that embassies and high commissions are taking this up and taking action—and to see the UK championing a crimes against humanity treaty at the United Nations. In the international development White Paper published recently, there is a section that says that new technologies should be used to expedite the forecasting of conflict and mass atrocity risks, extending the length of time from a few months to a few years in advance, in order to buy time for response. Access to data and technology should be extended so that early warning is used more systematically across the international system. It is a good start and it is good in its own right, but it just does not go far enough; a national strategy would take that much further.

[Tony Lloyd]

Just a brief point, if I may. I fundamentally agree that the national strategy would move the situation forward, but we also need to internationalise this process. We need to at least bring together like-minded nations who would be prepared to buy in to exactly the same framework.

[Fleur Anderson]

I wholeheartedly agree. The UK championing a crimes against humanity treaty would be one stage of that, but it needs to go further, with internationalising through many other treaties that we are involved in and in many other streams of work.

If we had an international strategy and embassies took it up consistently, we would be more enabled on the ground through different embassies working together, as they do in many countries. A national strategy must have four components; this has also been raised in the International Development Committee’s report, “From Srebrenica to a safer tomorrow: Preventing future mass atrocities around the world”, which concluded that there was an urgent need for the UK to adopt a national strategy for preventing and responding to atrocity crimes.

The four core components are, first, that prevention-first policy thinking should be at the centre of any strategy. That prevention-first approach must address the causes of atrocities by disrupting and dismantling the organised architecture of atrocities. Secondly, the strategy must invest in network analysis that monitors and evaluates the drivers that cause atrocities; maps potential motivations and the interrelations between perpetrators and the coalitions that can help prevent escalation; and identifies the points where leverage can be effectively applied, and which actors can do that. The paragraph in the international White Paper incorporates that.

The third part must be a more holistic approach to developing a resilient society—this is the part that I keep going on about in many meetings. It is about civil society strength, where cohesive, equitable communities, high in public trust and with strong, inclusive institutions, can limit and mitigate the damage from both internal and external shocks. When the potential for mass atrocities is building, women’s groups, young people, access to better employment and jobs or support for human rights defenders and environmental protectors can be the crucial things on the ground that stop and prevent movement towards atrocities. As well as the diplomatic and military, civil society is absolutely crucial. It is like the three legs needed for the stool that will enable us to prevent atrocities.

Lastly, we need an institutionalisation that finds the right balance between integration and specialisation—this is how the mechanics of Whitehall works—to ensure that atrocity prevention is neither mainstreamed nor siloed to death. It leads to more effective action by co-ordinating, convening and unlocking responses. If we brought in this national strategy, the Minister would be free to do what is absolutely right, without being hamstrung by a lack of real political infrastructure.

The absence of a policy on atrocity prevention has left the UK ill-prepared to respond to some of the greatest foreign policy crises of our time: Sudan, Ukraine, Tigray and more that have already been mentioned. When the Government refused, over years, to acknowledge the atrocity risks rising in Sudan, the Minister here went further than most this summer to call out the atrocities in Darfur. Without policy on these crimes, however, even with his contributions the UK is unable to go further and take meaningful actions necessary to help protect people in Sudan. That is just one example. The Minister knows that the violence we are talking about, whether in Darfur or Syria, is markedly different from armed conflict and should not be responded to in the same fashion.

To conclude, we need a national strategy on mass atrocities, so that we lead international efforts to stamp out signs of atrocity wherever it raises its ugly head. We need a strategy that has political weight; that is consistent and not up to the interests of different Ministers, ambassadors or high commissioners; that is built in with early warning and identification; and that is resourced both in Whitehall and in countries. We need to ensure it supports a civil society for peace, so that when we say, “Never again,” we really mean never again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Lloyd]

I begin by thanking the hon. Members for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) for their comments about the reception two days ago, which was actually hosted by IPU, the chair of which is with us today—the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley)—and myself as chair of the APPG on human rights.

I want to make a quick reflection. I am perhaps a little older than some people in this debate, and I grew up in a world where Africa and other parts of the world were subject to colonialism; when we saw South Africa descend into apartheid; when we saw brutal proxy wars in Mozambique and Angola; and when we saw the violent decolonisation process in Kenya, at least in part because of the acts of our own society, and even more so in French Algeria. I have lived through the Vietnam war, the bombing of Cambodia and the atrocities that later took place there.

I could go on and on: military dictatorships in Argentina, Chile and many other parts of the world; here in Europe, Greece was under the heel of the colonels; Spain and Portugal were fascist dictatorships; and central Europe—or the east of Europe, as we used to call it—was under the yoke of domination by the then Soviet Union, or even military rule in the case of Poland.

I do not say that to say that it has always been bad. I say it because change can happen, and change happened in all those places because of political will. It is the political will inspired by the universal declaration of human rights and by the genocide convention that can make a material difference in this world. We have heard some very good speeches today, and I congratulate everyone who has taken part. It is important that in this House of Commons, this Parliament of ours, we uphold the values of human rights. I have to say that we heard some very good things from the Minister that we, as a nation, can be proud of in terms of our own contribution. In the end, it is that exchange of not simply resources, although that does matter, but values that can make a huge difference in this world. That can enshrine the values of these two things that we celebrate today and make the change around the world that is there.

Obviously, in the end, there are very great specifics in this, but there does need to be political will. That political will needs to be internationalised; it is not enough for us to be a model country. We have to be part of an international consensus for change. We need to build the institutions: the human rights defenders, the environmental protectors, and the NGOs around the world. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) who mentioned the role of the International Criminal Court. It is also, of course, about looking to strengthen those institutions that can make a material difference—not simply the ICC, but others too. That is a role we have to play our part in, but internationalise as well.

I think the message that has come across today is that we must fight for the change that we want to see take place. We have heard some good things, and we have actually heard a commitment to real action. We need to see more action from our Government—in fact, all our Governments—on a global basis. This debate has been significant because it does say, once again, that those who had the political will 75 years ago lit a light, and we must bear that light into the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Convention on Genocide.

Gaza: Humanitarian Situation

Tony Lloyd Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

We are continuing to shape the outcome, and for us the most pragmatic and useful outcome at the moment is a further humanitarian pause, which we are arguing for strongly.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

If every humanitarian pause is simply a prelude to the further bombing of Gaza by Israel, what will be left other than a refugee camp and a wasteland, and who does the Minister think will govern that?

[Leo Docherty]

The hon. Member makes a good point. Of course, every civilian death is a tragedy, and the House is painfully aware of the human cost of the unfolding tragedy. As I said, aside from military operations, the political future and the way that Palestinians represent themselves is a question for Palestinians.

Israel and Hamas: Humanitarian Pause

Tony Lloyd Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of looking to the medium and the long term, and of doing all that is necessary to bring together people of good will to make progress on the two-state solution. We want to see all hostages released as swiftly as possible, and we also want to see greater volumes of food, fuel, medicine and life-saving supplies getting into Gaza, principally through Rafah but also through any other plausible means.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

Is it the Government’s contention that further hostilities—the destruction of the south of Gaza in the way we have seen the north destroyed, with tens of thousands more killed—will lead easily to a permanent ceasefire, or will it simply embolden the militants?

[Mr Mitchell]

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

Debt in Africa

Tony Lloyd Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, and to speak in today’s debate. I thank the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) for leading the debate. We are all here because we have a passion for foreign affairs, and it is great to support him today and I congratulate him on how he has set the scene. It is also a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for the second time in recent days, as she spoke before me in the COP28 debate last Thursday. I recognise that she has a deep interest and passion, shown through her work with Christian Aid, CAFOD and WaterAid and some of her other projects. I am pleased to follow her in particular because with all that depth of knowledge comes a contribution that makes the debate even more salient and interesting for us. I thank her for that as well.

There is no doubt that the covid pandemic had a profoundly negative impact on Africa’s sovereign debt situation. It has been stated that some 22 countries are either in debt distress or at high risk. That has meant that African Governments are struggling more to pay the debt incurred. Countries such as Mozambique and Zimbabwe were already in debt—and indeed, Malawi. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), who will shortly speak for the SNP, has over the years that I have known him always spoken about Malawi and the strong relationships that he and his constituency have with that country. Those things are important when we discuss the matters under consideration today.

Research has shown that as of August 2022, countries in Africa owed the UK a total of £2,758 million, which accounts for 56% of all debts owed to the UK, with Sudan’s the highest. It is important to note that debt is not necessarily a bad thing in itself and can help with economic development. I say that because the increase in debt in the early 2000s was accompanied by a higher level of economic development in Africa. There is a history and I say that because I want to have it on record that it is not all doom and gloom. If we look back through history, we will see that countries were able to address the debt issue and grow accordingly. Sometimes, we have a duty to try and encourage those countries and work with them to get them out of a bad patch.

I was talking to the hon. Member for Glasgow North, and as I sat listening to the hon. Member for Slough’s contribution, I was reminded of the story in Matthew 25 where the master travels into a far-off country. Mr Vickers, you will know the story and probably everybody in the Chamber will know it. The master gives his three servants five talents, two talents and one talent. He comes back and the guy who had the five talents has made them into 10, the guy who had two has made them into four and we know the story of the one who did not invest his money and work hard.

The reason why I tell the story is because that is the Africa of the 2000s. Today, I believe that we in the western world have a duty to try to get them out of these bad times, to give them the advice and assistance they need, and to give them experience. We cannot just —I say this genuinely—pursue somebody and say, “We must get your debt” because that will lead to more debt for them and even higher levels of poverty, so I use the biblical story of Matthew 25 to illustrate in a small way, and hopefully in a strong way, what it means to help others.

According to the World Bank’s debt sustainability analysis, nine African countries were in debt distress and unable to fulfil their repayment requirements as of the end of September 2023. A further 15 African countries were at high risk of debt distress, with another 14 at moderate risk. If it were up to me—I am not the person to do it, so I look to the Minister and the Government to take on this task—I would speak to each of those countries individually. There has to be a two-way dialogue, whereby we can discuss how we manage debt repayments and help countries to grow at the same time.

None of us is a stranger to the impact that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has had on our ability to afford things and get our debt under control. I have constituents —indeed, I expect all Members do—who are still coping with the effects and struggling to regain control of their finances, especially when it comes to paying for gas, oil and electricity. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine is causing a rise in the price of commodities, particularly food and gas, and the war is also disrupting food supply chains, which especially affects people in Africa.

Between 2010 and 2021, external debt servicing payments in Africa more than quadrupled, growing at over 60 times the pace of average fiscal revenues. In discussing how much debt, and by what rate, it should be paid back, we must show compassion for a country’s social and financial situation. There has to be realism about how much money can be paid back and the rate of repayment. Regardless of whether that means restructuring loans or helping them to balance or grow their economy, we should be trying to do it. For example, there must be repayment options for countries with negative human rights and social considerations.

Strengthening debt management policies to deal with repayment issues through Governments is one of the best ways to enable the stable payback of debts. If paying back will ultimately plunge a state into further demise and poverty, I do not believe that is the right way to do it. We have to find a better solution. I am not just saying that for the sake of it; if we want to recoup debts, we have to work with countries to make that happen.

The economic consequences of the covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have undermined the ability of many African nations to service their sovereign debt. Consideration must be given to that, to human rights abuses and to a nation’s ability to pay back its debt. I look forward to the Minister’s comments, and we as a nation should continue to be supportive to all those struggling, especially through aid. I know the Minister is compassionate and understands what we are asking for, but when it comes to dealing with the debt of African nations and others, there has to be a sense of realism and real compassion in order to try to get them out the other side. By doing so, we will help them contribute to their future. At the end of the day, it is surely about their future. Let us get it right.

[Tony Lloyd]

rose—

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

Sorry, I call Claudia Webbe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Vickers. I was so excited at the prospect of speaking in front of you that—

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

We were excited to listen to you, Tony.

[Tony Lloyd]

Thank you. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on introducing this debate. It is timely. I think we all know that the crisis in Africa is real. We—as a world, not simply as a country—need now to address that. I would like to start quite a long time ago, rather like my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson). When we look back over the history of the debate around indebtedness—to “break the chains” and all those phrases that used to trip off our tongues about the need for change—I believed that the world would be very different.

I want to relate something from around 30 years ago. I went to the funeral of a very young child in Mozambique. The baby died because the mother simply could not feed that baby. It was shocking at the time to see a baby denied the nutrition that I would expect for my own grandchildren, for my constituents and for our world. At the time, I would have said, “It will change.” I would have said that we would move down the path of debt relief. Had we had this debate 30 years ago—we probably did have it—we would have been told, “Don’t worry: with a combination of looking carefully and kindly at debt management, at the transmission of technical aid and assistance and at the growth of trade, the world will be very different.”

Well, the world is very different: it is worse for those in Africa. In practical terms, the little baby from all those years back, whom I talked about, is now replicated by many others. Debt is an enslavement of the generation to come, and that is, of itself, something that we ought to rail against. How can a child be born into the enslavement that debt causes? My hon Friends have given different accounts of debt, and we can probably argue about the figures. The hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) used a particular figure, but the figure I have about the GDP-to-debt ratio is that debt will now be something of the order of 60% of GDP across sub-Saharan Africa. Whether that is exactly right or wrong almost does not matter. It matters in general terms—we can talk trillions or billions of dollars or pounds—but debt impinges on the quality, the reality and the possibility of life of millions of people across the African continent. It is at the human level that debt matters.

If we look at the battle against poverty, the battle against poor health, the battle for education, the battle to create the health services and the battle around climate change, we are losing those battles. We are losing them in this generation—at the moment—and we have to change. We have to change in a particular way, because, at some point, we have to make our minds up and say whether we are prepared to create a very different relationship: the indebted no longer as clients of those who hold the debt but, instead, as partners. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough made some very profound points about this.

If we are not a partner to African nations and the people of Africa, we lose battles such as climate change, which is our common battle together. It would be remarkable for Africans to know that we are losing it together, because they make so little contribution to the problems that we have all caused around climate change. African nations as a whole are insignificant at the moment, although an Africa of the future, if not helped through transition to those climate change-consistent policies, will potentially be a major producer of greenhouse gases. We should therefore be partners, but if we are going to be partners, we have to be meaningful about what debt really means.

Those who were in the Chamber earlier heard the international development Minister, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) make a very good series of statements on the White Paper. I welcome that White Paper, but there is a challenge that the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) has to take back to the Prime Minister and others. It is not enough to print the words in the White Paper; we need the political will to translate that into national action in the UK and international action. On national action in the UK, when I looked into our history of debt relief, the only figures I could come up with showed that the UK’s spending on debt over the last 10 years or so has been £44 million. That is absolutely insignificant against the scale of the problem. We have to do more by way of debt forgiveness, but not simply on our own. We have to be a part of that global coalition that challenges debt and looks at debt restructuring in a real and rational way.

We have to look, for example, at Zambia and the number of people who have evidenced the situation there. Zambia could not come to an agreement, partly because it was the private debtholders who caused the crisis there. Zambia then offered to pay them some 73 cents on the dollar, compared with 55 cents on the dollar for intergovernmental loans. That was a massively bigger rate of return for the private investors, even though they charged massively higher interest rates on their debt. Bear in the mind that the reason for charging higher interest rates is relevant to risk. They put the risk premium in, but having put the risk premium in, they then wanted to be paid a superabundant return on their investment. The reason that failed is that it was inconsistent with the G20 common framework, which said that there had to be a rough equivalence between Government and private debtholders. That is right; there should be that kind of equivalence. We have to be in this together.

A challenge for the Minister is this: are this Government prepared? As a lot of that debt is operated through UK law, it is in our capacity to ensure that that debt, which is factored through the City of London and so on, is managed in a way that says to private debtholders that they have to pay their fair share of debt forgiveness and debt relief, if we are genuinely going to restructure on these issues.

We can make a change. I may not have been able to give hope to the mother of the child I talked about before, as I do not think I would have been so bold as even to say to her that something could be better at that stage of her life. Perhaps I would have said to other people that the world can change, and it can change for the better. Let us ensure that we can do it in this generation. Let us ensure that now is the time.

This has to be a political priority, and I believe my party will take this on board. I hope that in a year’s time or thereabouts we will be sat around having this debate again, and we will be sat on different sides of this little horseshoe. It will be about political will. As I have said to the Minister, the challenge is whether the political will is there from the Prime Minister. Is there the political will to say that the decision to cut the development assistance in the way this nation did took us in the wrong direction? Is the political will there to raise those very powerful points, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East did, about the history of post-colonial Africa?

Even now, we subsidise, for example, Rwanda and Uganda in terms of their education and health service. That is the right thing to do. In turn, however, the armies of those two countries have been part of the exploitation of the mineral wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which of course is then shipped over to the west, where it is paid not at a value-added rate, but at the market rate. Who controls the market? It is not the producers of those rare earth minerals that we take from African soil.

We need to think not simply about debt relief, but about the bigger picture and how we alter the terms and conditions of trade and exploitation, which our system is part of. I do not say that in any sense of whipping myself; I say it rationally, because if we are going to make that change, we have to think about that.

I say to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that I have always been puzzled by the parable of the stewards. I always felt it was little unkind on the perhaps slightly less competent steward with his one talent. I never quite understood why he should be treated so badly, because clearly there was a steward who thought he was doing the best—he buried the talent in the ground, and that talent did not lose any value in that process.

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

[Tony Lloyd]

I ask the hon. Gentleman to just let me finish. He thought he was being a good steward. What he lacked was the technical awareness that would have allowed him to invest in whatever—perhaps rare earths or, in those days, fine wine for weddings. In that sense, if we are going to face the challenges together, we have to take that stewardship process. Technical assistance matters enormously.

[Jim Shannon]

I am not smarter than anyone else, biblically, physically or emotionally. I think the story of the parable is about those who use their talents wisely, and the steward who received five talents used them wisely. The comparison I made was with the economic decisions made by African countries back in 2000. When they did it wisely, their economies grew. Use talents wisely—the five and the two—and the economy will grow. Those who do not use their talents and hide them are not being fair to themselves, their families, or indeed their countries. The point I am trying to make, very gently, is that they could do better.

[Tony Lloyd]

I agree. Perhaps I should not have picked up on the parable. It is just that I do rail a little bit against the prosperity gospel. It is not my style of Christianity. Compassion is part of what we should be about, and it has to be a part of what we are talking about here today.

I will finish with this. Part of that compassion is that we need to restructure debt and increase trade, but we also need to recognise the capacity to ensure that the steward with the single talent really did need assistance to do the things that the hon. Member for Strangford is talking about, to invest wisely. We need to invest in education and in the technologies that can allow us to challenge climate change in Africa as well as here in the UK, in Europe, in China, and even possibly in the post-Trumpian United States of America—who knows? We have to work together, because in the end this is not about simply asking us all to be kind to each other. It is about a common interest of what kind of world we want to live in. Yes, this is a tremendously important debate we are having today. I hope the Minister will begin to respond in a positive way to the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough and others have raised.

West Balkans: Council of Europe

Tony Lloyd Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) —I use that term advisedly—on opening the debate. His stewardship of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is exemplary, and I join him in his endorsement of the roles of those who help us here in the UK Parliament.

If we look at the west Balkans as a region—the hon. Member for Henley is right to say that we need to take a strategic view of the whole region—some things are common. Not everywhere has all of these features, but nevertheless one of the depressing things is to travel anywhere in the western Balkans and talk to young people, most of whom will say that their ambition is to leave. They do not generally want to leave for the UK, by the way; they normally want to go to Germany. The fact that young people have no hope or faith in the future is such a mark of what is going wrong. There are those of us who heard that message not so long ago in Bosnia-Herzegovina, but it is a common view across the region. It matters to us as the UK in narrow, national terms, but it matters to us in any case if we hold the view that a well-ordered world is in the interests of the United Kingdom. There are issues such as combating corruption and ensuring that the rule of law is underpinned by judges who are free of the taint of corruption. Those things matter and it is in our interest to ensure that we are part of a process that brings them together.

In the relatively short time I have, let me make one central point. At the moment, a battle is taking place that can be defined in national terms, or by groupings of nations. That is whether the Council of Europe and the European Union pull together and challenge the baleful influence of Moscow and, to a lesser extent, the growing presence of China in the western Balkans. Certainly, the influence of Moscow is almost entirely that of disruptor, through their friends in Belgrade as well as directly.

That matters because a disrupted western Balkans can descend into the kind of events that we have seen in the past. It is very difficult. Nobody would have predicted the violence that took place in the Balkans in the past, not many years before the region was plunged into chaos. I do not want to be overly dramatic, but when Mr Dodik talks about independence or secession for Republika Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina we have the basis of a major challenge. An independent Republika Srpska’s armed force could lead to all manner of things, the like of which we should not contemplate. We have an interest, in any case, in the good governance of the region. That catastrophic view would not apply in most other countries of the region, I am glad to say, but we do have to challenge, both intellectually and practically, the role that Moscow and Belgrade seek to play in the region. That is one point I want to establish.

Many good things are taking place. Going back not that long ago, few people would have predicted that Albania would be a serious candidate for European Union membership, or North Macedonia, yet both those countries should be on a faster track into the European Union. It is always difficult, post Brexit, for UK politicians, even ones like me who were opposed to Brexit, to make the case for the European Union to take action. We need our friends in the EU to recognise that an EU that pretends to have the door open but in practice slams it pretty firmly shut is playing into the hands of the disruptors in the region, and those who already have the kind of despair I described among the younger generation and simply want to leave their countries.

There are some practical things we need to do. We need to work together, the Council of Europe with the European Union. That must underwrite everything that we do. There is no room for competition between the two bodies; we should be joined in everything that we do. That is fundamental, because it is about providing stability and the practical support that the hon. Member for Henley described. It is also about providing something else: the sense that there is a direction of travel that takes people to a better future.

In the end, the big prize is to say to the younger generation, which includes some very talented people, that their future is in their own countries in the region, to build that better west Balkans. If we can begin that process with sincerity and practicality, we can make a material difference. I know the region a little from over the years, but there are people in this room who know it a lot better than I do and I want to listen to what they have to say.

I will say this, though: the western Balkans matters to the United Kingdom. Perhaps it is not our principal area of activity at the moment, but one of the real tragedies of how we all operate is that today’s crisis is Ukraine, yesterday’s was Afghanistan and the day before it was wherever. The western Balkans was once that crisis that we thought was so important, and all our energies were directed there. As a Minister, I lived through the crisis in Kosovo, and we cannot go back to those days. The region is too important for us, so we have to make sure it is on all our agendas, not simply for today, but for the indefinite future. I thank the hon. Member for Henley once again for introducing the debate. It is an important debate that we need to remain fixed on.

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

We have 34 minutes and five Members wish to speak. May I encourage you to keep to a limit of about seven minutes, although it is not a formal limit?

Ukraine

Tony Lloyd Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend tempts me to go beyond my brief at the Dispatch Box. All I can say is that I always listen to his advice carefully, and I have no doubt that the Secretary of State for Defence, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will all have listened carefully to the points that he put forward.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary is right to make the point about protecting the infrastructure in Ukraine, because we know that, at the moment, the campaign is about weakening the morale of the Ukrainian people. In that context, is he satisfied that there is the international co-ordination to ensure that British efforts and the efforts of other international partners deliver the support that Ukraine needs?

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Vladimir Putin clearly went into this conflict believing that the pressure that he asserted on Ukraine would create fragmentation in the Ukrainian political system—it did not. He was expecting that it would create tension in NATO—it did not. He thought that it would split up the EU—it did not. He thought that it would break up the G7—it did not. On every single strategic aim, he has failed. Indeed, he is now looking at a stronger and larger NATO because of his actions. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the international community, if anything, has been brought closer together through our co-ordinated response to Russian’s invasion of Ukraine and our support to the Ukrainians.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Tony Lloyd Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 27th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

Anybody in the House who takes legislation seriously ought to start from the presumption that operating tactically is a dangerous process. It is short-sighted and for the short term. However, in the context of Northern Ireland, it is not simply foolish, but very, very dangerous. We know about the forces that have been unleashed in Northern Ireland in recent times. The rhetoric in the election in Northern Ireland only a matter of weeks ago and the rhetoric over weeks and months from the UK Government have heightened tensions in that context. This is dangerous and the House should take that on board.

I do not want to be alarmist. We have to move towards taking a much more serious, much more rational view. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and a number of others made the point about article 13.8 of the protocol. They are right to say that there is scope for amendment under that article. However, that has to be done through negotiation and agreement, and on the basis of getting back to the negotiating table.

We know that if we put a shotgun to the heads of any of the parties in this situation, we will get a negative response. That applies to the DUP and other parts of the community in Northern Ireland. We have to take people with us. Frankly, however, it also applies to the bilateral relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union. If we are not involved in serious negotiation to look for common-sense solutions, we will fail the people of Northern Ireland.

There is a bigger risk: the situation could be traumatic for people across Northern Ireland. If we enter into a really serious breakdown in our relations with the European Union, things will be dramatically worse for the people of Northern Ireland—as they will be for my constituents and those of every Member of the House—so we need rational politics.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) made some sensible points. It has long been the case—this has been obvious from the beginning—that once we began to move towards Brexit, the solution that guaranteed respect for the Good Friday agreement could be reached in only one way. It could not be done by having a hard border across the island of Ireland and it should not be done by having a hard border down the Irish sea. It has to be done through some form of negotiated solution that respects the fact that the two potentially different systems have to be brought as close together as possible.

A sanitary and phytosanitary agreement is obvious. We start from the same premise. No Members from the governing or Opposition parties are arguing that we should deteriorate our SPS conditions in Great Britain. We therefore need a negotiated SPS agreement, as was achieved with not only New Zealand, but Switzerland. They are two different models, but a uniquely UK-EU model would be perfectly practical. Let us move on that and look hard at the practical details. If we take the heavy rhetoric away and see these problems as practical ones that can be solved by good will, we can move the situation on.

There have also been some powerful voices among Government Members about the legality of the Bill. That should worry hon. Members across the Chamber. It is not good enough to compare the Good Friday agreement with the protocol, as though one somehow has to go and the other does not. We have to maintain international law under all circumstances. When I say to people in other countries that we have an expectation of very high standards, I am right to say, “It is because my country also respects those very high standards.” That, actually, is true patriotism. Real patriotism comes from such measures, not simply from jingoistic flag waving. Let us say that it really matters that we are a law-abiding country, because if we are not, frankly, we let ourselves and the world down. We have to confront that serious issue tonight.

I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members to take this issue very seriously and to my friends in the DUP on the same basis, because it will affect all of us—the people in Northern Ireland and in the rest of Great Britain—if we get this wrong. There are some really difficult issues. They can be solved, but they will not be solved by the Bill, even if we amend it. We need to get back to the negotiating table and deal with the practical issues. That is the sensible way forward.

Council of Europe

Tony Lloyd Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) on obtaining the debate, and welcome on the consensual tone that he has established today and which he tries to create for the UK’s delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Of course, some issues will divide us, and we cannot shy away from them, because they are important. However, anyone taking a long-term perspective on the development of the European family of nations will see how dramatic a role the Council of Europe has played in enhancing the values of democracy and the rule of law.

There has been dramatic change in those countries that left fascist backgrounds such as Spain and Portugal—that was a long time ago—and, more recently, when the Warsaw pact broke up. Perhaps the failure of Russia to be brought into the family is regrettable, but that must be measured against the success seen in so many other countries. Russia’s expulsion was necessary as it was such a flagrant offender against the basic values of the Council of Europe. We have a problem in knowing how to deal with those who are not prepared to accept the Council’s rules and regime. The case of Osman Kavala and how we deal with Turkey—a persistent offender against judgments of the European Court of Human Rights; and the Council of Europe is all about human rights—is central to that.

Many aspects of the Council of Europe are tremendously important, including the Venice commission, which provides a legal framework in which nations can seek advice about their own rule of law, and the Group of States against Corruption. Corruption is a major issue in many countries. I was in Bosnia last week, and nobody who visits that country will be amazed to know that corruption is one of the central issues that affects it and how young people in Bosnia view their country. It therefore matters enormously that the Council of Europe has a role in fighting corruption.

The committee for the prevention of torture is fundamental, and the capacity to have challenge and inspections here, as well as in those countries that we feel will be offenders, matters enormously, because we are all bound by the same rule of law. That is why I want to touch briefly on the Court, which this morning is controversial here in the United Kingdom.

I would say to Members of all parties that we cannot say to others, “Please abide by the rule of law and listen to the institutions to which we are subject,” unless we are prepared to make that same judgment ourselves. That really does matter, because it is fundamental to how we as a nation behave and it is fundamental in our capacity to say to other nations, “These are the values that this country of ours wants to uphold.” We were fundamental in establishing the European convention on human rights, and it is important that we recognise that.

As I understand it, the Rwanda judgment is an interim one. It simply says that there needs to be a delay before removal takes place. I welcome that, because I think it is an outrageous policy, but that is not the point. The point is this: do we respect the convention or not?

[Mr Richard Bacon]

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s remarks on the Court, and he makes a good point about needing to obey the rules. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) referred to the fact that the Court needs reform. Does the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) accept that there are occasions when the Court sometimes strays into areas that perhaps it should not? An example is the question of whether prisoners should have a vote, which many people think is a political question that admits of two answers. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Court needs some reform?

[Tony Lloyd]

I will certainly concede that the Court needs reform. Frankly, the most outrageous thing about it is that it takes an unacceptably long time for people to obtain justice. We have to look at what that means. I am not sure that I agree with the hon. Member on the example he gave, because there are mixed feelings about that issue. In many countries, prisoners do vote. I have gone into prisons on election monitoring and observation to watch that process taking place. It is not such a preposterous view. If such an issue is arguable, we have to look at the Committee of Ministers and whether the European convention on human rights needs amending, rather at than the role of the Court. The Court’s role is to implement the convention, and it is the politicians who created the convention.

I am afraid I have exceeded my time, but I will finish my remarks by saying that we cannot have half a Council of Europe. If we believe in the role of the European convention on human rights and believe in the institutions, let us assent even when it pains us a little, because it pains other people an awful lot more and it is in our interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Asia and the Middle East (Amanda Milling)]

It is an absolute pleasure to be serving under your chairmanship this morning, Dame Maria. My right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), the Minister for Europe and North America, would have been delighted to take part in this debate, but he is currently travelling on ministerial duties. It is therefore my pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government.

I start by saying how grateful I am to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) for securing this debate. I echo the tributes paid by right hon. and hon. Members to his work on the Council of Europe as the leader of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly. My hon. Friend and the other members of the UK delegation play an important role in promoting the Council of Europe and its work throughout the UK. I note that a number of Members across the House mentioned their wish to hold this debate in the main Chamber. I think that the Council of Europe’s importance and the work done by the UK delegation is reflected in the sheer number of Members present.

While I am lavishing praise on my hon. Friend, I will also pick up on the points my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) made about the support my hon. Friend the Member for Henley has provided to the newbies, a number of whom are present and have made contributions today. I note that my hon. Friend might be providing some French lessons, as well.

It has been an important debate, discussing the promotion of the work of the Council of Europe and the UK’s role in that. I am grateful for the contributions from other right hon. and hon. Members, and I will hopefully pick up on many of the points they raised.

As hon. Members have mentioned, it was Winston Churchill who first publicly suggested the creation of a Council of Europe nearly 80 years ago. As Europe dusted itself off after world war two, the UK played a critical role in founding the Council, and we have been an active defender of its values—freedom, liberty and the rule of law in Europe—ever since.

Putin has brought war back to our continent on a scale not seen since Churchill’s time, with devastating consequences for Ukraine and the wider world. Putin believes he can win through oppression, coercion and invasion, but Europe has been roused, not cowed, by his aggression, and the free world has united behind Ukraine in its fight for freedom and self-determination through sanctions, aid and military support.

The Council of Europe set the tone by suspending Russia within 36 hours of the invasion, and subsequently expelling them completely. As has been mentioned, the UK delegation was, naturally, at the forefront of calls for that expulsion. We commend the Council for that quick, decisive action, which helped to isolate Putin’s regime on the international stage and sent a clear signal that his actions are not tolerated by the global community. The Council also has a role to play in supporting Ukraine, ensuring it has the financial and technical support to rebuild in the aftermath of Putin’s war, including support from Council of Europe specialists.

As mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and others, the Foreign Secretary attended the Council’s ministerial meeting in Turin, which underlined the need to consolidate standards on human rights, democracy and the rule of law for our future security. We must learn lessons from Ukraine and do more to protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states from those threatening to undermine them—for example, in the Balkans, in the eastern neighbourhood region, and in the Caucasus.

Let me turn to the budget because my hon. Friend the Member for Henley, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) mentioned it. The UK is committed to ensuring that the Council of Europe has the funding it needs to deliver. Russia’s expulsion leaves a €34 million shortfall in funding. All member states, including the UK, have committed to covering the shortfall for this year. We will work with the secretary-general to understand the longer-term impacts, but it is important that longer-term financing is considered alongside the Council of Europe’s future strategic direction.

Members have mentioned the wider work of the Council. Beyond Ukraine, the Council continues to champion equality in other areas, and we agree with raising the profile and the importance of the organisation in that work. We will aim to increase engagement, ensuring that, wherever possible, PACE rapporteurs are able to get appropriate levels of access, and last month in this place, we started the process of ratifying its convention to prevent violence against women, better known as the Istanbul convention. I know how hard my hon. Friend the Member for Henley has pushed for that ratification, and I commend him for his efforts.

The UK can also do more with the Council of Europe to reduce violence and discrimination against LGBT people in some member states, and I shall look with interest to see what further progress there is on that matter. We also remain committed to improving the efficiency and the effectiveness of the European Court of Human Rights. We will work with—

[Tony Lloyd]

Will the Minister give way?

[Amanda Milling]

Briefly.

[Tony Lloyd]

Before she leaves the matter of the Istanbul convention, will she respond to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) about the decision to make a reservation with respect to migrant women? That is an important issue, and we would like some certainty about the Government’s direction of travel, which is simply not yet there.

[Amanda Milling]

I am happy to follow up with more specifics, but the Home Secretary made a written ministerial statement to Parliament on 17 May, announcing the beginning of the process to ratify the convention on combating violence against women and domestic violence, which is more commonly known as the Istanbul convention. We expect the process to be completed and the UK to have ratified the convention by 31 July.

We support members in the western Balkans and the eastern neighbourhood to meet their obligations under the European convention on human rights. Several colleagues mentioned Turkey and, specifically, the case of Osman Kavala. We are concerned about the judgment against Osman Kavala on 25 April, and the failure to implement the European Court of Human Rights ruling to release him immediately, resulting in the commencement of infringement proceedings against Turkey. We continue to raise the case with the Turkish Government.

The promotion of freedom of religion or belief is another key area for the UK, and for the Council. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is not in his place—[Interruption.] Oh, he has moved; he is in his place. So many people face horrific persecution and abuse because of what they believe. As colleagues will be aware, next month, we host the International Ministerial Conference on Freedom of Religion or Belief, and we welcome the Council of Europe’s participation in helping draw attention to that pressing issue. We also recognise the opportunity for the Council to work with other organisations, including the OSCE, and continue to encourage close co-operation.

I want to pick up the point about the Kosovo application. The UK supports Kosovo’s international integration, including its membership of the Council of Europe. Application for membership of the Council is a signal of Kosovo’s commitment to democracy, the rule of law and the protection of rights of all its citizens.

I will briefly touch on the ECHR ruling last night because a number of Members have mentioned it. As the Home Secretary stated, we are disappointed that legal challenge and last-minute claims have meant that last night’s flight was unable to depart. We will not be deterred from doing the right thing in delivering our plan to control our nation’s borders. Our legal team are reviewing every decision made about the flight, and preparation for the next flight begins now.

On the Council of Europe’s future, Russia’s expulsion is the start of a new era. The UK has been vocal on the organisation’s future without Russia, asking it to pursue deeper economic, diplomatic, technological and security ties with allies around the globe. As part of that, we have highlighted the need for reform, as hon. Members mentioned, to ensure that it is as effective as possible. We stand ready to assist following the latest eminent persons review.

I end by reiterating the UK’s recognition of the valuable work of the Council of Europe, about which we have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. The organisation has stood the test of time and is now entering a new era where its values face challenge. However, together, as a coalition of sovereign nations, we can advance the frontiers of freedom, stand up for open societies and unleash the power of our collective thirst for peace, just as Churchill imagined so long ago.

[John Howell]

It has already been stated that I try to run the delegation as a cross-party group, but it is important to bear in mind that it is also a cross-Houses group that includes Members of the House of Lords. I am grateful to Lord Foulkes for attending most of the debate. I thank everyone who has participated. It has been heartwarming to see such enthusiasm and agreement on the important things that the Council of Europe does. I hope that we can look forward to a much longer debate in the main Chamber.

[Tony Lloyd]

I associate the Opposition parties with the hon. Member’s ambitions. He is assiduous in looking for ministerial responses, but the Minister did not answer my question, nor that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). Will he join me in asking for responses from Ministers?

[John Howell]

I would ask that question on a different occasion and in a different way, and I would hope to get a better answer than the hon. Member. On that note, I will end the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the work of the Council of Europe.

Rape as a Weapon of War in Ukraine

Tony Lloyd Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Ford]

We are implementing the strongest set of economic sanctions ever imposed to debilitate the Russian economy and degrade funding for Putin’s war machine, because this war has to stop, and the rape and violence against women has to stop.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

There is absolutely no doubt that the rape of women in Ukraine is one of the burning issues. However, the Minister made a helpful reference to the successful prosecution of a senior military commander in the Democratic Republic of Congo. What can we do to ensure that those in the command structure of the Russian forces are aware that they themselves become liable to prosecution if they fail to prevent rape from being committed by troops serving under their command? That would be a powerful message to send.

[Vicky Ford]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. I also think that this Chamber is sometimes a very powerful place from which to send messages, so let me send this message again. Rape and sexual violence in war can be a war crime. It is always a crime, but it can be a war crime, and we are working with the international community to ensure that those who commit war crimes are held to account.

The hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) mentioned the MP Lesia Vasylenko, who was so brave in telling the world the stories of some of the women. It is Lesia’s birthday today. She is 35. Can we all take a moment to send her our best wishes, and our deepest thanks for what she is doing for women at this time? [Hon. Members: “ Hear, hear.”]

Ukraine

Tony Lloyd Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about the priorities that people put on various events. What we have seen—the appalling aggression that we have seen in Ukraine—is an epoch-defining moment. We will absolutely not forget that, and we will not make the mistakes of the past, of ignoring and normalising Russian behaviour. This time, we must ensure that Putin loses and we must tackle Russian aggression for the long term. I will continue to work on that together with our allies across the world, and we will not let the issue drop.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

I point out to the Foreign Secretary that most of Ukraine’s neighbours are protected by EU and NATO membership. One that is not is Moldova, which has already taken in huge numbers of refugees. Does she agree that, particularly because of the situation of Transnistria, it is vital that we are able to offer some support to the democratic Moldovan Government, who share our values and aspirations but are in a parlous state?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The hon. Gentleman is completely right about Moldova. We are working closely with our allies to provide direct support to it and to help it with the refugee situation. That is something that we discussed at the G7 meeting and that we will be working on further over the next week.