Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

4. What steps his Department is taking to help tackle the persecution of Christians overseas.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

17. What steps his Department is taking to help tackle the persecution of Christians overseas.

[Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)]

22. What steps his Department is taking to help tackle the persecution of Christians overseas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hunt]

I want to ensure that we exercise maximum influence where we have that influence. The striking thing about that report is that, notwithstanding the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) made about North Korea, some of the worst offenders are in the middle east, notably Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan and Somalia, where the population of Christians has fallen from 20% to around 5%. In many of those countries, we have big aid budgets and a lot of influence.

[Alex Chalk]

The UK has a proud history of standing up for the rights of minority faith groups, both in the United Kingdom and overseas. As the Secretary of State says, we have a budget of over £2 billion, which is being allocated to the middle east and Syria, where the situation is particularly appalling. How can we use that budget to protect Christians from the appalling persecution they are facing?

[Mr Hunt]

I pay tribute to the Department for International Development, which has allocated £12 million recently specifically to promote freedom of religious belief. The gist of my hon. Friend’s question is right—where we have a large aid budget, with countries such as Afghanistan, it is absolutely essential that we make it clear to the Government in those countries that we are expecting progress on freedom of religious belief. We need to remember that many of the worst conflicts in the world have happened because people of different religions have clashed, so promoting harmony between religions is one of the best long-term ways of promoting peace.

Gaza Border Deaths: UNHRC Inquiry

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Friday 22nd March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern and he knows this issue well, but I do not accept that charge. I have made it clear that our reasons for not supporting the inquiry are in relation to the nature of that inquiry. No medic should ever be targeted—I can make that statement clearly; it does not need a commission of inquiry to say something like that. There should clearly be accountability for any such actions, but this commission is not that.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

The use of force, including the robust use of force in self-defence, is the legitimate right of every sovereign nation, and that applies to Israel and the United Kingdom. However, the use of disproportionate force is not. Will the Minister join me in deprecating the use of live ammunition in all but the most extreme and volatile circumstances?

Commonwealth Day

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend highlights the fact that there are some fast-growing, emerging cities in the Commonwealth. As he says, half of the world’s top 20 emerging cities are in the Commonwealth, and many Commonwealth countries are growing much faster than countries in the EU, including the UK. However, it is important for us to trade not only with Commonwealth countries but with our European Union neighbours. I am sure he will agree that this is a question of doing both, rather than an either/or choice.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

International security co-operation can rarely have been more important, and GCHQ in my constituency already has close ties with certain Commonwealth nations through the Five Eyes relationship, but we need to go further. What more can be done to broaden and deepen security co-operation using the Commonwealth?

Future of DFID

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Britain is an instinctively compassionate, outward-looking and humane nation, and we rightly expect our country to lend a hand in the struggle against poverty, misery and injustice; long may that continue. However, our country also has a keen sense of fairness. The British people want and expect taxpayers’ money to be used with integrity, and allocated sensibly and in accordance with their international priorities. Before I look at the central tenet of the speech made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), it is worth considering the sums of money we are talking about; that has not yet been discussed.

The 0.7% translates to approximately £14 billion. To put that into context, I was at a meeting this morning looking at legal aid in the criminal justice system—indeed, in the overall justice system—and we spend about £1.6 billion a year on legal aid. Or what about the schools high needs block, which funds such things as special educational needs, a big issue in my constituency? Its budget is about £6 billion. Our entire prisons budget is about £4 billion. Although the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown, is right and is entitled to criticise, let us not forget the very significant sums of money allocated by this country. We can hold our heads high because we meet the commitment. The United States, France, Germany, Italy and Spain do not. This House must not fall into the trap of thinking that we are somehow skimping on our international obligations. Far from it. We stand comparison with any nation on earth. The former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who spoke with his customary passion and eloquence, made that point crystal clear.

If we are to ensure that the British people retain their enthusiasm for meeting international commitments, it is critical that the rules be modernised and the money allocated in a way that meets priorities. Lest we forget, priorities change all the time; we must not be tone deaf to those changes. Although it is appropriate to keep a separate Department, there is a case to broaden its scope. I am delighted that the Government have acted with a great sense of purpose. I note, for example, that where the Development Assistance Committee’s rules are outdated, the Government have led the way in pushing for reform, so in October 2017 the UK secured an increase in the proportion of aid spending that can be contributed to peacekeeping missions. That is perfectly understandable and reasonable, but there is one central point that we also ought to consider in this House: the Department for International Development. Is it the exclusive purview of the £14 billion budget, or are there other broad areas that we ought to consider?

When I go to schools in Cheltenham—we ought to consider the next generation—one of the key concerns about Britain’s role in the world and how we want to express ourselves internationally is not so much to do with development but with conservation. The people in Charlton Kings Junior School that I spoke to are deeply concerned about plastic pollution, flora and fauna, biodiversity, habitat protection and climate change. The point that I want to make gently is that of course we must be internationalist and globalist, and we must continue to have a role in the world that shows that Britain is on the right side on the great moral issues facing our planet, but should that exclusively be about development? I think we need to have a debate in this House about whether there are other global priorities that we ought to consider.

When I see the tide of plastic in the Pacific ocean, I want us to do more. When I see species losing their habitats in sub-Saharan Africa and the hideous effects of climate change, I want to do more.

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend rightly talks about conservation, but that comes under the 0.7%, and the three things he has just mentioned are within the official development assistance rules and also come under the 0.7%, so I think I can lift his spirits a little.

[Alex Chalk]

To some extent it does, but cosmetic changes could be made. Why can the Department for International Development not be the Department for International Development and Conservation? That would send an important message. Also, we ought to be far clearer about the amounts that we can allocate to such causes. There is a huge amount of pushback, inevitably, from the likes of Oxfam. I understand why they would want to protect their realm, so to speak, but we could lean into these areas far more effectively; that would be more consistent with the instincts of the British people, and would gain further support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) for securing this important debate. It is a shame that Members feel that they have to bring such debates to the House, when we thought we had settled the matter of the Department for International Development, as has been said over and over again today.

It is a pleasure to follow so many assured and supportive speeches, the majority of which gave total support for the future work of the Department for International Development, and to follow the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) gave an excellent speech; he does a lot of important work with the World Bank on behalf of this House. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) gave an outstanding speech that showed that if we look at this matter independently and objectively there is no question about the need for the independence of the Department, the 0.7% and all the arguments that he went through. On my own side, I follow the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), who is a member of the International Development Committee.

In 1997, when Labour established the Department for International Development, Clare Short, the first Secretary of State for International Development, told the House of Commons that her Department had

“been given the most noble and honourable work that anyone could be asked to do.”

She said that eliminating global poverty, while

“both…affordable and…achievable”,

was also

“the single greatest challenge the world faces.”—[Official Report, 1 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 116.]

In the two decades since then, politicians from across the political spectrum have ensured that this country steps up to that challenge.

The International Development Act 2002 ensures that all aid spending remains tightly focused on poverty reduction overseas and is not diverted to other ends. In 2014 Parliament improved on that and passed the International Development (Gender Equality) Act, to ensure aid spending strives to tackle the associated challenge of discrimination against, and oppression of, women and girls. In 2015 Parliament enshrined in law the commitment to spend 0.7% of national income on overseas aid, making us one of only five donor countries to meet the internationally agreed commitment.

Since DFID was established 22 years ago, it has become a global leader in international development. Every year it spends UK aid in ways that make tangible differences to people’s lives the world over. DFID has helped some of the world’s poorest people realise their right to health and education. It has provided emergency life-saving aid for people caught up in major humanitarian crises and has led the way in bringing gender equality into the mainstream through its development work. The UK public should be proud of the development work that their money has supported over recent decades, but all too sadly they do not hear the success stories of UK aid and the work of DFID. Instead, they hear a loud and vocal anti-aid lobby, which does its best to discredit the work, as many Members today have mentioned.

The charge against the country’s aid programme is spearheaded by a small number of major media outlets, who revel in spinning and stirring the few occasions when UK aid programmes might not have worked as we had hoped. They are hell bent on driving a hysterical hatred of the UK’s work to end global poverty. The anti-aid media narrative is a serious problem, but even more worrying are attacks from a number of Tory Members, which have many guises. I will mention three of them.

First, there is the straightforward misspending and diverting of aid away from poverty reduction. Last weekend the Guardian reported a letter sent to the Chancellor from 23 international development agencies, raising their concerns about the way Ministers are spending aid. They warned him that aid is being diverted away from the poorest countries in order to promote commercial and political interests. From using aid to help UK companies expand their businesses overseas, to suggestions that aid be spent on UK naval ships, we are seeing more aid than ever being spent on projects that no one sincerely believes are about reducing global poverty. Those attempts do nothing but feed into the idea that the UK aid programme is a waste of UK taxpayers’ money.

Secondly, there are blatant attempts to dissolve the Department altogether. It is no secret that the former Foreign Secretary wants to see the Department dismantled. Earlier this month, he threw his weight behind a report that said DFID should be folded back into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and that the UK’s aid budget should be slashed. Such a move would be a disaster for the country’s aid programme. It is only DFID that has the specific and sole purpose of poverty alleviation and a dedicated staff working to achieve this goal. Merging the Department with the FCO—or any other Department for that matter—would dilute the agenda and see more money diverted away from poverty towards other foreign policy interests.

We can learn from Australia, where the international development department was merged with the foreign office, with a number of negative knock-on effects. The country’s strategic vision for aid was lost, the Government witnessed a brain-drain of development expertise and an estimated 2,000 years of collective experience left the department.

We already know from our own experience, where almost one third of our aid is spent outside DFID, that only DFID meets the highest spending standards. The Aid Transparency Index, the only independent measure of aid transparency among the world’s major development agencies, rated DFID “very good”, while the FCO’s aid spending was rated “poor”, according to the same measure. Likewise, the ONE Campaign recently launched an aid index that rates aid spending by different Departments. It found the FCO to be “weak” on its ability to keep aid focused on poverty, and that no other Department spends aid as well as DFID.

The third threat, which is related, is the worrying challenge to our aid and development work presented by the persistent undermining of the very concept of aid. The Secretary of State has made clear her desire to change the definition of aid. She recently launched a consultation on her plans to reduce the amount of public money that needs to be spent on aid by counting profits from private investments towards the aid budget. There are no two ways about it—aid is either spent to alleviate poverty and the causes of poverty, or it is invested to make a profit. The Labour party rejects any attempts to commercialise the UK aid budget.

The Secretary of State has said that she thinks the 0.7% of aid spending is unsustainable. Will the Minister expand on that comment, which was reported to have been made in a Cabinet meeting? We know that the Secretary of State wants to rewrite the international rules set by the OECD that govern aid spending. In the context of the sustained threat that is faced by DFID and ODA, I am delighted this debate has been called.

Anyone who believes that this country has a role to play in international development must be ready to defend the Department and the budget. I cannot fathom why some people are so obsessed with eroding and ending aid.

[Alex Chalk]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was right for the British Government to seek to rewrite the rules to allow aid spending to be used to deal with some of the appalling consequences of the dreadful storm in British Overseas Territories? Does he agree that it was appropriate that British aid should go towards that deserving cause?

[Dan Carden]

As we heard from the hon. Gentleman’s earlier contributions, maintaining the focus of the 0.7% is the most important issue. If we keep trying to erode and change the definition of aid, we are not backing that concept.

It disgusts me that people put so much energy into blocking support for the world’s poorest people, when a fraction less than 1% of our country’s income is spent on aid. I am a proud internationalist and I am proud that my party was responsible for setting up the Department for International Development. I believe the country’s aid programme is about morality, justice and pragmatism.

It is a shame that we are debating whether we should continue with our UK aid commitments and whether our world-renowned Department for International Development can survive many more years of Tory in-fighting, or be saved from being turned into a political football in any future leadership contest. I hope the Minister can give some guarantees on behalf of the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

That is absolutely right. The future of Iraq, which has real possibilities now following the elections some months ago, has to be built not only on the understanding that all communities in Iraq need a share in government and in the development of the country but on human rights, which can be exploited if they are abused. That forms a fundamental part of the future of Iraq. These issues are indeed raised.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

A successful economy is vital to secure Iraq’s long-term future and the wellbeing of its people, who have suffered so much. What steps are being taken to ensure that British companies can participate in building that better future?

[Alistair Burt]

We have an active and thriving Iraq-UK business council. Baroness Nicholson has been involved for many years in efforts in this area, particularly in the south of the country in Basra. The contracts and opportunities for the rebuilding and the reconstruction of Iraq will be much helped by the international community’s determination to support Iraq and Iraq’s own use of its oil revenues. British companies should be well placed because of their history and expertise.

Ebola Response Update

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the remark that I made towards the end of my statement, which was that, with respect to the House, we do not feel that it is helpful to the security of the individuals involved to comment on any specifics about the people who are currently working in that region on behalf of the UK Government.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for the decisiveness of her Department’s response. Is she satisfied that all precautions are being taken to ensure that the disease is contained and not inadvertently exported to nearby countries or, indeed, even further afield by plane?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. We constantly ask ourselves that question and we constantly ask our interlocutors from the relevant neighbouring countries whether there is anything else that should be done or that we can do to help. For example, when I was in Uganda, I was able to ask its Prime Minister whether the country would be able to approve the use of the experimental vaccine through their procedures as quickly as possible. I am glad to report to the House that, following that intervention, it has now been approved for use within Uganda.

Death of Jamal Khashoggi

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

We have some of the toughest laws in the world to defend freedom of speech in this country. We will always do what it takes to defend that, and the independence of our press is the most powerful weapon we have in that respect. We are looking at all these issues and I want to reassure the hon. Lady that, when it comes to media freedom, we recognise that there is a pattern of wrongdoing here, and we are very concerned about it.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

First they said that Jamal Khashoggi had left the consulate alive. Then they said that he had died in a fight. While of course it is right to listen to the third explanation from the Saudi authorities, does my right hon. Friend agree that the credibility of those explanations has been seriously undermined by their decision to publish what is manifestly implausible?

[Mr Hunt]

I absolutely agree. Until we get to a place where the Saudi authorities are giving an explanation that they can corroborate and that is consistent with the evidence from other sources, people will continue to ask the questions that my hon. Friend is asking, and we will continue to not feel that we can have confidence that the Saudi authorities understand the gravity of what has happened and will truly make sure that it never happens again.

Syria

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

The hon. Gentleman is slightly unreasonable in saying that our predictions have to be reliable, in the way that he describes, as if it were entirely in our gift. We are dealing with a horrid, ghastly international conflict in which we are a player, in some ways, but we are not there on the ground in a way that can influence things as he wants. However, there is one area on which I strongly agree with him—that is, the question of accountability. We are absolutely committed to supporting efforts to pursue accountability for human rights abuses and war crimes in Syria, and there undoubtedly have been such.

We strongly support the work of the United Nations’ IIIM—the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism—which investigates and collects evidence of the most serious crimes committed in Syria. We have contributed £200,000 to the start-up costs of that organisation, and we are funding non-governmental organisations that collect evidence for future prosecutions. We are also supporting the important work of the independent UN Commission of Inquiry, which is reporting on violations and abuses, and we have been in the lead on successful diplomatic efforts to strengthen the capability of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to prevent the further use of chemical weapons and to attribute responsibility to those who might use them.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

The £2.71 billion contribution to the Syrian aid effort is the single biggest act of humanitarian assistance in our nation’s history. Will my right hon. Friend continue to ensure that a suitable proportion of that support goes to countries such as Jordan and Lebanon, which are doing such important work on the ground to provide life-saving support?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. From the very beginning of this conflict, when we were looking at so many displaced people, a significant fraction of the humanitarian aid—or at least, the DFID budget spending—went to surrounding countries that were so generously accommodating to those who had fled, so it is inevitable that a large part of that budget will continue to go to such countries. Of course, in an ideal world, we would like to see Syrians return to their homes, but those have been so devastated that people would be going back only to rubble in many cases. It is inevitable that a lot of displaced Syrians will remain outside their former country for a long time to come.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Richard Benyon]

I am reliably informed that there are inconsistencies. I suggest that, for simplicity, if the Bill were to say that any reference to “gross violation of human rights” is to conduct that constitutes, or is connected with, the commission of a gross human rights abuse or violation, and whether conduct constitutes or is connected with a commission of such an abuse or violation is to be determined in accordance with section 241A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, we would have the consistency that the campaigners—and, I think, the Government—seek.

I understand that the Government want to achieve this. They want to see the full Magnitsky on the statute book. This suggestion offers a way of making sure that we get the definitions right.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl, and to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury. There is no one in this House who has done more than he has to prosecute this matter. I am also grateful for the contribution from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland.

Although I am entirely sympathetic to the Magnitsky principle, there are three reasons why, on careful textual analysis, amendment 2 is flawed—not just a bit, but quite significantly—and should therefore be rejected. That should not be taken in any way as a disagreement with the principle, but it echoes the point, which has already been made, that we have got to get this right.

The overarching point is that, although the amendment intends to transpose the substance of section 241A of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, as amended by section 13 of the Criminal Finances Act 2017, which the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland referred to, there are three errors in the transposition that will cause confusion, hold back the Magnitsky principles and create a field day for lawyers.

First, in the context of defining a gross human rights abuse or violation, amendment 2 would insert subsection (6B), which says,

“The first condition is that the conduct constitutes the torture of a person or a group of people”.

The expression “a group of people” is not to be found in the 2002 Act, which is the UK’s primary criminal financing legislation and allows for civil recovery of cash on the basis of non-conviction proceedings. Property can be forfeited irrespective of whether a person has been convicted. That is the key piece of legislation, but the amendment contains a crucial inconsistency. The insertion of “a group of people” creates a problem, because lawyers will look at it and say, “Why has Parliament inserted that here, but not in the Proceeds of Crime Act?”

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I will tell him why we did that; I do not know whether this was considered when the 2017 Act went through. Gross human rights abuses may involve, as in the case of Magnitsky, one person being tortured and abused, or they may involve—as in the case of the Rohingya, who are being pushed out of Rakhine state across the Bangladeshi border—a whole group of people. We did not want to exclude the latter because the treatment was substantially different. That was our thinking, and it was so that we did not just solely focus on the Russian situation. We are obviously interested in disincentivising human rights abuses across the globe.

[Alex Chalk]

I entirely commend that intention, but I fear that in reality, the wording risks causing confusion and potentially having precisely the opposite effect. The Interpretation Act 1978 indicates that, in any event, the single includes the plural. In other words, where the text says,

“the torture of a person”

that is apt to include “a group of persons”. Lawyers and judges will look at the insertion and ask why it has been included. On the basis that Parliament does not legislate in vain, they will have to try to allocate a meaning to it, which is simply going to cause confusion. That is the first textual difference, which creates confusion rather than clarity.

Secondly, the amendment, in inserting subsection (6D)(b)(ii), would import another change that will cause worrying inconsistency. That includes the qualificatory words,

“who in instigating the conduct, or in consenting to or acquiescing in it, is acting in the performance or purported performance of his or her official duties”.

In the Bill, that applies only to a person acting in an official capacity. It does not apply to a public official. That inconsistency could lead to the perverse outcome that the net will be drawn more widely in this Bill than in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and that public officials, under subsection (6D)(b)(i), could be off duty but a person acting in an official capacity could not. That would be perverse and would create confusion.

The third and most important confusion is in proposed new subsection (6E). By omitting a key phrase, the amendment would create a vast loophole in the legislation. In its definition of torture, the amendment excludes the following very important text from the 2002 Act:

“It is immaterial whether the pain or suffering is physical or mental and whether it is caused by an act or omission.”

Proposed new subsection (6E) talks about

“the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering”,

but because that is not defined as including mental suffering and omission, it means that inflicting mental suffering and omitting to provide heat, water, food or light—I hope that hon. Members perceive those things to be torture—would be excluded. They are included in the 2002 Act but would not be included under the amendment.

[Helen Goodman]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be running two arguments at once. I cannot see any mention of such deprivations in the 2002 Act, so I am not sure whether he is criticising the substantive drafting. Is his overriding concern that he does not like the drafting, or that it is inconsistent?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk]

My overriding concern is that I do not like the drafting because it is inconsistent. Although I am very sympathetic to the Magnitsky principle, for which the hon. Lady and my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury have powerfully advocated—I look forward to what the Minister has to say about that—this drafting has gone not just a bit awry but quite seriously awry. Creating confusion and inconsistencies between the two key pieces of legislation will mean that lawyers have a field day and that the victims are not be protected. For those reasons, we need to look at this again, get it right and ensure that what ends up on the statute book is truly fit for purpose.

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

We genuinely appreciate that this issue is of significant concern to right hon. and hon. Members, as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland and hon. Members on both sides of the House who spoke on Second Reading made clear. I acknowledge the long-standing and heartfelt commitment to this important cause that my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury has demonstrated. We do not want to do anything other than take seriously what Members from both sides of the House are arguing.

Let me go into some of the details and suggest how we might proceed. Amendments 1 and 2 relate to including in the Bill gross human rights abuses as a basis on which sanctions may be imposed. As Lord Ahmad made clear in the other place, the list of purposes currently in the Bill ensures we can continue to implement sanctions for the same reasons we do now—for example, in the interests of international peace and security or to further a foreign policy objective of the UK. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said on Second Reading last week, we already implement human rights-based sanctions against 10 countries, including Iran, Libya, South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Overall, that means that sanctions against more than 200 individuals and entities are in place now, and that approach will continue under the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s offer. I think that the Committee can take a decision in principle. I am not trying to prevent debate on the Bill—far from it. It was the Government Whip who did that on Tuesday, so I am certainly not going to have that laid at my feet now. We can come back to the matter on Report in the way that the Minister suggests, but I would like—

[Alex Chalk]

May I respectfully suggest that amendments 1 and 2 do go together? I say that because to legislate for a purpose that would provide

“further accountability for, or act…as a deterrent to, the commission of a gross human rights abuse or violation”

and then not to define what is meant by “gross human rights abuse or violation” would be to legislate for the bow, but not for the arrow. The two things go together. To leave out the definition would be to create such a gaping hole in the legislation that we would be in dereliction of our duty, it seems to me. I hope that saying that will not be perceived as being in any way unsympathetic to the principle, but leaving out the definition would mean that we were left with not just inadequate legislation, but incomplete legislation.

[The Chair]

It may be helpful if I let the Committee know that if amendment 1 is withdrawn or negatived, amendment 2 falls as well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

I think Her Majesty the Queen is well capable of taking this or any American President in her stride, as she has done over six remarkable decades. She has seen them come and she has seen them go. If the hon. Lady seeks advice on whether to invite the President of the United States to visit this country—she will remember that we are very close allies—I invite her to ask the person next to her, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who said only last year:

“I think we have to welcome the American President to Britain. We have to work with him.”

Those are the words of the right hon. Lady.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

T3. The “Fire and Fury” book about the Trump presidency has reheated some debunked claims about the role of British intelligence. Although the ordinary stance of the British Government is neither to confirm nor deny, given the highly unusual facts of this case will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity, as the intelligence chiefs have, to slay those myths?

[Boris Johnson]

As my hon. Friend rightly says, we do not normally comment on such matters, but in this particular case GCHQ made it clear last year that the allegations are “nonsense”, stating:

“They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored.”