Jailing of Hong Kong Pro-democracy Activists

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support for the Government’s ongoing audit of our relationship with China, and for the information that he has provided about one of the individuals who has been sentenced in China. I am aware that an Australian citizen is among those who have been sentenced, but I was not aware of the information provided by my right hon. Friend about his colleague who has been sentenced for her work in the UK. It is very helpful to be aware of that, and I would be grateful if he sent me more information about this matter.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Today I brought together 118 parliamentarians from 24 countries and the EU to call for the Chinese Communist party to immediately release Jimmy Lai. It is extraordinary for the Prime Minister to meet Xi Jinping in the same week that Jimmy’s sham trial resumes, yet the Prime Minister used just 13 words in support of Jimmy’s cause in his meeting with Xi—and no, he did not call for Jimmy’s release; he just mentioned his poor health. What we learned was that the Government have called in plans for a new Chinese Communist party mega-embassy as a favour to Xi, and at his request. Why?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am sure that the hon. Lady, with her considerable experience, will be well aware of the fact that the Prime Minister was at the G20 leaders’ summit, which every member of the G20 attended. I am sure that she will be aware of how these meetings work. On the embassy to which she refers, it is standard for applications to be called in if they affect other Governments. Calling in the application should not be taken as any indication of our views on the merits of the scheme. As this case will be determined by Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further.

The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2024

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 General Committees

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve once again under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank the Minister for her remarks. I shall keep my own brief, because the Conservative party supports these regulations and the technical and clarificatory amendments that they seek to make to the existing Russia sanctions regime.

As I am sure the Committee is aware, asset freezes are a cornerstone of our sanctions regime and of the Russia one in particular. The Conservative Government rightly targeted asset freezes at oligarchs and the circle of people closest to the Kremlin, stopping their significant and valuable assets being sent back to Russia and ultimately undermining Putin’s ability to prosecute his barbaric, renewed illegal invasion of Ukraine. I acknowledge —and am grateful, too—the fact that the Minister recognised that the UK took an innovative approach and that we were the first country to put in place such a sanctions regime with the new freedoms that we had to be able to pursue that.

According to the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, about £20 billion-worth of assets have been frozen since February 2022, following the renewed illegal invasion. Regulation of legal advisory services is a crucial buttress for ensuring that those asset freezes work and that the system in general is watertight. It is right that we should continue to ensure that our sanctions package and accompanying regulations, including those regarding legal advisory services, are as effective as possible.

What is also important, however, is that the guidance to the legal profession is as clear as possible, and that the changes are communicated effectively. It continues to be an issue that some parts of the legal profession seek to provide opportunities to support those who are sanctioned. Therefore, we must be clear, so that we can prosecute those who breach the sanctions.

The Government must use the Russia sanctions regime to its fullest extent, because we must constrain Putin’s war machine by targeting not just individuals, but entities and businesses helping to fuel it. I was pleased that we established OFSI, which is a vital part of the process, but it is of concern that OFSI has yet to fine any individual or entity for sanctions evasion. I understand the complexities in issuing fines, but I would be grateful if the Minister expanded on how the Government intend to ensure that those who breach our sanctions face the proper consequences, and on what scrutiny is being placed on OFSI, because there is a gap in how Parliament can scrutinise that individual body.

As the Minister will know, the Conservative Government sanctioned a number of companies in China which had been feeding supplies to Russia’s military-industrial complex. We should be targeting entities actively helping to prop up Putin’s war wherever they are in the world. I am concerned that we have yet to see a statement from the Foreign Office following recent significant reports about Chinese support to Russia or the even more recent reports that more than half of all weapons used against Ukraine come from North Korea. I have raised both those issues formally with the Foreign Office.

Finally, the Conservative Government were a leading advocate of immobilised Russian assets being used to support Ukraine and ensuring that the Russian state pays for the destruction it has caused. When we look back in history, we must be very clear that this was Putin’s war and his renewed illegal invasion—he is responsible and he must lose. We are talking about a significant sum of money, and it is vital that the Labour Government continue that work and push our allies to coalesce around the most ambitious support solution to achieve those important aims. That money must help not just with the defence of Ukraine, but in the rebuilding of Ukraine and the delivery of compensation to all those who have lost so much.

[The Chair]

The motion is open to debate, and the sitting can last up to an hour and a half.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

Apologies if I get the procedure wrong—it is the first time I have done this. I align myself with the comments of my right hon. Friend—

[Alicia Kearns]

Just honourable.

[Peter Fortune]

One day. I have a quick question for the Minister on the consultation. I appreciate that there is no formal consultation required, but the paper says that there has been informal consultation with stakeholders. Can the Minister tell us who those stakeholders are?

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am very grateful for the helpful contributions we have heard. I am particularly grateful for the support of the hon. Members for Rutland and Stamford and for Bicester and Woodstock, as well as for the question about clarifying the consultation. I will come on to all those points in a moment.

The new UK Government are absolutely determined to use every mechanism we can to ensure that UK sanctions will disrupt Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and the pursuit of its illegal war. We are determined to continuously refine our sanctions, so that we are applying effective pressure on Russia, both domestically and internationally.

OFSI was rightly mentioned by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford; it is working at pace and we are determined to ensure that it is effective. Although we did not talk about it in this debate, and I will not go into detail, the hon. Member will have seen that the Prime Minister has been active on the question of ensuring compliance with sanctions regimes. That was a core element of what he set out to the European political community, when that meeting took place over the summer. It is a priority for the UK, both domestically, in terms of ensuring that our own regime is watertight, and multilaterally, working with partners on the aim of disrupting Putin’s war effort.

Of course, the work does not stop here. It is a continuous process of renewal to ensure that we have it right and to make it harder for entities to circumvent sanctions. In response to the question posed by the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock—my county colleague—the measures are precisely intended to ensure compliance. That is the entire point of their introduction. If there is a lack of clarity or overlapping legal regimes, that is the kind of situation where loopholes could be exploited. Instead, the measures are clarifying the situation, so that it can work effectively and there is compliance.

On consultation, that was with those engaged in the financial and legal sectors. Above all, we are working hard to ensure that it is an effective regime. I am strongly of the view that those working in those sectors want to ensure that there is legal clarity, and that the UK sanctions regime is held to. We need to ensure that is the case across the board, as I was saying to the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill. This SI ensures that, and the consultation was with key figures in the industries that are engaged on those matters.

We continue to be committed to making sure our use of sanctions is modern, effective and joined up with other countries, although our regimes are subtly different, which in this case reflects the different legal systems in the UK, the EU and the US. We want to make sure we are keeping pressure on Russia.

The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford raised the issue of China. The Foreign Secretary has spoken quite a lot about the need for a joined-up UK approach to China generally. It is a priority for the new Government to make progress on that. We have not had a coherent approach previously; we think we need one. We are very clear that any evidence of Chinese companies providing military support to Russia would be damaging to China’s international reputation, given its strongly avowed position on not being involved in the conflict. We will not hesitate to take action against anyone who supplies and funds Putin’s war machine. We are very clear on that.

[Alicia Kearns]

The Foreign Secretary is in China this week, so I hope that he can reassure us when he returns next week that he has raised that issue directly with his Chinese counterparts during that visit. It would be unacceptable for him not to do so, given that it has been more than two months since concrete evidence came out proving that China was enabling Russia in that way. Equally, on North Korea, we have an ambassador here in London who should be being called in to answer questions on how over half of the weapons maiming and murdering Ukrainians are coming from North Korea. Can the right hon. Lady show me that the Foreign Secretary will be able to confirm, when he returns next week, that he has raised that very specific and deeply concerning issue directly?

[Anneliese Dodds]

The new Foreign Secretary is absolutely committed to ensuring that the House is updated on all aspects of his activities. I know the hon. Lady has seen that thus far, he has been extremely responsive, and I am sure that will be the case on these issues, as on all others. He has been incredibly active—his feet have barely touched the ground—yet he has been in the Commons quite a bit to make sure the Commons remain updated.

[Alicia Kearns]

My question was not about whether he will update the House, but about whether he will raise the issue directly in Beijing, because he has the opportunity to put to Wang Yi, or indeed Xi Jinping, that they should not be providing weapons to Russia. I would like reassurance that that is on his agenda while he is there. Of course, I would then expect him to update the House, but the issue is what he does while he is in China this week.

[Anneliese Dodds]

The Foreign Secretary has been very clear indeed about his role and his leadership in relation to the conflict in Ukraine—there is no question about that. He has been very clear on it. However, the hon. Lady has followed these issues for some time, and would surely understand that the precise content of discussions between global leaders is not something that I, as a Minister, would seek to pre-empt. I would not have expected to do so in opposition either. That is something that is determined by the global leaders themselves.

To conclude, I again thank Committee members for their very insightful contributions. It has been a brief debate, but I hope that those for whom this is their first experience of such a Committee will see many more—I am sure they will enjoy every single one. I am grateful for the continued cross-party support for strong, impactful and effective sanctions in relation to Russia’s war efforts.

International Special Tribunal: Ukraine

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) for securing this important debate. I was grateful for his co-operation in the previous Parliament on not only Ukraine but the Balkans, which is an area of particular interest to us both.

I am proud that, over the past few years, the UK has consistently led international efforts to support Ukraine. In government, the Conservative party made sure that we were the party that stood behind Ukraine and was its first port of call. In opposition, we will continue in that spirit of the UK being Ukraine’s safe harbour. Whether on pursuing justice through international tribunals, seizing Russian state assets, supporting the ICC in its investigations, enforcing sanctions, or ensuring that Ukraine has the weaponry it requires to win, the UK must continue to lead.

However, I will start on a disappointing note. I was heartbroken to hear President Zelensky say that Britain’s leadership on Ukraine has slowed down. It is vital that the new Government demonstrate the same commitment that we did; they must be resolute. It is extraordinary for another world leader to criticise the UK or to criticise any partner publicly. His words were that the UK had demonstrated

“true leadership—in arms, politics, and support for Ukrainian society”,

which had “saved thousands of lives”, but that that had now “slowed down”. The Government will have the full support of everyone on the Conservative Benches and, indeed, of the party of the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth—if they step back up to the plate. We cannot have our greatest ally question our support in any way at this time. Conversely, although the Government will have our full support if they do that, we will provide full scrutiny should such support slip.

I welcome today’s contributions by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), who made a similar point, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). They have both been consistent in their support for not only Ukraine but human rights around the world.

A special tribunal on Russia’s crime of aggression would formalise Russian culpability for the invasion of Ukraine. It would prevent Putin from embedding his counterfactual narrative in history, which we should be in no doubt is what he is seeking to do. It would ensure that the brave women, men and children of Ukraine—such as Nika, from my team, who joins us in the Public Gallery—do not suffer from Russia’s attempts to rewrite their history and eradicate their truth. It would give survivors their day in court, showing beyond doubt that the world cares and listens, and that they will be heard. It would also demonstrate—as the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth said—that even members of the UN Security Council are not immune from international law.

The moral case for seeking justice for Russia’s crime of aggression is indisputable, and the Government’s role is to find the legal means to deliver that. None of us should pretend it is easy; it is not, and the G7 countries have grappled with finding a way to deliver it. The crime of aggression was adopted into international law by the UN General Assembly in 1971. As the hon. Member for Strangford set out, the definition agreed by the UN makes it clear that there is a clear case for Russia to answer. Rather than repeating the list that he provided, I will just add a couple of points. The sponsorship of armed irregulars since 2014—the so-called “little green men” in Donbas—is an additional reason to bring a case against Russia. There is also a case against Belarus for allowing the use of its territory as a launch pad for the invasion.

Why a special tribunal? As the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon stated, neither Ukraine nor Russia is a party to the Rome statute, meaning that the ICC cannot prosecute Russia for its acts of aggression, unlike in relation to other areas, such as Putin’s abduction of Ukrainian children. Ukraine is clear that the world must devise an alternative legal route for justice. As the initial crime led to all subsequent atrocities, ensuring accountability for it is key.

Likewise, we need to demonstrate flexibility and a determination to guarantee accountability for crimes, both to deter future breaches of international law and to strengthen it in an increasingly dangerous world. Ukraine and the principle of justice demand a solution, and the Conservative Government devoted a huge amount of time and energy to trying to deliver one: the UK is part of the core group of 40 states working on a deliverable form of tribunal; we led on the G7 proposals for a hybrid tribunal, which would solve some of the issues to do with immunity and legitimacy; and as the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth said, there was a special conference in London on the topic of the special tribunal, where I contributed to the published communiqué.

The moral case for a special tribunal is clear and has a firm basis in international and UK law, and the previous Conservative Government led efforts to find a solution, but that was not straightforward. We now need to hear how this Government intend to carry on that important work. Ukraine has made it clear that a special tribunal with elements of international involvement is not possible on its territory without changes to its constitution, and it cannot deliver that during a time of martial law. Likewise, the conventional route of establishing a special international tribunal through the UN Security Council is blocked, due to Russia’s veto. Finally, a tribunal must find a form that allows Russia’s leadership to be tried in absentia—to the conversation that took place in this debate about individual culpability—and the diplomatic immunities given in domestic courts must be dealt with.

There have been suggestions about holding the tribunal in a third country, and the Dutch Government have now stepped forward and reportedly expressed their willingness to host this special court. Given that the Netherlands has a long history of hosting international human rights courts, that would seem an intelligent and practical option, but it still requires an international mandate. As Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron supported the Council of Europe’s work to establish a viable special tribunal in co-operation with Ukraine. Today, I urge the UK to lobby for a vote at the UN General Assembly in September to establish a special tribunal in a third country, in conjunction with the Netherlands.

Holding Russia accountable for the crime of aggression is vital, but it requires imagination and drive in the face of deeply complex legal questions. As the war approaches its third year, the form of a viable tribunal appears to be taking shape: a special tribunal, held in a third country, established by a treaty between the Council of Europe and Ukraine, and supported by a wider membership in the UN General Assembly. That is the best route to justice. The previous Government’s work got us to this point and we sincerely hope the current Government maintain the focus necessary to finish the job.

Turning to my questions, I want to ask first for an update on any discussions held with my friend the prosecutor general of Ukraine, Andriy Kostin. Has the Minister for Europe held discussions with his Ukrainian counterpart on establishing the tribunal? Do the Government support a special international tribunal held in a third country? Can they update us on any progress made by the Council of Europe on agreeing a format? What conversations are the Government having with non-European partners to secure their support for an international tribunal? What form do the Government see as best placed to solve the diplomatic immunity issues regarding Russia’s leaders? Finally, will the Minister confirm that strong representations will be made to Mongolia following its failure to arrest President Putin when he was on its soil this week?

The crime of aggression is clearly defined in international law. It includes supporting irregular forces against a state, bombardment, invasion, occupation and annexation. It is the original sin from which all of Russia’s other crimes have come and it must now be tried. A special tribunal could determine formally that Russia committed an act of aggression against Ukraine, a peaceful neighbouring state. That would cement truth into history and block Putin’s revisionist nonsense from taking root. Truth is fundamental to the future, and atrocity denial is a deliberate attack on victims and survivors. Ukrainians know that more than most, having endured years of the Holodomor denial under the Soviet Union and the continued lies by Russia. Putin understands the power of narrative and deliberately uses a warped past as a weapon to justify present wrongs. The impetus for a special tribunal on Russian aggression is therefore clear but, yes, the legal route is complex.

The Conservatives’ work in government, with support across the House and in partnership with our allies, has brought us close to a solution. We now need to see it delivered for every Ukrainian who has suffered, for the victory of right over wrong, and to set a precedent to deter other oppressor states from their own acts of aggression. I again thank the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth for calling this important debate. I genuinely wish the Minister every success in these efforts. These issues are complex and thorny, but we finally have a way ahead, and it seems that there is international consensus.

[The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)]

It is a real pleasure to speak in this important debate with you in the chair, Mr Efford. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) for securing it and for his great interest in this subject over a long period, including in the APPG on Ukraine. As I am sure the hon. Member knows, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), would have been delighted to take part in the debate—they visited Ukraine together previously—but my hon. Friend is travelling elsewhere on ministerial duties, so I am here, and I am pleased to be responding on behalf of the Government.

I want to start by re-emphasising the comments made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about the need for continued cross-party support for Ukraine and our united determination to stand against Putin’s aggression. We have seen that determination and commitment from the people of the UK in their hospitality and support for Ukrainians who have come here. That has been incredibly important.

It is always a pleasure to serve opposite the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), but I want to set out from the beginning that the new UK Government’s support for Ukraine could not be clearer. As I know she is aware, the Prime Minister himself was clear that there would be a commitment from the new UK Government of military support worth £3 billion a year until 2030-31 or for as long as is necessary. That is an unprecedented commitment. Of course, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary all spoke with their opposite numbers in Ukraine within the first hours of the new Government coming into post, and we have prioritised this issue within both NATO and the European Political Community. It really is important that we continue to see that united support and that we do not see this issue being politicised. That would be a terrible shame and would not support Ukraine in its hour of need.

[Alicia Kearns]

I think that the right hon. Lady would recognise, however, that President Zelensky cannot be accused of politicising the situation. If the Conservative party were still in power, and if the right hon. Lady had heard President Zelensky say what he did, I would have heard about it every single moment of every single day. We have been courteous in raising it, and it is right to raise it, because we can never again hear President Zelensky say—as he did no more than six weeks into a Labour Government—that he is deeply concerned. I am relieved and grateful to hear the right hon. Lady’s assurances today, and I hope we can move forward in exactly that spirit of seeing the support that Ukraine deserves.

[Anneliese Dodds]

That support and that united approach are incredibly important. I will come back to the reasons in a moment, but Ukraine needs a united, continued front and, above all, for the UK to play a role not just directly in providing military support along with other nations, but in ensuring accountability, which is the subject of this debate. I was talking particularly about taking party political approaches to this issue, which the current Government avoided doing in opposition. It is important that we continue in that way; I know that the hon. Lady will want to ensure that that is the case, and I am grateful for her comments just now. As was mentioned earlier, it is also important that, where we see an increased prevalence of conflict globally—sadly, I am well aware of that as the Minister for Development—we continue to have that unified voice on the UK’s position.

Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine is clearly a violation of the UN charter, and it strikes at the very heart of the rules on which our security and prosperity depend. The atrocities in Ukraine are some of the worst we have seen in Europe since world war two. Over six million Ukrainians have been forced to flee the country, over three million have been internally displaced, and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights reports that over 11,000 civilians have been killed and at least 23,600 have been injured. The attacks that we saw, disturbingly, on 26 and 27 August represent continued evidence that Russia is intentionally targeting civilian energy infrastructure, without any regard for the safety and livelihood of millions of Ukrainians. Those attacks threaten civil access to power, heating and water supply, and they risk a further humanitarian crisis this winter. My constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), spoke eloquently on that subject in her contribution. We also heard from the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) about concerning evidence of developments even today regarding additional instances of Putin’s aggression towards the people of Ukraine.

Overall, Ukraine’s Office of the Prosecutor General has recorded more than 135,000 incidents of alleged war crimes, including murder, rape and the deportation of children. They appal us all. The Russian missile that hit a children’s hospital in July is yet further evidence of Putin’s callous disregard for human life. Yesterday, in the House—a number of Members here were present—we discussed the recent attacks that impacted on children in a playground in Kharkiv, as well as a children’s rehabilitation centre and orphanage.

We really need to see accountability, which Ukraine obviously wants for both those hideous atrocities and the illegal, unprovoked invasion from which these war crimes stem. I appreciated the clarification at the very beginning from the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth: there is the initial illegal, unprovoked invasion and what has followed from it—he was right to separate the two.

The UK is committed to ensuring that Russia is held to account for its actions, and is leading efforts to refer the situation in Ukraine to the International Criminal Court and to ensure that it then takes action as an independent court. I can inform Members that the referral has secured the support of 42 other countries; it is the biggest state referral in the history of the ICC, enabling the prosecutor to proceed straight to investigation without the need for judicial approval. Having led the group referral, the UK is committed to making sure that the ICC has what it needs to continue that work. There has obviously been a financial contribution under the previous Government, for which we are grateful, including £2.3 million in additional contributions to the Court since the start of the war. That funding has increase the ICC’s capacity to collect evidence and provide enhanced psychosocial support for witnesses and survivors of the atrocities committed by Russia.

In response to the comments from the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, I want to be clear that the ICC is an independent judicial institution, and it is for the ICC prosecutor to determine the nature and focus of the Court’s investigations. They are now well under way and making progress. In 2023, the ICC issued arrest warrants for President Putin and his children’s rights commissioner, Maria Lvova-Belova, for the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children. When we talk about indictment and the provision of warrants, I want to underline the existence of that warrant for Putin from the ICC. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, mentioned Putin’s visit to Mongolia and we have of course raised our concerns with the Mongolian authorities about their decision to host President Putin in those circumstances. We are absolutely clear that we respect the independence and the role of the ICC.

Following those initial warrants, we have also seen warrants issued in March for top Russian commanders Sergei Kobylash and Viktor Sokolov for directing missile attacks at civilian objects, including Ukrainian electricity infrastructure. In June, arrest warrants were issued for the former Russian defence minister Sergei Shoigu and the chief of general staff for the Russian armed forces, Valery Gerasimov. While the list of ICC subjects is growing, it will be in the courts of Ukraine—not The Hague—that the majority of cases will be heard.

In May 2022, under the previous Government—again, we are grateful for this action—the UK established the atrocity crimes advisory group, or ACA, with the European Union and the US to provide advice and support to the office of the prosecutor general of Ukraine and to enhance capacity to investigate and prosecute war crimes through their domestic system. Overall UK funding for this work has come to £6.2 million, and UK experts have provided advice on over 100 atrocity crimes cases at central and regional levels. That work very much continues.

UK support for Ukraine’s investigations has been further boosted by the deployment of our former ICC judge, Sir Howard Morrison KC. People in this Chamber will be well aware of his eminence as an adviser to Ukraine’s prosecutor general. Let me say in response to comments from Opposition Members that that support continues. He has overseen the delivery of war crimes training to 294 Ukrainian judges, 86 prosecutors, and 19 investigators.

We support Ukraine’s calls for accountability for the crime of aggression, as well as for the decision to invade Ukraine illegally and without provocation, from which so many further crimes have followed. As we made clear in our manifesto, the new Government will support work towards establishing a special tribunal on the crime of aggression against Ukraine—those responsible for the hideous atrocities we have seen there must be held to account for their actions.

Agreement on the details of the tribunal will matter if it is to be legally sound and to attract the broad international support that will be crucial to its legitimacy and, ultimately, its impact. If we want this to work, and we do, we need to get it right, so we continue to play an active role in the core group, established and led by Ukraine, to explore options for achieving criminal accountability, including through a special tribunal. As some Members will know, the group brings together many experts.

Covid-19: International Response

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

The UN Secretary-General is right that this virus is a menace to the whole of humanity. The challenge that we all have—which is why it must be a global, international response—is to ensure that we all appreciate that sorting out our own domestic situations is only stage one of the process of dealing with and getting rid of the virus. We will continue to focus all our efforts on driving the programmes that DFID runs, and on working to get the most coherent and effective outputs from all the multilateral organisations of which we are a part.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) [V]]

It is a delight to join you remotely, Mr Speaker. I thank my right hon. Friend for all that her Department is doing internationally to support the international vaccine effort and all those in need. How is the Department ensuring that partner countries in receipt of UK aid to support their response to the covid-19 pandemic are also abiding by their human rights obligations, especially at a time when lockdowns and public health measures, although necessary, give Governments a great deal of authority and power, which in some countries risk being deployed to support authoritarian objectives?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

In many countries with weak governance or ongoing conflicts, covid-19 is raising social tensions and posing a challenge to peace processes and respect for human rights, so we are working alongside the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Promotion of human rights is a core part of DFID’s strategy, and that never changes. DFID is taking steps to ensure that both our immediate response to covid and our long-term recovery efforts do not exacerbate conflict, but instead help to build peace and improve governance.