Oral Answers to Questions
Alyn Smith Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
The only way to stop boats at sea and illegal migration is through structured co-operation with our neighbours and internationally. I welcome the signing on 23 February of the agreement between the UK and EU’s Frontex border protection service, but is it properly funded and what mechanisms are in place to review that funding as it evolves? Surely the Minister must agree with me that the best way to tackle illegal migration is to fund safe and legal routes properly. What progress is he making on a comprehensive deal to that end with our EU friends, including Ireland?
Mr Mitchell
We need to tackle this issue, as I think the hon. Gentleman is implying, on a series of different fronts. We are working upstream, as the deal with Vietnam demonstrates. Our Prime Minister has substantially repaired the relationship with France. The Calais Group has met the UK-France customs partnership. We work closely with Frontex. There are far more officials now in Britain dealing with these cases. As the Prime Minister has made clear, once this matter has been resolved, he is going to look at bringing in safe and legal routes from elsewhere.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alyn Smith Excerpts(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
The best way to deal with a sustainable ceasefire is obviously to deal with the ongoing humanitarian crisis, and that is best done by UNRWA, not through individual bilateral actions. The Minister mentions states that have suspended their funding, and the situation is evolving really fast. The EU has just announced €50 million for UNRWA, and two further tranches of €16 million, subject to the satisfactory completion of an audit. I take the point that no funding is due from the UK to UNRWA until April, but what further reassurance does the UK need to ensure the funding will be in place, because UNRWA is the best organisation to disburse it and the UK risks being very much on the wrong side of these developments?
Mr Mitchell
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s last point. It is true that Canada, Sweden, Spain and the EU, with conditions, expect to be able to resume funding, but as I mentioned earlier, America, Germany, Australia, Italy, Finland, the Netherlands and Switzerland take the same view as us. To the substantive points he makes, we are in discussions with the leader of UNRWA, Mr Lazzarini, and we are awaiting the report from the former French Foreign Minister and the report from the UN. We hope that as a result of those reports, sufficient change will be secured, so that we can continue to fund UNRWA, but the hon. Gentleman should be in no doubt that we have fully funded UNRWA into the next financial year.
Death of Alexei Navalny
Alyn Smith Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
We are, all of us, appalled at this murder and the timing of it. It was designed to send a message and it needs a serious response. I am grateful for sight of the statement, as far as it goes. I think the Minister would acknowledge that it does not go very far, so I would press for further action. The Minister will be aware that the EU Foreign Affairs Council is meeting in Brussels as we speak. It is looking at a range of measures. Can he assure us that the UK will be part of those efforts, in particular with regard to the implementation of Magnitsky sanctions? I am looking not for an announcement now, but to ensure we are co-ordinated with that. I reiterate my own calls for the sequestration of the Russian assets that have been seized. This death—this murder—was designed to send a message. A serious message must be the response to it; if there is one, it will have SNP support.
Leo Docherty
I am grateful, as ever, to the SNP spokesperson for his tone and his support. Of course, it would be premature for me to comment. By convention, we never comment on sanctions from the Dispatch Box, but of course we are looking at pace at all options in response to this outrageous event. In that context, we will continue to liaise with US and EU allies—that is a matter of course. The hon. Gentleman asked a good question about sequestration. Again, I cannot comment, other than to say that we continue to look at the most viable legal route to bring about that good.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alyn Smith Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
The International Monetary Fund estimates that Ukraine needs $37 billion this year just to manage the books. There is a special European Council meeting on Thursday to sign off a package of €50 billion in aid to Ukraine. The UK Government have been part of that coalition, so can the Minister assure us that Ukraine fatigue will not set in here? There is backing across the House for the continuation of these supportive efforts, and surely the most effective way to get aid to Ukraine is to transfer the seized Russian assets to finance for Ukraine’s reconstruction.
Leo Docherty
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we feel no fatigue when it comes to our Ukraine policy. We have exceeded last year’s commitment in terms of lethal aid, and we will be contributing a huge amount of other aid and economic support. Since 2022, our total humanitarian, economic and military support has risen to more than £12 billion, which I think demonstrates that our resolve is unflagging.
International Human Rights Abuses: UK Response
Alyn Smith Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
You bounced me out of writing my speech, Dame Maria. [Laughter.] It is a pleasure to wind up for the SNP in this important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) on securing the debate; it is a very timely discussion, and a pretty bleak one for those of us who believe in international co-operation and the rules-based international order.
This is close to the SNP’s heart. Our objective as a party is for Scotland to be an independent state. In order to be a global citizen, there is a need to look after our folks at home but also to be a voice for internationalism, progress, multilateralism, co-operation and the rule of law in the world. As a party, we are heavily invested in making the rules-based international order function. We believe in an international community—not global governance, but an international community and structured permanent co-operation—and we believe that that architecture should operate to a series of values that are universally applied against our friends and others.
This debate is close to our hearts. It is a bleak time that we find ourselves living through. It is important to remember a bit of historical context to this. As an SNP Member and an out and proud nationalist for Scotland, I would say that the UK has a good story to tell on the creation of the international human rights architecture. It was English and Scots lawyers who were absolutely integral to the creation of the Council of Europe’s human rights framework and the international court in Strasbourg. UK lawyers have been instrumental in helping to promote the case of human rights worldwide, particularly through the Commonwealth mechanisms, such as they are; we could improve on them, but they do exist and they have made progress. The UK has a good story to tell on this, and I want to see the UK do better than it has done lately.
I will come back to some concrete suggestions, but the fact that the original genesis of human rights—the idea that an individual should be empowered against their Government with rights, which should be protected by an international community—is a genius idea of international co-operation, which we should all cherish and aspire to. This has been adopted, of course, by the EU and the international NGOs, particularly the UN. Human rights have not been universally applied, but that is something that we should aspire to as an international community.
As an aspiring member of the international community as an independent Scotland and part of the international community as part of the UK, I want to see all of us do better. I want to work across borders. I will work with anybody to those ends from any political perspective because the baddies are organised; the baddies are working well. Those on the right side of that ledger—I would include all in this room in that—need to co-operate better, focus more and apply international law wherever we find it being infringed.
It is a bleak time. The SNP was very proudly part of the coalition in support of UK Government policy. We had questions, but we did support UK Government policy on Ukraine, because Ukraine suffered a grievous invasion from a foreign power and the rights of the people of Ukraine have been grievously infringed and continue to be infringed daily. I am sure the SNP is part of the coalition in defence of Ukraine’s liberty and the rights of the Ukrainian people to live without fear from their neighbours.
It would be difficult to say that the UK has been so active in the case of Israel and Palestine. If human rights are to be applied everywhere, they need to be applied universally—against our friends as well as everybody else. So, I strongly support the South African referral of the actions of the State of Israel to the international frameworks. There is a case to answer. I do not believe that individual politicians should use words like “genocide” lightly. I think there should be proper investigations and it should be proper authorities making such decisions, but there is surely cause for concern; surely the evidence that we have seen coming out of Israel and Gaza and Palestine should give us all cause for concern that there is a case to answer—that the State of Israel has committed war crimes, and that must have consequences—so I strongly support the referral by the South Africans to the international framework.
The executive director of Human Rights Watch, I think, puts it best:
“The Human Rights System is Under Threat”
—worldwide. There is not a continent where human rights are not being infringed, either by the state, by non-state actors, or in various places by proxy actors. It’s a messy world out there. I think it was Adlai Stevenson who said that to every question there is an answer that is clear, easy to understand and entirely wrong. I do not expect the UK to be the world’s policeman. I do not expect our Minister to be responsible for solving all these problems, but an international coalition needs to be put together to work on them. The UK could do rather more than we have seen to date in those efforts.
I have a few concrete suggestions. I am about to make some criticism of some UK Government Ministers. I would specifically exempt the Minister present from that criticism; I have not heard him put a foot wrong on these matters, and I do believe that he deeply shares these values. But where we see UK Government Ministers talking about breaking international law in a “limited and specific way” with regard to the Northern Ireland protocol, that is just not how serious Government Ministers and serious Governments talk. That is not how we should be discussing these things. Where we see leading Members of the Government party talking about “unelected foreign judges” in Strasbourg—somehow unqualified judges, as well—as if our judges are elected and as if the members of the court in Strasbourg or Luxembourg are not deeply qualified individuals, it is just not how serious countries talk. The reputational damage to the UK—I am an SNP member, so I should be enjoying this, but I am not. The UK needs to do better with this. We know it is loose talk from loose cannons, but the very worst people worldwide are taking the very worst lessons from this and that should give us all pause.
We are also seeing, as a matter of Government policy, the Rwanda Bill, which has deep implications for international law, yet breaking international obligations to some of the most vulnerable people in the world is being trumpeted as if it was a mere bagatelle. It is a deeply significant piece of legislation and it gives the very worst example to the baddies in the world, who are looking to undermine this international structure that we are all surely invested in.
Speaking of investment, I appreciate that all budgets everywhere at this time are difficult, but we still need to see greater investment from the UK, not only in international aid and development but specifically in the international human rights architecture. That is supporting NGOs in the field; I echo all colleagues who have specifically praised international NGOs such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and many others that are active in this space.
We also need to see specific funding for NGOs that are working on investigations and accountability mechanisms, greater support for UN mechanisms for accountability and support for journalists, who have been mentioned by a number of colleagues today. If we do not know what is going on, we will not be able to hold the baddies to account; journalists have a privileged and special place in law, so we need to see that being applied by the international community. The UK really is in a position to have much more influence in that respect.
We also need to see prioritisation of human rights in trade policy. One of the oft-stated advantages of leaving the European Union is that the UK has an independent trade policy, so let us see human rights being put far higher up that agenda than we have seen so far.
I remember that during my time in the European Parliament there was always a human rights component of all EU trade deals. My group almost always voted against trade deals on the basis that the human rights component of such deals was not strong enough. We were not against the trade deals; we just thought that the EU could do more to nudge partner countries in a better direction. The UK really has not prioritised human rights in trade deals at all and we must see much better efforts in that respect. So far, we have seen too little progress.
We also need to apply the values that we all support equally, whether it is difficult to do so or not. We are very vocal about the infringement of the rights of the Ukrainian people, but we have been posted missing on the infringement of the rights of the Palestinian people. We need to do so much better than we are doing currently. However, where there is an international coalition that will work in that direction—I believe that, on balance, the UK has a better story to tell than many other countries—I will be part of that coalition. I believe in working across borders and across parties, because there is an international architecture that is fragile and under attack from all sides; and I believe that those of us who are on the right side of this discussion need to work more closely together to promote these ends.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alyn Smith Excerpts(11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
The UK is providing logistical and surveillance support to the state of Israel. Has any evidence come to light that gives concern about the commission of war crimes in the west bank or in Gaza?
Mr Mitchell
Britain is providing some overflight of Gaza to help us identify, and move forward the issue of recovering, the hostages. That is exactly the right thing to do.
Alyn Smith
To repeat the question, has any evidence come to light that gives concern about the commission of war crimes? Can the Minister assure us that any such evidence that comes to light will be sent over to the International Criminal Court in response to its call for evidence under article 86, with which the UK is surely bound to co-operate?
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Gentleman will know that it is not just the Government but many different organisations that are seeking to identify what is happening on the ground, and the extent to which international humanitarian law is being abided with. Any such evidence will undoubtedly be put before the relevant authority—the courts that he mentioned, specifically—if such evidence is available.
Israel and Palestine
Alyn Smith Excerpts(11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is good to see you in your place, Mr McCabe. It is a privilege to sum up for the SNP in this debate. I pay tribute to some really excellent contributions from colleagues across the House, but I have to say that I do so with a sense of deep sadness. All of us feel this personally. We are all of us connected to this patch of land. Israel and Palestine combined are smaller than the Strathclyde Regional Council area was, and yet the geopolitical implications and the links that the area has to communities worldwide and across all our islands are significant.
I feel it personally, too. I grew up in Saudi Arabia and, with my family, spent much of the ’80s in Riyadh. My folks have just retired, back from Kuwait. In the European Parliament, I was a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and served in the middle east working group. I have been back and forth to the region—Gaza, the west bank and Israel—many times, and I count myself a friend of all innocents. I count myself a friend of Israel and Palestine. I have never seen it as bad as I see it now; I have never felt more bleak and frankly more fearful for the future, not just in the region but in our communities, given the connections that we have to it.
The SNP’s position, on this as on all matters, is that international law has to be applied in all cases and in all circumstances. Our position is principled neutrality. We believe in a two-state solution, much as that is an increasingly forlorn hope, especially right now. We support all innocents. We condemn all violence. Having been back and forth to the region many times, I am well aware that each society is complex and each society is complicated, and I want to see the innocent protected in all societies.
We share the pain of everyone, but what we have seen too much of over the past few months is people minimising others’ pain and legitimising ongoing violence on the basis of pain inculcated into their own communities over many decades. We heard powerful testimony about how dreadful the 7 October attacks were. Of course they were—they absolutely were—but history did not start on 7 October, and to minimise anyone’s pain is not to help a just solution.
Some facts, because it is worth agreeing on some facts: Israel has a right to exist; it has a right to exist within its borders; it has a right to defend itself, proportionately; Hamas are a terrible organisation, a terrorist organisation; the 7 October attacks were barbarism that we unreservedly condemn. But the response to those attacks is redrawing the map of the middle east before our very eyes, and yet again the Palestinian people have been comprehensively let down by the international community.
I fear that what is happening now is going to fuel extremism. It is going to fuel antisemitism and Islamophobia —it is possible to be equally concerned about the rise of both, in all our communities. I fear that the events in the middle east right now could create real problems within our own societies, across the whole of Europe and indeed the world.
In our Committees, we have seen a huge interest from the public, as seen by the response to the petitions: “Remain neutral in Israel-Palestine conflict and withdraw support for Israel”, “Seek a ceasefire and to end Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip” and “Urge the Israel Government to allow fuel, electricity and food into Gaza”. The SNP supports all those petitions. We believe that they would go towards a just peace.
We are very proud of the role that we played in the King’s Speech debate in forcing the House to a vote on an amendment on the need for a ceasefire, because we believe we need a ceasefire. I appreciate that others disagree, but surely peace has to be built on a cessation of hostilities. I take all the points about Hamas. I am a gay man; Hamas throw people like me off high buildings. I carry no torch for anyone within this conflict, but surely peace has to be based on a ceasefire and a dialogue.
We lost that vote on the King’s Speech, which I regret—I pay tribute to all colleagues who supported it—but we will not give up. We have heard a number of references to the 2009 precedent that in supporting UN Security Council resolution 1860 on ending Operation Cast Lead, the UK was influential, with the European Union, in changing the US position. It was influential on changing the reality on the ground. It was influential in creating peace.
We need that again. We need it again because the Israeli Government are going in entirely the wrong direction. The Israeli Government are acting with what seems to be impunity. They are funnelling cash into new settlements right now. We see that happening, and I fear that the long-term consequences will be utterly unsustainable and will undermine any possibility of a just peace.
Andrew Percy
The hon. Gentleman is making a relatively even-handed speech and I would not quite say that I disagree, but as he knows, the consequence of previous ceasefires was the continued building up of the terror network in Gaza and the continued aiming of thousands of rockets, each one of them aimed at civilians. The consequence was the much greater murder of innocents that we saw on 7 October. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is genuine in his desire for a ceasefire, but what is his policy for how we rid Hamas—who we all hate equally, I hope—from the governance of the Gaza strip?
Alyn Smith
The hon. Gentleman makes an important intervention. I agree that we need to rid the region of Hamas for the benefit of the Palestinians in Gaza as well as the wider region, but I do not see that there is a military answer to that, and I do not see the military campaign as being that successful in its eradication, frankly. What we are seeing is disproportionate attacks on civilians. Particularly in northern Gaza but increasingly in the south, we are seeing any prospect of a viable two-state solution or a viable community for people to go back to being ruined. That is targeting, perhaps indirectly, the civilians in the region. That fuels the conditions in which Hamas prosper and makes it easier for Hamas to continue. So we disagree on that: I think a ceasefire has to happen in order to allow talks—however difficult, however painful—to progress, because Hamas are not going away.
We need to go further than a ceasefire. I will make a couple of points to the Minister, who knows I have much respect for him. We need, surely, to focus more on accountability in the long term. We are seeing individuals—non-state actors or otherwise—acting with what seems to be a lack of accountability. We surely need to support the International Criminal Court’s investigation and its call for evidence. The UK is in a position to be particularly influential within that. We are seeing war crimes, and war crimes need to be properly investigated by proper authorities. I do not think that politicians ourselves should shoot from the hip on such matters, but we need a proper investigation by the proper authorities, and that needs to be supported by the UK, surely.
We need to see a greater focus on the proxy violence by settlers in the west bank and Jerusalem, because we are seeing the map of the middle east being redrawn before our eyes. The prospect of a two-state solution is being utterly undermined by the policies of the Israeli Government right now, today. That has to stop, and there must be accountability for it. The map is being redrawn, and that surely has to result in consequences in law. We also—this is another point for the Minister—need to stop aiding Israel in its military action, because to my mind there is sufficient and genuine concern about matériel supplied being misused against civilians, however indirectly or accidentally. Surely there is sufficient concern that in order to help a peace, the UK should stop supplying logistical and surveillance support to the state of Israel and its actions, because they are disproportionate.
I do believe that a just peace is possible. I do believe that the eastern Mediterranean could be paradise, but it has been blighted by the legacy of empire and blighted by corruption, religious politics, political religion and all sorts of other issues. What we are seeing right now is going to have great consequence for our communities into the future, and for the region. We should support peace. We should support a ceasefire. If the Minister is looking to work on that, I will back him all the way.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alyn Smith Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
We all want to see a stable western Balkans. To my mind, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe is in a strong position to cohere those efforts. Does the Minister agree with that assessment and that the OSCE will need more resources to help achieve the stable western Balkans that we all want to see?
Leo Docherty
I do agree and I think it is a hugely valuable platform. We must ensure that efforts to deliver good impact from the OSCE are not derailed by Putin’s machinations.
Oral Answers to Questions
Alyn Smith Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
We would all agree that NATO is the cornerstone of defence policy, and, like many other colleagues, we support Sweden’s membership. However, the EU defence capacity is evolving at lightspeed because of events in Ukraine and events within the EU. We are seeing with the peace instrument, the strategic compass and procurement policy, that the UK really does risk being left behind in many of the discussions outwith NATO. Is it not time for a comprehensive security treaty between the UK and the EU to regulate these discussions?
James Cleverly
We enjoy a strong series of bilateral relations with EU member states and a strong relationship with the EU at the corporate level. However, I repeat that NATO is the foundation stone for the Euro-Atlantic defence structure. I have had that conversation with many Foreign Ministers from EU countries, and they agree. That is why we are committed to strengthening NATO and why at the Vilnius summit we aspire to have Sweden as a full member. However, we also need to progress the modernisation process for NATO to ensure that it continues to be fit for the future. That will be our aim. NATO is what keeps us safe in the Euro-Atlantic area.
Overseas Territories
Alyn Smith Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is a genuine pleasure to wind up for the SNP in this genuinely very interesting debate. I pay tribute to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), for bringing this important subject forward.
I think it is safe to say that the SNP’s world view on this stuff is different from many of the views we have heard from colleagues today. Global Britain is not our project. For the SNP, our vision for Scotland’s future—Scotland’s best future—is as an independent state going back into the European Union, acceding to NATO and, indeed, acceding to the Commonwealth in our own right. We recognise that the UK is the successor state for a lot of the relationships we have been talking about today, and our primary interaction with the overseas territories would be via the Commonwealth frameworks and, indeed, our close friendly relationship with the UK post independence.
I say that global Britain is not our project, but it is worth stressing to colleagues that I do not wish it harm. The overseas territories are important partners and the UK is going to be an important partner for an independent Scotland, so even if our world view comes to pass—I accept that many colleagues do not want that to happen —we want to see the overseas territories do well, and we want to see a deep and flourishing partnership between the UK and those overseas territories.
Self-determination is part of the SNP’s DNA and we would go further even than the United Nations. We believe that the right of people to choose their Government and choose their constitutional arrangements is absolutely fundamental to democracy. We recognise that the right to self-determination under the UN charter is limited to cases of oppression, a post-colonial setting and, indeed, invasion, but we would go further than that. So we would utterly agree with colleagues who have expressed support for the overseas territories’ right to self-determination.
I recognise that, where that right to self-determination is a right to independence, it is also a right to decide to be a British overseas territory and to have whatever representation it wants to have within this framework. I think there are a number of ways that could be ameliorated and improved, but I deeply respect the choice of overseas territories to have whatever status they want and whatever representation they want as part of the British family, and I hope Members would accept my good faith when I say that.
However, with that right comes responsibilities. It is important that we take stock of the relationship with the overseas territories and the coronation of the new King is a good opportunity to do that. That stocktaking exercise is taking place across a number of the overseas territories themselves. We also need to take proper note of the choices that our decisions make on them. I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), who said that Brexit has not been kind to the overseas territories. We fundamentally agree on that point.
However, leaving the EU in the way that we did has upset the constitutional balance within the devolved settlement for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, indeed, London. All parts of the constitutional furniture within the UK were predicated on all of us being in the customs union, the single market and, indeed, the EU. That has been changed and it has also been changed for the overseas territories. We have heard much mention of Gibraltar. I had a number of talks with the Gibraltarian Government when I was a Member of the European Parliament trying to find some solutions for them. Likewise, fisheries quotas for the Falkland Islands and lots of other things besides have not had the degree of attention that they deserve from this place, and I think there is a job for all of us to improve on that.
I agree with the point the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee made that, if the overseas territories are not foreign, dealing with them via the Foreign Office apparatus seems to be missing something of a trick. I suggest that Denmark and France particularly have ways of interacting with their overseas territories that would bear quite a bit of analysis from the FCDO and, indeed, the UK Government more widely, in finding new ways of doing this, but always accepting that it is up to the overseas territory to decide the interaction that it wants and it deserves. It is not for anyone to tell it what it should be.
Policy impact and policy coherence are deeply important. Friends can speak honestly to friends, and a number of the overseas territories are globally recognised industrial tax evasion centres. There are implications for us in that, especially in terms of the consequences of the stepping up of the Russian invasion; there is a role in sanctions busting there as well. Policy coherence is important, therefore. We are sanctioning Russian oligarchs and organisations and seizing dirty money, and the overseas territories have a very important role in that as well. I ask the Minister to pick up on comments about the need for a register of beneficial interests. That is deeply important for transparency both at home and abroad.
Daniel Kawczynski
The hon. Gentleman is making the very serious allegation that some British overseas territories are tax havens or being used in some nefarious way for funds. Which ones is he referring to and what evidence does he have for that?
Alyn Smith
I was going to be more polite and say some are and indeed some are not, but if the hon. Gentleman wants some statistics, in February 2022 Transparency International linked £830 million-worth of property in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies to individuals close to Russian President Vladimir Putin. In 2018 Global Witness said £34 billion was currently invested by Russians with links to the Russian Government in overseas territories. The Global Witness report of 2018 also said that £68.5 billion in foreign direct investment from Russian residents had been directed towards the overseas territories from 2007 to 2016. I acknowledge progress has been made by some of the overseas territories, but we also must speak frankly to our friends and there is an issue that needs to be dealt with.
Alicia Kearns
I touched briefly on this in my speech, but I want to make it clear that every overseas territory has fully complied with the sanctions that this House has placed as a result of the renewed illegal invasion of Ukraine—every single one—so while I agree that there is progress to be made in other areas, in this area we should give them full credit: they have stood behind us on that.
Alyn Smith
I agree, and I have pressed in a number of previous debates in this place for complementarity of the sanctions regime across the overseas territories and a number have done very well, but we must maintain vigilant on this. In the same way that London is a centre of dirty money, the overseas territories play a part in that network as well and we must be vigilant on that point.
On other obligations, reciprocity must go in both directions and I warmly recognise the role the overseas territories play in the fight to mitigate climate change and protect biodiversity. More can be done to support them in those efforts. So, it is right that we reassess our relationship with the overseas territories. They are an important partner in what we all want to see—the protection of biodiversity and the protection of people from climate change—and the UK can do more to recognise and support their efforts. The SNP wishes the Minister well in that endeavour.