Hong Kong: Sentencing of Pro-democracy Activists

Alyn Smith Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the sentencing of the Hong Kong pro-democracy activists Joshua Wong, Agnes Chow and Ivan Lam.

[The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)]

We are deeply concerned by recent developments in Hong Kong. As the Foreign Secretary made clear in the most recent six-monthly report on Hong Kong, this has been and continues to be the most concerning period in Hong Kong’s post-handover history. The apparent focus of the Hong Kong authorities now seems to be on retribution against political opposition and the silencing of dissent. In the light of our concerns, we have taken decisive action in relation to the erosions of rights, freedoms and autonomy in Hong Kong, specifically in response to the national security law. This has included a new immigration path for British nationals overseas, suspending our extradition treaty with Hong Kong and extending our arms embargo on mainland China to Hong Kong.

We have made clear our concerns about a number of ongoing cases, and that includes the sentencing of the pro-democracy activists Joshua Wong, Agnes Chow and Ivan Lam on 2 December and the charges laid against the major media proprietor Jimmy Lai on the same day. We understand that the three sentenced on 2 December pleaded guilty to inciting people to take part in an unauthorised rally last year. They were not charged under the national security law. As the Foreign Secretary made clear in his statement of 2 December, prosecution decisions must be fair and impartial, and the rights and freedoms guaranteed to the people of Hong Kong under the joint declaration must be upheld. Hong Kong’s prosperity and way of life rely on respect for fundamental freedoms, an independent judiciary and the rule of law.

British judges have played an important role in supporting the independence of Hong Kong’s judiciary for many years. That independence is a critical factor underpinning Hong Kong’s success. We want it to, and hope that it will, continue; however, the national security law that was imposed on Hong Kong in July poses real questions for the rule of law in Hong Kong, and the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms promised by China in the joint declaration. It is therefore right that the UK Supreme Court continues to assess the situation in Hong Kong, and the position of British judges, in discussion with the Government.

We have raised our concerns about these and other cases with senior members of the Hong Kong Government and the Beijing authorities, and we will continue to do so. We urge the Hong Kong and Beijing authorities to bring an end to their apparent campaign to stifle legitimate opposition, and to reconsider their current course. The Government will continue to work with international partners to hold China to account, as we did recently at the UN Third Committee on 6 October, where 39 countries expressed deep concern at the situation in Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet. The UK Government will continue to stand up for the people of Hong Kong and our historic responsibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alyn Smith]

I thank the Minister for his answer, and I find nothing to disagree with, but, as in previous discussions on Hong Kong across the House, we want more, and we want to see more action. The fact is that this is getting worse, not better, despite all the warm words that we have heard across the Chamber and, indeed, internationally. Joshua Wong was sentenced to 13 and a half months’ imprisonment, Agnes Chow to 10 months’, and Ivan Lam to seven months’, for offences that are at best trumped-up charges. That is a direct breach of the Hong Kong Basic Law, and of the Sino-British agreement, which guarantees one country, two systems.

These are not just breaches of human rights somewhere in the world of which we know nothing; they are direct breaches of the Sino-British agreement and direct infringements of personal rights, which the UK is guarantor of until 2047. We need far more action than we have seen. I do feel for our Minister. I have much respect for him. He did not make these decisions and he is not responsible for the internal workings of Hong Kong. We need to be realistic about what is achievable and what is not. For me, it is international action, concerted with our allies in the EU and internationally, that will force Beijing to change tack.

We have a number of ideas on what we can do now, here. We can push forward with Magnitsky sanctions. We have called for progress often enough; let us see some action on that now. We can do an audit of UK companies to check their involvement in slave labour with Chinese companies, because there is no question but that there are UK companies that are profiting directly from gross human rights infringements. We can take action on HSBC and other banks that are colluding with Beijing in order to enforce the national security law. We can also enforce further action in the fight against organised crime and fraud, which has been grievously weakened by events in Hong Kong.

We can also audit and shine a light upon the role of Confucius Institutes across our academic community within these islands, because there is no question but that they are involved in activities that go well beyond what their expected remit should be. On immigration, there is one point specifically that I would be grateful for an assurance from the Minister on. Joshua Wong, under current UK asylum legislation, would be barred from applying for asylum in the UK by this sentence, which we do not respect. Can the Minister assure me— perhaps this is a question for his colleagues as well—that the UK will look at reforming the asylum process to ensure that Hongkongers will have access to this country, and not be barred by trumped-up charges?

So international co-operation will lead on this. The UK has not been idle, but a lot more needs to be done because we are bound to the people of Hong Kong and they will not be forgotten by this House.

[Nigel Adams]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this question to the House. I know that it is a subject that we discuss on a regular basis, but it is only right that we do so, given our history with Hong Kong. He mentioned the case of Joshua Wong and the inability to claim asylum. There will, of course, have to be criminality checks for anyone who comes and claims asylum, but it would be perverse to turn away people from the UK because they have participated in democratic protests, like Mr Wong.

The hon. Gentleman talked about international co-ordination, and it is absolutely the case that we are working with international partners. We are focused on adding our voice to the widespread international concern to protect Hong Kong’s rights and freedom. We do not rule out any diplomatic options, and we will keep the position under review. He referenced sanctions; of course, we have had this discussion before. We are actively considering, and will continue to consider, designations under our global human rights sanctions regulations, but I am sure that he will totally understand that it would not be appropriate to speculate on who may be designated under the sanctions regime in future.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned HSBC. We do not comment on issues related to individual private companies. Businesses will make their own judgment calls, and they will be judged on those calls, but we made an historic commitment to protect the autonomy, rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong, and so has China.

Official Development Assistance

Alyn Smith Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. He is absolutely right, and he said it at the outset: we make this decision with regret. I do not want to be in a position of having to change any of the ODA spend. I know how valuable it can be and, notwithstanding our absolute commitment to strategically focus it on the places and people who need it the most and the areas of maximum UK interest, of course this is something we do with regret. We do it as a matter of necessity, given the economic situation we face, and it will be temporary, in that we will revert to 0.7% as soon as the fiscal position allows.

My hon. Friend asked a range of questions about whether we could reconfigure money. We are not going to unilaterally pull out of the DAC rules, but he makes a good case for reform of the DAC rules. For example, some of the military spend, particularly on peace keeping and other things, is not counted. Clearly, it is not just good for military security in the countries where it is focused but an important element of soft power, and it is something we should do. However, I think that the right thing to do is to work on that reform from within DAC, rather than pulling out unilaterally, and that will take some time to do, but I take on board his comments.

My hon. Friend asked how we will make sure we get back to the target, and I am very happy to keep talking to him about that. The No. 1 thing in my view, and I would gently suggest this to him, is that we are still spending £10 billion next year on ODA. When I think of what he said about his constituents and how they will feel about the latest measures—we all are challenged by this—I think that they will think that we are making difficult decisions, but the right ones and the justifiable ones, in the very exacting situation in which we find ourselves.

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

To govern is to choose. As one Government to another—of course, the SNP has been in government since 2007—we understand that it is difficult. We are in unprecedented times; there are tough choices; and a lot of people are afraid and feeling very vulnerable. However, there will always be domestic pressure on the aid budget, and the UK Government have made a choice—an active choice—of deep consequence.

The fact is that this is not what was promised. This is not what was promised to the people of Scotland in 2014. This is not what was promised in the Conservative manifesto 11 months ago. The Foreign Secretary talks about scrutiny of spend, and I absolutely agree, but my inbox—I dare say colleagues feel the same—is unanimous this morning against this move. It is fair to say that in Scotland we have a disproportionate interest in international development, because of the history we have with our churches, our non-governmental organisations, our trade unions and our universities. Civic Scotland is keen on international development, and DFID—now merged, of course, into the FCDO—is based in East Kilbride. This is a betrayal: not just a betrayal of those promises, but a betrayal of some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world, who are also facing covid, the economic consequences and climate change, and they are going to be left by this in a dreadful situation.

When I say it is a betrayal, I would actually exempt the Foreign Secretary from that. I do not think that this is coming from him. I do not think that he has stopped it, but I do not think it is actually coming from him. I think that it is coming from the people around him and behind him. They are the people in the shadows, with their phoney think-tanks and their blogs. They are the people who proudly denigrate international aid because it is against their project and the people who want to link international aid to trade policy in the most grubby way possible. They are the people who get excited about a red, white and blue flag on a tail fin, and the people who think that what we need right now to buoy our spirits is a new royal yacht. They are the people who want to spend, as the Government have committed to doing, £120 million on a festival of Brexit—ye Gods!

We have today a moment of real clarity and divergence—that Scotland and the UK are two different places with two different ambitions on two different paths. It is a matter of fact that the cynics were right. After the UK’s politicisation of aid by merging DFID into the FCDO, there has been a crippling raid on its budget. DFID in East Kilbride is a deeply sad place this morning. Scotland independent—because of our interests, our history, our capacity and our ambition—will put international development at its heart. We will be committed to 0.7%, and it is clearer than ever today to the people of Scotland that the best way to achieve that aid policy, to be that global citizen, is independence.

[Dominic Raab]

First, may I say in relation to East Kilbride, and notwithstanding the pressures we face, we will be expanding the UK Government Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in East Kilbride because we know the great work that it does and because we are stronger on the international stage when we are united?

The hon. Gentleman said that this decision was not what was promised in 2014 or at the last election. I hesitate to remind him that that was before the pandemic and the coronavirus, and before we were faced with—[Interruption.] Well, he is quite right to say that there are always domestic pressures and competing priorities in relation to the public finances, but we are not under any normal set of circumstances. We have got the worst economic contraction in over 300 years. We have a deficit double the size that we faced after the last financial crash, and we are having to make very difficult decisions. If he thinks we have made the wrong decision, I would like to hear from the SNP—a rhetorical, not an actual question—what he thinks should be cut in the investments the Chancellor announced yesterday in order to hit 0.7%.

The hon. Gentleman referred—in what I thought was actually pretty unsavoury language—to a crippling raid on ODA. We will spend £10 billion next year. His inbox may be different from mine, but I think our constituents will understand, because they live in the real world, that we have to make difficult decisions. This is still an extraordinary contribution that the taxpayers of this country will make to alleviate suffering and poverty around the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alyn Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the answer to this lies in global co-operation. The United Kingdom is leading from the front, and we are pressing foreign Governments for greater action and higher commitments at the climate ambition summit on 12 December. Our posts across the globe have engaged with host Governments, businesses and civil society on climate change issues ahead of COP26, and we will continue to do so in the run-up to the climate ambition summit this December.

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

Climate change is going to drive the future crisis that humanity is facing. Parts of the world will get wetter and parts drier, with all the world more climatically unstable, population growth and resource scarcity. Climate change is going to be at the heart of every crisis that we are going to face.

The UK is undertaking the integrated review of foreign and defence policy right now. I will be grateful for an assurance from the Minister that climate change will be high on the agenda of that review, and that he will take good note of the Scottish National party’s suggestions, which we submitted to the review in good faith. We all need to work together on this, because climate change is a crisis facing humanity as a whole.

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Member is right to highlight the fact that climate change is going to be an important factor in the foreign policy of all countries around the world. We recognise that in terms of pressure on food production and resources, the potential implications and the conflicts that may come about because of that. That is why climate change and our response to it, development and diplomacy will all go hand in hand through the integrated review.

[Alyn Smith]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reassurance. I suggest that he has a read of the SNP submission to the integrated review. There are some very good ideas in there, not least to maintain development at the heart of climate mitigation and to fund it properly. If I were a Minister in a Government who stood on a manifesto in December to maintain 0.7%, I would be considering my position were that to be walked back upon. Is he considering his?

[James Cleverly]

I am very proud of the fact that the United Kingdom is and will remain one of the most generous aid donors in the world. We have focused relentlessly on ensuring that the work of the United Kingdom Government across all Departments focuses on addressing the poorest in the world, as well as the implications of climate change.

Nigeria: Sanctions Regime

Alyn Smith Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and to take part in such a cross-party consensual discussion. I am glad to have heard some excellent contributions from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House about events in Nigeria. I, too, warmly congratulate the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) on securing the debate and the drafters of the petition. Above all else, I commend the #EndSARS movement, which has done so much to shine a bright light on the corruption and oppressive practices of the regime in Lagos.

I have read the Government’s response to the petition carefully and I have some concerns. Nigeria is not a far-off place of which we know nothing. The UK has clear links to the issue and to Nigeria, historically and in future. We have influence and we could use a lot more of it. We know that the UK funded, supplied equipment for, and trained the police and paramilitary forces that we now know have been involved in abuses. At the very least, we need an urgent review of the UK’s involvement in those programmes. I would be glad of an undertaking from the Minister this evening that such a review is under way.

On the Magnitsky sanctions that have been called for, the Government’s response to the petition says:

“This sanctions regime will give the UK a powerful new tool to hold to account those involved in serious human rights violations or abuses.”

I have yet to hear any hon. Member speak against the Magnitsky regime; we all support it, but it is only a tool if it is used. I appreciate that speculation is unhelpful, but we need some announcements.

I am glad that in his discussion with the Governor of Lagos on 11 November, the Minister for Africa, the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), called for an investigation into the specific instances that we have heard of. Can we have an update on how that investigation is going? Can we also have an undertaking that there will be consequences of the findings of that investigation and that if it has been insufficient, there will be an independent review?

More generally, we need to look in the round at whether the UK’s actions help or hinder the aims of the #EndSARS protests. Between 2015 and 2020, the UK licensed arms exports and riot control equipment to the tune of £43 million. At the very least, pending a review of our actions and the effect of the UK’s foreign policy and trade policy in Nigeria, we should surely suspend arms exports to the country.

The #EndSARS movement could be a new Arab spring for Nigeria. Given the demographic and economic forces in play, the enthusiasm is there. We must learn from history and not let the #EndSARS movement down as we did the Arab spring. That would be a tragedy and would bring culpability on us even more.

It is not enough to express solidarity while aiding, abetting, arming and funding the oppressors. The UK has a case to answer. We need to look at the consequences of our actions and make sure that we do all we can to ensure accountability on the ground. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

Hong Kong

Alyn Smith Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his continued efforts on this issue, and for working positively with the Government. We will continue to consider designations under the sanctions regulations. I fear I am repeating myself, but he will know, given his background, that it is not appropriate to speculate on who may be designated in the future, as putting that on the record may well reduce the impact of the designations. I completely agree with his opening comments, but we have offered a new immigration path for BNOs; we have suspended our extradition treaty with Hong Kong; we have extended our arms embargo on mainland China to cover Hong Kong; and we have led international efforts to hold China to its international obligations. Gaining 39 signatures at the UN is no mean feat. We have also, rightly, consistently raised our concern with the Chinese authorities.

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]]

I try to be fair, and I have much respect for the Minister. I listened to his statement carefully, and anyone would accept that there are limited things that the UK Government can do about the internal workings of the Chinese state. It would be unfair to say that the UK Government have done nothing on this, but it would be fair to say that they have not done much of any consequence—certainly nothing that has elicited a change of heart from Beijing. I reiterate colleagues’ calls for Magnitsky sanctions. We are not looking for speculation; we are looking for announcements, which are overdue. I appreciate that it is difficult, but we need to take that forward.

There are things that the Government can do, and that are in their control. I would be interested to hear plans for an audit of Chinese engagement with our academic infrastructure, and particularly of Confucius institutes and their activities in the UK. We are overdue an audit of Chinese involvement in the UK’s physical, and data and communications, infrastructure, big chunks of which are being bought up by Chinese companies that are emanations of the Chinese state. We should also look at audits of UK companies engaged in trade in Hong Kong to make sure that they are not benefiting from slave labour. There are things that the UK Government can do domestically now, and I support calls for, and moves towards, our taking those steps.

[Nigel Adams]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his considered question. He is absolutely right to raise the issue of academic interference. UK universities are international at their core, and we warmly welcome overseas students, including from China, and the valuable contribution that they make, but we will not tolerate any attempt to interfere with academic freedom, or freedom of speech. As I have said before in the House, if any universities experience any attempts to undermine free debate, we encourage them to get in touch with the Government.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned data infrastructure. The long-term security and enduring resilience of our telecoms network are incredibly important, and we are taking difficult decisions to protect those interests. The position in January on high-risk vendors was based on the need to balance security with the need for us to level up and be a world leader in our digital infrastructure. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I am more than happy to have a direct meeting with him when he returns to London, as I have said to the Lib Dem and Labour spokespeople, the hon. Members for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock).

Jonathan Taylor: SBM Offshore

Alyn Smith Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton]

Under EU law, before deciding the Monégasque extradition request, Croatian courts should ask the UK law enforcement authorities if they wish to extradite Mr Taylor to the UK. It is however important that I explain that this is a CPS/police matter, and they do not wish to extradite Mr Taylor to the UK.

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]]

I commend the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for bringing forward this issue; it is important for the House to take stock of it. I note the Minister’s comments on the Vienna convention and the inability to interfere in Monégasque or Croatian legal proceedings, but UK nationals have a right to avoid malicious prosecution and there is credible evidence that casts doubt on the case against this gentleman. The Minister said that the Government have been in touch with the Monégasque authorities. When do we expect an answer? Will the Minister assure us that, if the evidence brought forward is not credible, she will be vocal in her view that it is not credible and basis for extradition?

[Wendy Morton]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have approached the Monégasque prosecutor’s office to obtain more information. I cannot be certain about when we will get a response, but we continue to take the case seriously. As I have made clear, if further evidence comes forward, we will look at that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alyn Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton]

As I clearly indicated, we remain very concerned about this conflict, and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise it. That is why we are continuing to work to urge both parties back to the table to have dialogue, and to use the Minsk process to further that.

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I have two very concrete points. We are all concerned about the risk of a proxy war within this, because there are more than two sides to the conflict. What steps are the UK Government taking to make sure that no UK-made armaments, or indeed UK citizens, are finding their way into this theatre?

[Wendy Morton]

Again, the hon. Gentleman is right to raise this important point. On armaments, we have export licences in place and a very rigorous process to deal with applications with regard to any country, and that is always kept under careful and continual review. We are aware of many media reports that other countries are providing military support, for example, but we absolutely maintain a commitment to encouraging and urging both sides to come back to the table and have the dialogue that is needed.

[Alyn Smith]

I gently suggest that there is something for us to follow up in that, because there is a great deal of concern that UK armaments and people are finding their way into this theatre.

On a wider point, does the Minister share my concern about Turkey’s increasingly belligerent statements in the wider region? She will be aware of yesterday’s statement by the EU High Representative, Josep Borrell, about the retaking of the Varosha settlement in northern Cyprus, which continues to be illegally occupied. What discussions is she having with Ankara in order to strongly stress our defence of international law?

[Wendy Morton]

In terms of Turkey, the Defence Secretary discussed the conflict during a recent visit to Ankara and again agreed that de-escalation was the best option for all. I reiterate that, as the Foreign Secretary has said on previous occasions, we urge all external parties and friends of both states to redouble their efforts in support for an end to these hostilities and to refrain from taking actions that risk deepening the crisis. As co-chair of the Minsk group, Russia has a role in working to end the conflict too.

Belarus: Presidential Elections

Alyn Smith Excerpts

Thursday 24th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to him and the work of his Committee. I had a detailed discussion on this with Heiko Maas, my German opposite number, at Chevening, along with Jean-Yves Le Drian, my French opposite number. We have made it clear, as my hon. Friend will know, that we have our reservations and concerns about Nord Stream 2, both from the point of view of its encouraging European energy dependence on Russia, but also the impact on Ukraine. Equally, it is quite important, given the lead Germany has taken with Alexei Navalny and in relation to the work we need to do together on Belarus, that we maintain European solidarity. My hon. Friend’s points are well made and, of course, our European partners know the UK position.

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of the statement, and I am pleased to commend him on the tone and content of it. It is important that we in this House are not ashamed to say that we stand united with the brave protesters in Belarus. Having said that, the statement includes a number of measures that I called for myself in the last FCDO questions, so it would be churlish not to support them now, and I am glad to see that progress.

I make only a couple of concrete points in relation to the statement. At FCDO questions last week, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), undertook to meet the Belarusian diaspora here in London. I am conscious that meeting has not happened yet because of diary pressures, but could I urge that that meeting be expedited? There are a lot of good ideas there.

I warmly support the triggering of the Moscow mechanism in the OSCE, but can the Foreign Secretary give us some indication of the timescale of that investigation, because there will be pressures for this to be a long-grass exercise, but I think this is rather more urgent and a quite straightforward investigation in practice. On the Magnitsky sanctions, I am very pleased to see the action in conjunction with the US and others, but does the Foreign Secretary share my disappointment at the lack of unanimity in the EU because of the Cypriot Government’s position, and will he express that disappointment and urge his counterparts in Cyprus to change their view?

A concerted effort is needed to support the Belarusian activists. The statement contained a nuanced approach, and the Foreign Secretary can rest assured of my party’s support for this approach going forward.

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Gentleman and welcome both the substance of what he said and the spirit of solidarity, which is now unbroken across the House. He asked about our reaching out to members of the Belarusian opposition and civil society. He is right, of course, that covid has restrained that a bit, although the Minister for Europe has spoken to two of the leading opposition figures, and therefore we do provide that support in principle, but also in practice.

The hon. Gentleman rightly asked about the timeframe for the OSCE investigation. It will want to proceed as expeditiously as possible. We want that conclusion. I think it is quite important for the international community as a whole to be able to support action to see an independent international investigation under the auspices of the very well regarded and respected OSCE. At the same time, I want to give it the time and space to do its job properly, because its credibility also rests on that. I therefore do not have a specific deadline that it has been set, but he makes a sensible point about time.

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the lack of a common position in the EU. We hope that it will arrive at that. We have certainly encouraged it; we have been on the ambitious end in those discussions. But of course one of the advantages that we have as we leave, with the Magnitsky sanctions in place, is that we are not limited or fettered by that. That is why, at the same time as welcoming and working with our European partners, we are in a position with our American and Canadian friends to proceed with the Magnitsky sanctions, which we will do as soon as possible.

Yemen

Alyn Smith Excerpts

Thursday 24th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

I too congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on bringing forward the debate, and I pay tribute to him for his long-standing and committed interest in the region, along with a number of other colleagues. It is right that we should discuss Yemen today. It is difficult to imagine how any more tragedies could befall that poor benighted country.

I hope that in the short time I have been a Member of this House, I have proven that I am naturally bipartisan and consensual in my politics. I believe we solve most problems on the centre ground, and that is where we need to meet to find solutions. I am not in the business of pretending that there is difference where there is none in our approach. In that spirit, on Yemen, we on the SNP Benches fundamentally disagree with the actions of the UK Government.

It is dangerous, of course, to view any international affairs or foreign affairs matter in black and white terms, and Yemen more than most, but there is a fundamental dichotomy in the UK’s approach to Yemen. We have heard that the UK is the third biggest humanitarian donor. I pay tribute to that and praise it. We have also heard that the UK has committed considerable diplomatic resource to try to find a peace in the region. I acknowledge and pay tribute to that as well. But those actions, praiseworthy as they are, are completely overshadowed by the role of the UK as a supplier of arms for the continuation of that conflict. I am not naive—the reality is that the UK has chosen a side in the conflict, and therefore cannot claim clean hands in the promotion of peace.

It is not just the UK, and I acknowledge that this is a complicated region, but these are not just my concerns. I refer the House to the UN Human Rights Council report from 14 September, which says, in paragraph 25:

“Notwithstanding the strong recommendations by the Group of Experts in its previous reports, third States, including Canada, France, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United Kingdom…and the United States of America, continued their support of parties to the conflict including through arms transfers, thereby helping to perpetuate the conflict.”

I am not a pacifist. We on the SNP Benches are not pacifists, and we are not naive. We are not against arms exports. But in that spirit, it is incumbent on the Government to acknowledge that there are grave and legitimate doubts over the legality and morality of continuing arms exports to the Saudi regime for use in Yemen. Other countries have embargoes in place and I strongly urge the UK to follow suit; however, that plea may fall on deaf ears.

I urge the UK to go further. The arms export regime we have in this state is not sufficiently robust or transparent. The SNP would take that responsibility away from the Department for International Trade and give it to a bipartisan committee of this House to ensure greater transparency and, indeed, a hope for consensus on where the UK’s arms go.

We may disagree on that effort, but I will end with a plea on which perhaps we can see more progress. In Yemen, winter is coming, and on 15 September Mark Lowcock, the UN Under-Secretary-General for humanitarian affairs, reported to the UN Security Council that the UN’s appeals have received barely 30% of the funding necessary to alleviate the famine for 9 million people. If the United Kingdom Government will not change tack on arms exports, perhaps the Minister, who I have much respect for and who I believe has a nuanced approach to this, could commit to at least alleviating the problems that our foreign policy is causing.

Occupied Palestinian Territories

Alyn Smith Excerpts

Thursday 24th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) on bringing this subject forward today. I also congratulate him on a speech that, frankly, I wish I had made myself; I associate myself warmly with it.

It was interesting that the hon. Member started with what this debate is not about, and that is worth restating. This debate is not about being pro or anti Jew or Muslim, Israeli or Palestinian. The reality on the ground is far more complex. It is about our being consistent in our application of international law. A few other things also bear restatement. Israel has a right to exist. It is an important partner for the European Union and the UK. It has a right to security within its borders—the 1967 borders, which are the only legal borders recognised. I regard myself as a friend of Israel and a friend of Palestine. My party takes a position of principled neutrality on this matter. We favour, as do many others, a two-state solution. We condemn any violence against anyone, whoever it is perpetrated by, and we condemn any breach of international law.

Any discussion of the middle east by outsiders is bedevilled by a wilfully short memory on occasion and wilful partial-sightedness. We have heard some of that today. The Trump plan is the worst example of it lately. The Trump plan is not a serious basis for talks—quite the reverse. It rewards bad, illegal behaviour, and should be rejected out of hand. The Israel-UAE and Israel-Bahrain accords are to be welcomed as far as they go—any dialogue and co-operation surely has to be welcomed—but they themselves ignore the 2002 Arab peace initiative condition that any normalisation of relations is contingent on the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. The developments in the middle east are bedevilled by a series of year zeros that seek to erase what happened before. These accords in themselves do nothing in international law to change or erase Israel’s obligations as an occupying power under international humanitarian law.

We have heard from the Government Benches that settlements are one issue among many or that they are not a significant barrier to peace. I find that a remarkable analysis, which I utterly reject. I would contend quite the reverse. The settlements are the primary obstacle to a two-state solution, in that they have rendered Palestinian territory an ungovernable archipelago.

The formal annexation seems to have receded for the moment, but the occupation continues, and the occupation undermines a two-state solution. We should remember that under the UK Government’s own policy settlements are illegal. Contact with them should be illegal also. Settlement produce is stolen goods and there should be consequences in dealing in it, so I have some concrete questions for the Minister. Will the UK ban settlement goods? Failing that, will we at least clearly label them so that consumers can make choices? Following the formal publication of the UN list of companies trading with settlements, what action will the Government take against JCB, Opodo and Greenkote, who continue that illegal trade?

We all favour a just peace for all in the middle east, but it must be based on a clear-eyed assessment and application of international law. The UK Government could be doing more to encourage that discussion.