Turkish Incursion into Northern Syria

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that her constituents do and their generosity, and I thank the charitable organisations that work in her constituency. We cannot expect voluntary contributions alone, or even predominantly, to address the scale of the humanitarian suffering that we will now see in Syria. Not only DFID and the Foreign Office but all our international limbs of Government are working closely with all our international partners. I can write to her with the exact amount of money that we are putting into humanitarian relief and aid in that conflict, but it is substantial, and we will continue to do it.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

The whole House will agree with the words that the Foreign Secretary spoke about the actions of Turkey, but the whole world knows that they are happening only because of a decision by the President of the United States. Has the Foreign Secretary or anyone in the British Government conveyed to the White House the view that his decision is not just the action of a very bad ally of the Kurds but the action of a poor ally of the UK?

[Dominic Raab]

We make clear our views on all these issues right across the range, even when we disagree, to all our partners, as I have made clear in relation to Turkey. The same applies with all our NATO allies. The point now is to bring our allies back together and see a bit more unity of purpose in dealing with the terrible conflict in Syria, the overarching strategic threat that we all face from Daesh and alleviation of the humanitarian crisis that we all agree is utterly deplorable. It needs to be alleviated both for the individuals affected in the region and for the knock-on effects that it will have on the region and indeed Europe.

Hong Kong

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend has raised quite a few questions. Let me try to address just two of them.

When I was in Washington earlier this week, I had a chance to talk to Congressmen on both sides of the aisle about the United States legislation, and they are making progress in that regard. My hon. Friend also referred to the forthcoming anniversary on 1 October and some of the wider concerns beyond Hong Kong, and he mentioned Xinjiang. We are concerned about, for example, reports—and they are credible reports—of more than 1 million people being held in camps against their will. There is, I think, increasing international concern about that and about the repressive mistreatment of those people and its impact on China’s international human rights obligations. Let me again make the point that China is now a leading member of the international community. It is a P5 member of the Security Council, and it is very important for those basic international obligations to be respected.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

There is a long-standing affinity between many of my constituents and Hong Kong, primarily through family links or because they were posted there during service in the Army. There is particular concern about British national overseas passport holders and the rights that are afforded to them. The Foreign Secretary has made it very clear that he does not wish to look at the issue at the moment because it forms part of the agreement, and there is a logic to that, but would he be prepared to move quickly should there be some variance, shall we say, from that agreement in some other regard, in which event their rights might need to be re-examined very speedily?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady for the careful and measured way in which she asked that question. Our overarching effort now is to convey the message from the UK, but also from the international community, that the one country, two systems model is respected. It has implications for BNOs, and it has implications for autonomy and the right to peaceful protest in Hong Kong. They are all part of the same package. I am not going to start getting into what will happen if that package is ripped up on the other side, but I do think that—particularly given the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) about the question of troop movements and whether there might be a major intervention from Beijing—we need to be very clear about the fact that that would put at risk the model that China itself has advocated.

Institute for Statecraft: Integrity Initiative

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but a matter of that sort is for the Council of Europe and I know that the parliamentary representatives are discussing it. Russia has not paid its dues and this question is being discussed regularly.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

May I just observe that the Minister seems to be rather affronted by the anger felt on this side of the House, particularly by my Front-Bench colleagues, on this issue? He really need not; he ought to be sharing in that anger. Does he think that the investigation that he has undertaken so far is sufficient, or does he plan any further inquiry into this matter? Does he think he has done enough?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

No, I do not share in the anger because the accusations that are being made are misplaced and have been categorically denied. Right hon. Ladies and Gentlemen in particular should accept the assurance on that basis.

Exiting the European Union: Sanctions

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

It is my first opportunity to welcome you to your new seat in the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is great to see you there.

We have had a useful and informative debate this afternoon, although it has been slightly shorter than we anticipated because of other important debates. There have been some helpful contributions from across the House, including the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mrs Badenoch), who likened herself to her constituency’s namesake, spice. I am certain that she has a wonderful future ahead of her in this House and that her constituents will be, rightly, proud of her today. The hon. Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) spoke of his pride in his constituency’s boot-making heritage. His affection for his constituency was obvious and it was a treat to be in the Chamber to hear his maiden speech. Well done. I welcome both hon. Members to the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) spoke of the need for transitional arrangements. Surely this argument is all but over. There will be a transitional period, and I look forward to the day when a Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and tells us what we all now know to be inevitable.

The debate has been helpful in that it follows the White Paper on international sanctions published in April, and precedes the introduction of the Bill. Are the Government considering adopting a similar approach to the other Brexit-related Bills announced in the Queen’s Speech? My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) asked: where is the Bill? But perhaps this new approach is a welcome sign of a new and collaborative approach from the Government. Ensuring that Parliament has a sufficient grip on the Brexit process is important to the Labour party and to the country.

Many of our constituents voted to leave the European Union because they want this House to take control of our law making. It falls to MPs to take a tight hold of the process and not allow the Government to take decisions, grab powers or devise processes that exclude Parliament. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill proposes sweeping delegated powers but lacks effective oversight or accountability. This is fundamentally undemocratic and unacceptable. The Labour party will not wave through Bills that demean our Parliament in this way.

The House has yet to see the draft legislation on sanctions, but we hope that the Government are not developing a habit and do not put something before the House that seizes more powers for Ministers than is absolutely necessary. The start the Government have made with the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is bad and needs to change. It is not in the national interest to present poor legislation before the House and then get upset when the Opposition decline to support it. The Government should and must do better. Labour agrees that the vital issue of international sanctions must be resolved before we leave the EU. We recognise that and will not seek to obstruct the forthcoming legislation needlessly, but it is vital that we get the details right. This is too important to get wrong.

Britain needs the ability to act unilaterally when it is appropriate to do so, but when attempting to influence or restrict the capabilities of states such as North Korea, Sudan or Iran, it is the combined effort of many nations that may, over time, prompt the change we want. Britain’s national security is enhanced by working with our European allies, and there is no reason this cannot continue after Brexit. The Government need to set out detailed plans for future co-operation between the UK and the EU. Any decision to impose new sanctions or revoke existing ones must be subject to adequate scrutiny and periodic review. The Government need to make clear how they intend to enable parliamentary scrutiny of decisions when the intention seems to be to make regular use of secondary legislation. Does the Minister agree that sanctions decisions ought to be subject to a debate and a vote in this House? Ministers must not be allowed to make it up as they go along. The decision to implement sanctions, or not, will have a significant impact on the UK’s standing internationally, our relationships with other nations and our ability to influence. The Minister needs to reassure the House that there will be a process in place that is transparent, fair and accountable to Members of this House. Does the Minister plan to provide regular updates to the House on the impact of sanctions measures, and will this requirement be in the Bill?

It is clearly desirable for the UK to continue to work closely with the EU after we leave. Our ability to work together to impose sanctions, especially when the UN has declined to do so, is extremely important. We also need to maintain our ability to influence our EU partners, so that sanctions are as effective as they can be. With that in mind, do the Government intend these measures to come into force on exit day or might sanctions in the end form part of the now inevitable transitional period? The Government need to make it clear whether or not they plan to participate in common EU foreign and security policy, and, if so, what institutional arrangements they wish to put in place. The EU imposed tough financial sanctions on Russia following the illegal annexation of Crimea, including a total ban on imports of goods originating in Crimea or Sevastopol unless they have Ukrainian certificates.

My former constituency neighbour, Lord Hague, has said of sanctions on Iran:

“The ability to agree among 28 countries, sanctions that were also co-ordinated with the United States made an enormous difference to world affairs. Twenty eight countries left to their own devices would not have had identical sanctions, or brought Iran to the negotiating table. The ability to do that is very important.”'

The Government's approach to sanctions policy in the forthcoming Bill will be read as a signal of their intent to align or distance themselves from working with like-minded international partners. Do the Government want to work more closely with the US or to continue to align with Europe in a common foreign and security policy? If so, how? Do we want to negotiate continued permanent membership of the EU’s Political and Security Committee, as Lord Hague has proposed, or do the Government envisage a looser parallel arrangement?

The Minister’s face seems to suggest that he thinks these are big questions for a general debate taking place before any legislation is even published. However, these are the issues—the extent and nature of collaboration; common aims and means with EU and other nations; and the use of secondary legislation and the role of this House—that the Government must be able to answer to win the confidence not just of MPs, but of the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Chapman]

The Minister said that these measures would be subject to votes in this House. Am I to read into that that he intends them to be subject to the affirmative procedure?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I will come to that in just a moment, if I may.

A sanctions Bill will enable the UK to continue to impose, update and lift sanctions in response to fast-moving events. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will not be sufficient to do that, since we need powers to do more than simply preserve or freeze existing sanctions. The United Nations Act 1946 is also insufficient for UN sanctions, because in 2010, the UK Supreme Court ruled that it could not lawfully be used to implement asset freezes, and that additional powers were needed for measures of this kind involving any infringement of individual rights. In short, the sanctions Bill will enable the UK’s continued compliance with international law after we leave the EU, ensure that, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the UK continues to play a central role in shaping UN sanctions, and return decision-making powers on non-UN sanctions to the UK.

As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, the Bill will focus on powers, not policy. As such, it might be described as a framework Bill. It will provide powers to implement UN sanctions and to impose UK sanctions independently or in co-operation with allies. The question of how we use those powers will be addressed later, when we introduce secondary legislation applying sanctions to particular countries. We are obliged to implement UN sanctions, but we will face political choices on how far to replicate current EU sanctions.

The Bill will take account of the consultation mentioned by my hon. Friend in his opening speech. We envisage four main elements: powers to impose sanctions where justified and appropriate; powers to ensure that individuals and organisations can challenge the sanctions imposed on them; powers to exempt or license certain types of activity that would otherwise be restricted, such as humanitarian deliveries and supplies, in countries that might have been sanctioned; and powers to amend and adopt regulations for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing.

Detailed scrutiny of the Bill can obviously come only once it is published. That is why we will have Second Reading, Committee, Report and so on, as this House always does. However, perhaps I can respond as rapidly as I can in the time I have—and I am running out of time—to some of the questions that have been asked, mainly by Opposition Front Benchers. “Where is the Bill?” was one question. We have a consultation. We have just had an election and purdah, and we need to consider the responses and then decide our final position. Only then can we publish the Bill—but we will do so. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) asked who will lead on it. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will take the lead on foreign policy, including sanctions.

On the question by the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) about whether the procedures we intend to adopt will be affirmative or negative, we note—this is very important for the efficacy of sanctions—that the delay involved with affirmative procedures can lead to asset flight before assets are frozen or caught. We are considering this issue, and will respond in our consultation response, which will be published very shortly.