Oral Answers to Questions

Blair McDougall Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for her constituents, including at all hours throughout the weekend, and I recognise her commitment and the commitment of many others in this House. The Foreign Secretary set out in a “dear colleagues” letter the details for ensuring that MPs are able to contact the Foreign Office in a timely way, and I encourage all those watching at home to sign up to our travel advice and to keep watching it carefully.

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

One British citizen denied consular access is Jimmy Lai, who faces life in prison for exercising the rights guaranteed to him under the joint declaration between the United Kingdom and China. My hon. Friend will have seen reports that America intended to raise the case of Jimmy Lai during its recent talks with China in Geneva. What steps can the Government take to capitalise on America’s renewed interest in his case so that we can secure his freedom?

[Mr Falconer]

We continue to call on the Hong Kong authorities to end their politically motivated prosecution and release Jimmy Lai immediately. As my hon. Friend would expect, I will not comment overmuch on the actions of other states, but I will say that the Prime Minister has raised this matter directly with the relevant authorities, as have the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor and many others.

British Indian Ocean Territory

Blair McDougall Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

On parliamentary accountability for this issue, I have answered no fewer than five urgent questions on the subject in the last six months, and I have answered 130 written questions from her and her colleagues. We discussed this twice at Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office questions yesterday. As I have repeatedly said, when the details of the treaty are finalised, it will be presented to this House, and there will be full scrutiny in the usual way. I have explained that a Bill will be brought in to put into force the important aspects of the treaty that require legislative change, and there will of course be full debates, as there should be, in this House.

I simply reject the basis of much of the right hon. Lady’s question. As I have said repeatedly, if there was not a problem, why did the Government of whom she was a part start negotiations, and go through 11 rounds of them? There is a significant challenge, and this deal is paramount for our national security. We will not scrimp on our security, and it is important that the deal is put in place, as has been recognised by all the parties.

We will only agree a deal that is in the UK’s best interests and protects our national security. Importantly, the right hon. Lady asked about the security provisions to protect the base. These will include full UK control over Diego Garcia, including control of the electromagnetic spectrum, and unrestricted access to and use of the base, as well as a buffer zone around Diego Garcia in which nothing can be built or put in place without our consent. There will be a robust mechanism and review process to ensure that no activity on the outer islands can impinge on the base’s operations. Indeed, there will be a prohibition on the presence of foreign security forces, either civilian or military, on the outer islands. As the Prime Minister has said, the full details will of course be set out when the treaty is laid before Parliament, and that will include costs. We will not scrimp on security.

The right hon. Lady asked an important question in relation to Iran. She will understand that for operational reasons and as a matter of policy, we do not offer comment or information relating to foreign nations’ military aircraft movements or operations. The UK, in close co-operation with our allies in the United States, closely monitors the security environment in the Indian ocean region to identify and mitigate any potential threats to the base on Diego Garcia.

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I share the Minister’s bafflement at the Opposition’s utter obsession with this issue. Can he confirm that under the agreement, the vital US-UK military base and its operations will be completely unaltered?

[Stephen Doughty]

I share my hon. Friend’s bafflement. With so many issues going on in the world, I do question the number of times this one has been raised. We have answered all the questions before. We welcome the fact that the United States recognises the strength of the deal. It is rooted in a rational and hard-headed determination to protect UK security and that of our allies. Once signed, it will protect the base on Diego Garcia, which was under threat, and cement the presence of the UK and the US in the Indo-Pacific.

Gaza: Israeli Military Operations

Blair McDougall Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

The right hon. Gentleman is kind about my service. I know that he raised some of the issues with some force, as he says, during his time in this ministerial role. That underlines the hard truth here, which is that the Israelis must be persuaded to relent from a course of action that both the Conservative and Labour parties, as well as the other parties in this Chamber, have seen is totally undermining the long-term stability of the region, which is important not just for Israel and for Palestine, but for the UK and our friends and allies in the middle east.

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

The poor people of Gaza are trapped between Hamas, who refuse to release the 59 hostages, and Defence Minister Katz, who is now threatening the “total destruction” of Gaza. Does the Minister share my despair at the lack of leadership committed to peace? Will he also talk about what diplomatic efforts we are making, as well as through aid spending, to try to create moderate leadership in the region that can establish the long-term circumstances for peace and reconciliation?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend has done much work over the years on questions of peacebuilding. We, too, are committed to playing our part in trying to build up the connections between the two societies that could allow for the kind of moderate leadership at the most local level that is so necessary for making peace—we saw that in our own experience of Northern Ireland. Many in this Chamber have rightly pressed us on the proposals from the Alliance for Middle East Peace, and we look forward in the coming period to setting out what we will do to support peacebuilding efforts. I watch with dismay, as does the Foreign Secretary, the many civilians asking for peace on both sides; the many civilians protesting both in Israel and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories for a return to a ceasefire. That is what we want to see.

G7

Blair McDougall Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of Iran’s desire to have nuclear capability. We stand in the way of that. Working with the Germans and the French, we are determined to use all diplomatic efforts to bring about a conclusion to that desire. I of course discussed that with Secretary of State Rubio, alongside my French and German counterparts, at the G7. But we also discussed maximum pressure, and we discussed that nothing is off the table as we discuss these issues with Iran. We are running out of time to reach a resolution to this issue.

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s uncompromising message to Vladimir Putin. I wonder whether he would add to that a clear message that there can be no peace while tens of thousands of Ukrainian children, who have been stolen from their parents and scattered across Russia, are not returned? Does he share my concern at reports that Yale University’s humanitarian research lab has been defunded by Elon Musk while it was tracking hundreds of those abducted children? Will he work with international allies to ensure that that data is not lost and that it contributes to getting those children back to their anguished families?

[Mr Lammy]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his question about the horrors of what the Russian regime has done to those children. He will be pleased to know, as will the whole House, that we have, through our official development assistance budget, supported efforts to retrieve and work alongside those children. I was so pleased to spend time, alongside Madam Zelensky, with some of those children on my last visit to Ukraine, but also on a previous visit. We keep the issue absolutely in our sights. It cannot be a negotiating tool in any future discussions with Mr Putin.

Syria

Blair McDougall Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson poses many of the most vital questions. We need to very carefully the determine the nature of the violence on the coast in order to make a full assessment of the most appropriate response. We consult closely with all Syria’s neighbours—Jordan, Turkey and many others—and have raised with them the importance of Syria making this transition, which is vital for Syrians, the region and some of the global issues the shadow Foreign Secretary outlined, whether counter-terrorism or drug supply.

On aid, I can confirm that we will continue to play our full part in Syria. On Monday, there will be an international pledging conference on Syria in Brussels, and I expect we will be able to make further announcements in advance of that.

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

The interim Government in Syria have suggested that operations in the coastal areas are complete and that things have now calmed down, but human rights groups suggest that the violence is ongoing. Is the Government’s assessment that this was a spike in violence or a continuing escalation in the security situation in Syria?

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

Blair McDougall Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is appropriate that we have such a distinguished internationalist in the Chair for this debate. [Interruption.] That did not get me any extra time for my speech.

I recognise the impossible decisions that the Government have to take, but I hope that we do not set up a false dichotomy in which we believe that our moral preferences have to be at odds with our strategic interests. I recognise, though, that the Government are making budgetary decisions in response to very painful real-world events that are taking place every day. I represent many of the FCDO workers from East Kilbride, and I myself worked for 10 years delivering aid. I do not want to repeat what others said in pleading for the international development budget, but I want to ask the Government about one thing, and perhaps challenge them on it.

If, as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) said, we are not still the development superpower, what is our offer to the global south? We know what Russia’s offer is: blood for gold. It will kill your enemies for you, through mercenaries, and take precious minerals out of your country. We know what China’s offer is: infrastructure in return for debt that keeps you in its power. We cannot offer violence, and we cannot demand subservience. It seems to me that our offer is values, but values need to be projected through vehicles. In the time I have, I want to mention two of those vehicles.

I add my voice to those of right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in defence of the BBC. Others have spoken about how development helps to save money on defence. That also works the other way around: when defence fails, development picks up the pieces. If we need one example of that, we can look to Afghanistan. When we left Afghanistan, we left behind the BBC World Service. It is now the only broadcast journalism in the country—the only thing that is still there, saying to those people, “We have not abandoned you.” The cuts that we are discussing imply very deep cuts to the World Service, which I hope we will not see.

The second thing I wanted to plead for is the democratic infrastructure that supports dissidents and democrats around the world—the people I worked with. As we stand here, that infrastructure is being dismantled because of Elon Musk’s vandalism. The most extraordinarily brave people I have ever met are being utterly abandoned.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on his contribution. He and I disagree on a lot, but not on this. Will he pay tribute to those who work with the conflict, stability and security fund, which is particularly important in all the areas that he rightly touched on?

[Blair McDougall]

I am very happy to do so. The hon. Gentleman and I have worked closely together on Georgia—a country in the backyard of Vladimir Putin that is on day 96, I think, of huge street protests, all for lack of the cost of a single storm shadow missile in recent years. We cannot fill all the gaps, but I hope that we can triage, and can look at places such as Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and Belarus, where a small amount of money makes an enormous amount of strategic difference.

If investing in arms allows us to fight, we must remember to invest in the reasons why we want to fight in the first place. The fundamental weakness of the authoritarians with whom we are in this unspoken war is the same. Every act of brutality is a confession of their weakness. They know that if their people were free to choose, they would not choose the form of Government that is there. All that those authoritarians offer is corruption, violence and brutality against their own people, who will choose to be on our side in the global fight, but we need to put in the resources to make that case every single day around the world with confidence.

Pro-democracy Campaigners: Arrests

Blair McDougall Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West]

I would be delighted to meet Ms Lau again; I believe I met her at an event with Dame Helena Kennedy in the previous Parliament, but it would be lovely to refresh that acquaintance and to hear from her following the traumatic experience she has had. I would be very happy to provide an update in writing, but I will also provide one here—as much as you will let me get away with, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have personally promised Mr Lai’s son, Sebastien, that whenever I have the opportunity, I will raise the case of his father, who remains on trial; in fact, the trial was due to restart on 6 January. I have as many briefings as possible from the consul general to Hong Kong and his team, who are very conscientious and diligent in attending all the trials they can get tickets for and who give me regular updates. I have promised the Lai family that I will continue to do that; I believe I have a meeting with them in the diary in the coming weeks.

On the Chancellor’s visit, I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier answer about balance. Unfortunately, because of our rather exposed position post Brexit, our economy has to be outward looking. If we want our constituents to get away from food banks, we need to have more import-export and to be pragmatic on the matter of having an economic relationship with our fourth biggest trading partner. It is hard to tell the House that, because I want to just talk about the other elements of the relationship. However, when I go to my constituency, and people tell me how hard their lives are and how, over the past 14 years, our economy has gone into decline, I know I have to stand up for our economic relationships as well.

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the Minister’s comments about the contribution that Hongkongers have made to the UK, which is particularly true in East Renfrewshire. The Hongkongers in my constituency will welcome the strong comments from the Minister and the Foreign Secretary. However, we have heard those comments many times from the Front Bench, and the response from Beijing has been to imprison dozens more people, put more bounties on the heads of British people, escalate transnational repression and keep people like Jimmy Lai in prison. At what point do the consequences come for these actions? As other Members have asked, I ask not just when our senior Ministers will stop going there, but when we will stop welcoming Hong Kong officials here. I also ask whether the Government can and will meet the British nationals who have had bounties put on their heads, and whether they are being given specific security advice.

[Catherine West]

Perhaps I could encourage my hon. Friend to join the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong, which I know is very active in the House—I was a member before I became a Minister. It provides really regular updates, as does the Hong Kong committee on human rights, which writes a regular email newsletter to update us on the situation of the likes of Ms Lau, who was mentioned earlier in this debate, as well as what is happening across the globe, in the US, Canada, Australia and other places.

My hon. Friend asks how we can manage this most difficult of relationships, and I say that the opportunity we have with an exchange does not in any way take away from our position—in fact, I think it strengthens my arm. If I am in Hong Kong, I can eyeball the Beijing representative and tell him exactly what my views are, with the support of the consul general, who is an excellent representative of the UK, reinforcing that regularly. That is the element of engagement that we have, which we are looking through the audit to increase in order to give us the opportunity to lay our concerns at the door of those with whom we seek to have a dialogue.

Frozen Russian Assets: Ukraine

Blair McDougall Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on securing the debate. There is a bit of a disease in British politics of reaching back to the second world war to make a point, but when we walk into this Chamber, we walk through an archway of bomb damage, and when we hear the echoes of history, we should listen to them—the hon. Member made that point eloquently.

In a sense, it is frustrating that we are even debating whether to do what is in the motion, but it is good that we are having the debate because the fact that we care about the rule of law and the international order is what separates us from Putin and his allies. We have to prove to Putin and his allies that our belief in those things is not a weakness, and we have to prove that we have the determination to defend our values.

In this year, which marks the 80th anniversary of the defeat of fascist aggression in Europe, we have to constantly remember that the freedoms we enjoy were won through strength and sacrifice, and that freedom comes at a cost. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells listed the enormous price that Ukraine is paying in lost citizens, lost children and lost infrastructure for defending that freedom. The world has said clearly that Putin has to pay the price for that. The UN General Assembly has said that Russia must make

“reparation for the injury, including any damage, caused by such acts”.

This is a debate about balance sheets and bank accounts, but putting a monetary value on the cost of this war is, at best, partial accounting.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that Vladimir Putin’s allies saw Britain as a soft touch and a good place to put their money and investment, whether ill-gotten gains or legal? Is it not now time under a new Government for us to show that this has changed? This Government will take it seriously and will take a more rigorous approach than the previous Government.

[Blair McDougall]

Absolutely. As well as listening to the echoes of deeper history, we have to learn lessons from our more recent failures.

I met a soldier called Dimitri in a ward for wounded soldiers in Kyiv. He was strengthening his stumps for the day when he could have prosthetics fitted to both his now-missing legs. I asked what his hope for the future was, thinking he would say a holiday, getting a job or spending time with his family. He said that it was living life without shame. Listening to him, I felt ashamed because, as proud as we all are of the support we have given Ukraine, it has not been enough.

We know one thing in this debate: the money that Putin owes is many times greater than the money that has been seized. The legal objection to transferring the funds in whole to Ukraine seems to be that under the principles of the use of countermeasures by states the measures must, first, induce a change in policy from the target and, secondly, be reversible. On the first, seizing the assets does not just induce the change in policy; it delivers the change in policy. It pays the reparations in part. On it being reversible, we can give the Kremlin a credit note for the money paid and say it has been taken off the total.

With the time I have left to speak, I want to ask the Minister two direct questions, but these are really questions for all Western nations that hold Russian state assets but are hesitant about sending them in full to Ukraine. First, is there any conceivable situation in which we and our international partners would unfreeze the assets we hold and return them to Russia if Putin has not delivered the reparations he is bound to pay? Secondly, is there any conceivable situation in which Putin would voluntarily give up those reparations? If we are honest, the answer to both those questions has to be no.

Rather than making policy on an imaginary future that will not come and holding the funds in perpetuity, we should use them now in full—in whole—when Ukraine needs them most. If we are hung up on the legal arguments, as I say, we should call in a loan and give the Kremlin a credit note. The irony of the debate is that we are at risk of our commitment to the international order preventing us from enforcing it. The irony is that Putin, having stepped outside that international order, is demanding its protection. We need to listen to the echoes of history as we enter this Chamber and ensure that Ukraine has everything it needs to fight and win this war.

Detained British Nationals Abroad

Blair McDougall Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing this debate, and on continuing to be a discomfort in the derrière for successive Governments on these issues.

The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) talked about the brightest and the best going into the Foreign Office, so I will begin by recognising the unfairness of this debate. We will all stand up and talk about the worst failings of the Foreign Office, and I recognise that the debate will be responded to by a Minister who represents some of the best efforts of civil servants, who go into incredibly dangerous and difficult circumstances to try to serve our constituents. I want to put that on the record.

There is a lot of talk in this Chamber about the legacies that this Government have inherited, and it is good that we are talking about one of the worst ones: our country’s record of securing the release of those who have been arbitrarily detained overseas. I will come to some of the policy issues that other Members have touched on, but I will deal first with the principle behind such cases.

Ella Wheeler Wilcox wrote:

“To sin by silence, when we should protest,

Makes cowards out of men.”

What is true of individuals is also true of nations. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), spoke about the example of the US, which is relevant here. When other countries’ citizens are held unjustly, it is treated as an affront, an injury to all and a national slap in the face. Yes, quiet negotiation takes place politely behind the scenes on behalf of those countries’ prisoners, but alongside that polite and patient diplomacy is their citizens’ full-throated outrage.

I know that the staff working on this issue in the Foreign Office care deeply about it, but the right hon. Members for Chingford and Woodford Green and for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) both raised the case of Jimmy Lai. We have to ask why Canada was successful in securing the release of the two Michaels, and how Australia secured the release of journalist Cheng Lai. Just last week, the Americans secured the release of three more of their citizens, yet Jimmy Lai, who is a British citizen and one of us, and who has been arbitrarily detained in solitary confinement for nearly four years, has not been freed. We could talk about Jagtar Singh Johal, Alaa Abd el-Fattah and so many others.

Our first responsibility as a Parliament, a Government and a country is to be publicly, vocally and unanimously furious about this issue. Everything else follows from the righteous anger that we should all feel on behalf of our citizens who are rotting in foreign jails. That anger should drive us to ask what is behind the failure of British diplomacy in the past. A lack of strategy is certainly part of the answer.

Like the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I was encouraged by the noises that the Foreign Secretary made last week about making good on his promises, both on the issue of a special envoy and on the right to consular access. I welcome the Government’s commitment to step up the engagement on these cases, but that needs to be part of an entirely new approach. I am not naive: I know that it is only because we are having conversations with foreign Governments about trade that we are able to get in the room and discuss our citizens who have been unjustly detained. Indeed, when I was an adviser in the Foreign Office, the role of Minister for trade and human rights was a stand-alone Cabinet position.

Because I believe we must make deals around the world—our constituents’ standard of living depends on it—I question whether our current policymaking framework on arbitrary detention can ever deliver the kind of response that we would all expect if we found ourselves in a prison cell in one of the darker corners of the world. For me, this is about the balance we strike between charming and chastising those we are negotiating with. I wonder whether our current approach to those who are arbitrarily detained makes it inevitable that attempts to secure the release of our people become either a prologue or an epilogue to the main story, which is one of securing our economic self-interest. Are we sending our representatives into these negotiations with red lines that those on the other side of the table know are written in pencil rather than in pen?

After 16 years in a Dubai jail, Ryan Cornelius has had more time than anyone to contemplate that tension. He shared with me a letter he has written to the Prime Minister ahead of the Prime Minister’s trip to the Gulf on behalf of the UK, in which he identifies the inherent challenge in diplomacy I describe:

“Making it clear to your interlocutors that there can be no normal relationship with a friendly country which treats our citizens in this way may be an uncomfortable thing for you to do on this visit…if you look the other way in the interest of sealing a few deals you will have diminished this country’s standing in the eyes of the rest of the world.”

For me, Mr Cornelius’s letter gets to the heart of the matter. In asking our delegations and diplomats to balance arbitrary detention against trade outcomes, the risk is that they will leave those rooms having failed to achieve either objective.

If the arbitrary imprisonment and mistreatment of our citizens is not a red line, what is? If it is a red line, it cannot be something that the people we send into these rooms might have to give up in order to secure other Government priorities. The release of our people must be understood by those on the other side of the table as non-negotiable.

That is why it is essential that any special envoy we appoint has the power, the status and the degree of independence from Ministers to make it an immutable principle not just that the policy on the release of hostages will not be sacrificed for other priorities, but that it cannot be sacrificed for other priorities.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury, the Chair of the Select Committee, was far too delicate, perhaps not wanting to appear engaged in a power grab, when she said that this is a debate for another time, but we have to debate the fact that other jurisdictions place the power for designating state hostages, or for applying sanctions in response to such cases, in the hands of the legislature.

The value of such an approach is that it allows the Executive and their diplomats to honestly say in those negotiating rooms that they cannot separate their wider relationship with a country from the mistreatment of citizens by its Government. I know that the suggestion of losing such power would be greeted with horror in the corridors of King Charles Street, but we cannot simply continue with the current model, which has left British citizens in jail.

As well as greater independence in policymaking, there should also be a degree of automaticity in our policy response. As has been suggested by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, when an individual is designated as being arbitrarily detained, there has to be a consistent application of Magnitsky sanctions. This would not only provide an incentive to release the British citizens already held, as it would hold perpetrators to account, but it would also act as a disincentive to those who might target our people in the future. Inconsistent action in these cases simply emboldens those regimes and makes our citizens less safe.

Finally, we have to act in concert with like-minded countries that are similarly committed to the rule of law. Recent years have seen the erosion of norms around arbitrary detention by autocracies that are increasingly working in concert with each other. Only co-ordinated action by democracies, and by those committed to the rule of law, can help recreate a global order in which such actions are deemed universally unacceptable.

There is no cause more urgent than ensuring the liberty and freedom of our own citizens. I commend the right hon. Gentleman for securing this debate.

North-West Syria

Blair McDougall Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Hamish Falconer]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point about minority groups. I underline to all parties to this conflict, whether they are proscribed in the UK or not, that minority groups across north Syria, of which there are many, deserve to be protected and have a right to exist. We are looking closely at the actions of all conflict parties, regardless of whether we have direct contact with them, and it is incredibly important that minority rights in northern Syria are protected.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s question about the United Nations, to be frank there is, at this moment, panicked movement across frontlines. It is probably too early to be able to address the kinds of questions he raises, but I am sure we will be talking about this in due course.

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

My mind also turned to the former Member for Batley and Spen, my friend Jo, and the cry she made in this Chamber to do something to help the people of Syria. Back then, we saw the widespread use of chemical weapons in the last moment when Assad’s regime was under pressure. What steps are the Government taking to monitor any war crimes taking place in this moment? By way of deterrence now, will the Minister reaffirm that the British Government still believe there should be accountability for the use of chemical weapons a decade ago in Syria?

[Hamish Falconer]

I recognise the work of the former Member for Batley and Spen, our friend Jo Cox, and my hon. Friend himself, who has been involved in these issues, including accountability, for some time. I agree there must of course be accountability for the use of chemical weapons by Syria. I met as Minister the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to ensure that proper measures are in place and to assist it in its efforts to ensure that treaty conventions are upheld. In August, I instructed UK officials to join an expert-level working group convening a geographically diverse group of states, academics and technical experts to explore international legal mechanisms that could pursue individual criminal responsibility for chemical weapons use. I call on all parties in north-west Syria at the moment to be mindful that we are watching questions of chemical weapons use incredibly carefully.