Council of Europe

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 8th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[John Howell]

I agree with that, and I will come on to say a little more on that in a moment.

Many of the current delegation have not been members for long, but while we are there, we will play our full part in working with the Council of Europe to take forward its aims and values and to make sure they are part of the system we all work in. We need to be wary in particular of the activities of the far right, is out to infiltrate our political groups.

The Council of Europe has just completed a summit, only the fourth it has held in its history. Some members of my political party were sceptical about it; I was not. For an organisation that does not put its head above the parapet often enough, it was a great success and it has shown what the Council of Europe is about. It was attended by our Prime Minister, and the declaration was signed by the UK. The declaration commits the UK to upholding the activities of the European Court of Human Rights and the European convention on human rights. It states:

“We reaffirm our deep and abiding commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) as the ultimate guarantors of human rights across our continent, alongside our domestic democratic and judicial systems. We reaffirm our primary obligation under the Convention to secure to everyone within our jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, as well as our unconditional obligation to abide by the final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in any case to which we are Parties.”

It goes on to state:

“Our European democracies are not established once and for all. We need to strive to uphold them each and every day, continuously, in all parts of our continent. The Council of Europe remains the guiding light that assists us in fostering greater unity among us for the purpose of safeguarding and realising these ideals and principles which are our common heritage. We reaffirm our commitment to developing mutual understanding among the peoples of Europe and reciprocal appreciation of our cultural diversity and heritage.”

As Lord Kirkhope said in the other place, let us ensure that international agreements such as this are honoured.

When the UK last held the presidency of the Council of Europe back in David Cameron’s time as Prime Minister, we initiated what has come to be called the Brighton declaration, which was a reform of the system of how the Court operated. The Brighton declaration wrote the principal of subsidiarity and the importance of domestic courts into the convention. If only people had read that before the recent fuss, it would have made life easier and simpler.

Of the things that the Council of Europe does that I most value, the two most prominent are election observation and monitoring. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe does election observation, but that does not make what the Council of Europe does any less important. I pay tribute to colleagues who put themselves into difficult situations to ensure that elections are free and fair. It is a two-stage approach. The first question is, “Is the environment in which the election takes place free and fair?” In the case of Turkey, I would argue that it was not. The fact that many of the President’s rivals had been arrested suggests that. The second element is, “Is the process used for people to vote free and fair?” In one case, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, we found that those elected to open the polling booth turned up with a hold-all full of pre-filled polling cards in favour of the pro-Iranian candidate. They were promptly arrested.

I praise the role of rapporteurs, whose presence in pre-election missions is critical. A good rapporteur who knows the territory well and can get into the detail is a necessary requisite for that. That is not always the case with all rapporteurs. Many have a thin and superficial knowledge of the country they are reporting on.

One of the most potentially useful things I have done as a rapporteur for Turkey is to visit the human rights prisoner, Osman Kavala. He was—I should say is—a prominent businessman and philanthropist. He also has a link to this country, where he was on the faculty of the University of Manchester. When I visited him in a Turkish high-security prison, where he has been imprisoned for more than five years in pre-trial detention, I saw a man who showed no resentment for how he had been treated. I hope that now the elections are over, President Erdoğan will pardon Kavala and release him. He is of course not the only human rights prisoner in Turkey, but he is the epitome of all the others.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my very good friend for allowing me to intervene. In the case of Turkey, a country that he and I care about, what influence and power do we have when he sees something that is palpably wrong, apart from publicising it? Do we have any more power in the Council of Europe than that?

[John Howell]

We have a tremendous amount more power, and that power lies in the personality of the rapporteur and what they want to do. They can do that by talking diplomatically to people there, rather than banging the table and demanding that something be done.



There was an idea at the summit to appoint a new commissioner for democracy. I confess that I was interested in the position for myself, but unfortunately the idea was placed on the back burner and not taken forward, which I think is a shame. Right across Europe, we see a backsliding on democracy that is very worrying. The appointment of a commissioner for democracy would have helped to prevent that.

What impact does the Council have on our domestic legislative agenda? Let me give two short examples—the Istanbul convention and the Lanzarote convention. The Istanbul convention sets out the protections that are required for women in cases of violence and domestic abuse. It is a landmark convention, and I am pleased that, after lobbying by me, we have signed it—in part, but being able to sign it in part is important. This so distinguishes the way the Council of Europe works from the way that the EU works. It is characteristic of the convention system used by the Council that conventions are put together right across the nations of Europe, and it is the choice of every country to determine which bits should apply in their own country.

The Lanzarote convention is a comprehensive treaty that does a great deal to put in place the international co-operation required to protect children’s rights. I would add a third example, which is the Venice Commission’s work to establish the principles under which ombudsmen work and are appointed. The all-party parliamentary group on alternative dispute resolution looked at that yesterday, with a representative from the United Nations also saying that it has adopted the Venice Commission’s principles.

What good does the Council of Europe do? Critics say that it is nothing but a talking shop. Well, perhaps, but I would strongly argue that it does much more than that through the work of the Assembly, the Committee of Ministers, the Court, the anti-corruption activities of the Group of States against Corruption, the anti-human trafficking work undertaken by the group of experts on action against trafficking in human beings, and the work of the Venice Commission in strengthening democratic institutions. All of these deliver tangible results across member states.

Sudan

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The right hon. Gentleman, who knows a great deal about Sudan and these matters from his time in office, may be even more up to date than I am. I thought that I was pretty up to date in reporting the African Union meeting, which finished in the last few minutes. South Sudan is involved as one of the three parts of IGAD. It is heavily engaged. The President of South Sudan has been working hard to try to effect a ceasefire. That is what South Sudan is doing, and we very much welcome it. I hope that, in due course, the right hon. Gentleman will be proven correct on the additional seven days of ceasefire that he mentions, and that we can build on it to achieve what the African Union has called for in the last few minutes.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I endorse what my right hon. Friend the Minister has said. I supervised ceasefires and organised safe corridors, and there cannot be one without the other. Does he agree that we are incredibly lucky to have such a jewel in our crown as the sovereign base areas in Cyprus, which are strategically and tactically important for operating in the eastern Mediterranean and areas around there?

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. and gallant Friend is absolutely right about the strategic importance of RAF Akrotiri and the sovereign base areas in Cyprus, which I know all too well from my brief and long ago military service with the United Nations forces in Cyprus.

Rohingya Refugees in Bangladesh

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hunt]

I thank my right hon. Friend very much for his intervention. He never has to apologise for intervening on me; it is always a great privilege to be intervened on by such a distinguished colleague. On this, he is completely right, as he is on many other issues. China is playing a sinister role in the Rohingya crisis, and it is concerning to think that economic ties with China may be getting in the way of some countries seeing the issue for what it is: a moral crisis where a clear rogue state is inflicting misery now on upwards of 1 million people. That is an important point to make.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Further to what my very good friend, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), said on China, may I remind the House that once you define a crisis as genocide, articles 1 and 2 of the genocide convention say that every signatory should take action to sort it out and that includes military force? We are signatory to that convention. This is a clear case of genocide, so we have to do all that we can to sort it out.

[Tom Hunt]

I thank my right hon. Friend for intervening. I have sympathy with what he said. When the crisis began, it grabbed the attention of our country and our media, but I have to say I am surprised how little about the Rohingya crisis has been written about in our national media over the past year or so and how little coverage there has been. Of course, our hearts go out to Ukrainian refugees, and we have to do what we can to support them and any other country, but the situation of the Rohingya is without precedent in many senses. They are so vulnerable—the majority are young people and women—and we have to get attention back on what is happening there because there appears to be no end to the misery. I can see no pathway in the medium term for the situation realistically to get any better—it is probably going to get worse.

I will talk briefly about the Bangladesh Government. As I said, I have been to Bangladesh three times since I was elected. It is important that we recognise the situation that Bangladesh is in. It is one of the fastest growing economies and has, I believe, a very bright future, but it is still a developing country and—I have seen it in Bangladesh—certain areas still have significant levels of deprivation. The Government there have a huge challenge when it comes to tackling inequality in their own country; I have seen some of that poverty across Bangladesh through visits with colleagues. So it is unfair to ask them to shoulder this burden alone. They have given a huge amount of financial support.

I would echo the comments of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow. I am concerned about the sentiment among the Bangladeshi population and how it may subtly change over time. To be honest, I noticed that a little in my visit in February 2022 and in my most recent visit; I have noticed a subtle change. That is my concern because they cannot shoulder the burden alone. As just one example, in the area to which the Rohingya refugees initially fled, a couple of people were killed by elephants and a huge amount of work was done to divert the elephants. A huge amount of work has been going on. Returning to the point about international aid, I have occasionally been sceptical about international aid. Whether it is 0.7% or 0.5%, I believe there is scope for us to recognise the uniqueness of the Rohingya situation and the pressures and to make a further contribution. That is very important.

I make a point now about the short to medium term: when does this end? What is the pathway to it ending? At what point do we say, “Enough is enough. Something has to be done”? When I asked some refugees at the camp what they wanted, they just said that they wanted to go home. That is all they want. They want to go home safely. But is that a realistic prospect in the next year, two years or three years? At what point do we say, “Enough is enough. The wait has gone on too long. There is no realistic prospect of things getting any better”? They cannot safely go back to their homes, so at that point we will begin to have to start thinking about the possibility of resettlement.

I understand why Bangladesh is wary of any conversation about the majority of those at the camp staying. I have touched on the reasons why it would be unfair for Bangladesh to shoulder the burden alone. We might have to enter the conversation about a resettlement programme, but the question is: at what point are we going to do that? In many respects, that would be a great shame because one of the places I went when I visited the Rohingya camp in January was the Rohingya cultural centre, where we learnt about Rohingya culture. If it were the case that they could not return home, the concern would be that that culture would be destroyed and lost and we would be giving in to this barbaric regime. The end goal we want is for the Rohingya to go home and for that culture to be preserved and enriched. That is what we need to strive for, but if we cannot deliver that, at what point do we say, “Enough is enough”?

The camp is growing in size each year, the suffering continues and people are looking to the future with no hope. There is no way for them to have a livelihood or build a future. There needs to be some kind of conversation about when we should start turning to different options if we cannot get what we all want, which is for them to safely return home.

This debate has been necessary because many Members across the House have been to the camp and have been moved and forever changed by our experience. We want this debate to help raise the profile of the issue and to put it further up the Government’s agenda, so we can do more to support some of the most desperate people in the world, and be part of an international effort to ensure that those behind it pay for the misery that they have inflicted on almost 1 million people, who have been persecuted because of who they are. So we need to do more. We need to support the Bangladeshi Government in every way we can to end this.

Ukraine

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I have had this conversation with NATO allies and others. This is not just about ensuring that Ukraine can defend its sovereignty, territory and people; as I will come on to later in my remarks, this is about defending the UN charter and the international order that has kept us safe since the end of the last war. All countries that believe in defending those principles should make every effort to assist Ukraine at this time.

We will give the Ukrainian forces the upper hand on the battlefield so that they can reverse Russia’s gains and limit Putin’s ability to target civilian infrastructure. We must also develop their force structures and capability so that they can build a deterrence force for the future. Over the last six months we have trained 10,000 Ukrainian troops to bring them up to battle readiness, and we will upskill a further 20,000 this year. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced last week, we will train Ukrainian fast jet pilots and marines as part of a long-term investment in their military capabilities.

When the Prime Minister and President Zelensky met earlier this month, they underscored our joint determination to achieve a just and sustainable peace. We shall work together in international organisations to achieve that, and to defend the principles of the UN charter. I am travelling to New York this week to speak on Ukraine in the UN Security Council. I will tell the truth about Putin’s brutality and Ukraine’s heroism, but we must always increase our efforts, with partners, to tackle the steady drip of poisonous Russian propaganda and lies. We will work together to help Ukrainian grain to reach world markets. The Black sea grain initiative and the Grain from Ukraine initiative boost food security for the world’s most vulnerable people.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. On the subject of training pilots, the aircraft that we have—the Lightning and the Typhoon—are totally incompatible with fighting in Ukraine. They require large sustainment and they operate from bases well away from in theatre. The aircraft that could be ideal is the Gripen, which the Swedes have. We do not have the people to train the pilots and we do not have the aircraft or the simulators on which to do it, so I am slightly concerned when the Foreign Secretary says that we are going to train pilots. I wonder how we will do it.

[James Cleverly]

As my right hon. and gallant Friend knows, I am a good, old-fashioned team gunner, so I understand ballistic artillery and very little else, but I am assured by my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary, in close co-ordination with our Ukrainian friends, that the training contribution we are making is genuinely valuable and very much valued.

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)]

One year ago on Friday, I got a phone call, at 3.30 in the morning, from my private secretary at the Foreign Office telling me that Vladimir Putin had begun a whole-scale invasion into Ukraine. Air strikes and a land invasion were targeting cities across that country, including Kyiv. It was devastating news, but although it was devastating, it was not unexpected. We had been seeing for months the way in which troops were being amassed on the border of Ukraine. We had very good intelligence showing us exactly what Putin’s plans had been.

We tried for months to forestall that invasion. At the Liverpool G7 summit back in 2021, we worked with our allies to come up with a package of severe sanctions, and we warned Russia that they would be put in place in the event of an invasion. For the first time in our history, we unveiled intelligence about what the Russians were planning. They were planning to install a puppet regime in Kyiv; they were planning to install false flag operations, with a view to trying to convince the world that it was not their fault that they had invaded Ukraine and that they had been provoked. Our intelligence prevented the world from believing that.

From 2015, we started training Ukrainian troops. We were also the first European country to supply weapons to Ukraine. We called out Russia internationally. I personally visited Moscow—as did many of my counterparts—to give directly to Sergey Lavrov and others in the Russian Administration the message of the severe consequences of their actions. Nevertheless, Putin went ahead. Despite the warnings, despite what he knew would happen, he went ahead, because fundamentally, he did not believe that the Ukrainians would fight, and he did not believe that the free world would have the resolve to stand up to him. He was proven wrong in both cases.

From day one, we saw sheer bravery on the part of the Ukrainians defending their country. We saw an Administration in Kyiv whom many people had expected to leave their posts—people expected Zelensky and his Cabinet to flee the country—but they did not; they stayed there. I remember being in a videoconference that evening with the Defence Secretary, and our counterparts, who were not in Poland or the United States but in Kyiv. They were defending their country and asking us for our help in what we could do.

We did all that we could. Together with our allies, not just in the G7 but from around the world—everywhere from Australia and Singapore to Switzerland—we put on the toughest sanctions. We pushed back the Russian economy by decades. We also supplied weapons to Ukraine. Many in this Chamber have said that maybe we should have supplied weapons earlier, but I can tell them—from working inside the Government—that we did all we could, as quickly as we could, to persuade allies, and we have now built up an alliance of countries supplying those weapons. I cannot wait to see tanks and fighter jets in Ukraine helping those brave Ukrainians. We also co-ordinated with our allies an international response. At the United Nations, 141 countries stood up against the Russian invasion and what Russia had done—that, too, was unprecedented.

But let us all be honest: we should have done more earlier. The reason why Putin took the action that he did was that he did not believe that we would follow through. And we did not take him at his word. As far back as 2007, at the Munich security conference, Putin made his intentions very clear. He has talked on many occasions about creating a greater Russia. He took action, as we know, in Crimea and the Donbas, but we did not do enough. We let it pass; we collectively turned too much of a blind eye. I am afraid to say that we—not just the United Kingdom, but Europe and the free world—also imported Russian gas and oil. We saw money flow in from Russia—money that was later to be used to buy the weapons that would be used against the Ukrainian people. We also failed to take action on defending Ukraine.

As my colleague the Member for Uxbridge—[Interruption.] I apologise; as my right hon. Friend Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson)—let us be honest, I should have more respect after everything—commented earlier, we signed the 1994 Budapest memorandum, which guaranteed the security of Ukraine. We should have provided more weapons to Ukraine and we should have allowed Ukraine to join NATO. Can we imagine this situation if Ukraine had been a NATO member under article 5 protection? It would simply not have happened.

[Bob Stewart]

The 1994 Budapest accord, which guaranteed the sovereignty of Ukraine, was also signed by Russia, so Russia is to blame as well.

[Elizabeth Truss]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend that Russia is, of course, to blame, but we should hold ourselves to high standards and follow through on the commitments that we make, as should our allies such as the United States.

There is unfinished business in terms of offering Ukraine the security that it needed, which is why we need to learn the lessons of what happened. Frankly, we were complacent about freedom and democracy after the cold war: we were told that it was the end of history, that freedom and democracy were guaranteed, and that we could carry on living our lives without worrying about what else had happened. We were told that there would be no challenge to those basic principles and that we had won the argument. We know now that that argument is never finally won. We need to keep winning the argument, and we need to keep defending our values with hard security and economic security, if we are to succeed.

First, we need to do all we can to make sure that Ukraine wins this war as soon as possible. Every extra day means lives lost, women violated and towns destroyed. We need to do all we can, as fast as we can—in my view, that includes fighter jets. We have had a discussion today about which are the best possible options, but having spoken to the Ukrainians about it months ago, I know that what they want is an option. Let us work with our allies to get them an option to use, otherwise they will not be able to prevail. We also need to make sure that Ukraine has the economic wherewithal to continue the fight and that we are continuing to support it internationally.

Secondly, we must not be complacent when that war is won. I do believe that Ukraine will win the war—there is no way that Russia will win the war—but we need to make sure that the future of Russia is a more positive future than the one that we enabled at the end of the cold war. What does that mean? It means that we should never again be complacent in the face of Russian money and Russian oil and gas. Instead, we should make sure that any lifting of sanctions is tied to reform in Russia. We can never again have the situation where we enable freedom and free trade between the west and Russia, and that is then used to develop a kleptocracy, which is exactly what we have seen take place.

We need to make sure that Russia pays for the crimes that it has committed and that it is held to account for the appalling atrocities and war crimes—all of them. We need to make sure that money seized from the Russian state is used to rebuild Ukraine. That is vital. Of course, we in well-off countries such as Britain should contribute, but I cannot imagine a situation where Russia simply goes ahead as if nothing has happened and does not contribute to rebuilding Ukraine. That is vital and I will be pushing for it to happen.

Thirdly, we need to learn the lesson about how we deal with authoritarian regimes more broadly. President Xi has made very clear his intentions with respect to Taiwan. We have to take those seriously. During the Russia-Ukraine conflict—the invasion by Russia of Ukraine—we have amassed, for the first time in history, a group of nations that is prepared to put on sanctions and act together. We need to formalise this grouping, which I have described as an economic NATO—the G7 plus our key allies, such as the EU, South Korea and Australia. We need to bring that group together and start developing our plans now because, although we ended up doing those things after the invasion of Ukraine, prevention is far better than cure. Let us develop these economic tools and let us be clear with China exactly what would happen if there was an escalation with respect to Taiwan. Let us be clear about that now.

Let us also make sure that Taiwan can defend itself. Let us not leave another free democracy undefended for an authoritarian regime to invade. That is a very important principle. The reality is that, as a proportion of the world’s population, fewer people are living under democracy now than 30 years ago. Can we imagine what the world will look like in 30 years’ time if we do not act now? It is not a world that I want to live in.

We have heard some excellent contributions to the debate and I am pleased about the unity that we have seen and continue to see across the United Kingdom. We need to do all we can to support Ukraine and we need to act as quickly as possible. I am familiar with the vagaries of the Government machine, after spending 10 years in various Government Departments, so I will do all I can to support my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in his efforts to make sure that things happen as quickly as possible.

We also must not forget the broader arguments. Freedom and democracy are the lifeblood of our society and other free societies around the world. We need to be prepared to do all we can to defend them now, before it is too late. The fact is that being tough is what will bring us peace, and that is what we need to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The right hon. Member for South West Norfolk talked about the need for a global alliance to defend democracy—well, that global alliance has to extend to Africa. We should be concerned about the fact that the Wagner Group is now active in five countries and is poised to make something of a breakthrough in the Sahel after the French evacuation from Mali. Frankly, we should be getting a lot tougher on the Wagner Group, and that should start with a much more comprehensive sanctions regime. When the Minister winds up, I urge him to tell us that the Government will replicate the United States sanctions regime on 21 different individuals who are associated with the Wagner Group and on 16 different corporate entities. That is three times as many sanctions as we have against individuals or businesses associated with Prigozhin.

Let us go further. On 26 January, we heard a very clear pronouncement from our allies in the United States declaring the Wagner Group to be a proscribed organisation, because it is patently a transnational criminal organisation. That contrasts with the situation a couple of weeks ago, when the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), who is not in his place, came before the Foreign Affairs Committee. We were grateful to him for doing so, because for some time the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence could not quite decide who was the Minister responsible for taking on the Wagner Group. In due course, the machine did its job and the poor Minister was summoned before us. He was not able to say when the Wagner Group was going to be sanctioned; indeed, he extracted himself from that line of questioning by saying, of course, that it was not his job but a matter for the Home Office—joined-up Government at its very best.

What we have at the moment is not good enough. We need a clear plan, a clear timetable and a clear commitment from the Minister responding today that the Wagner Group will be sanctioned here, just as it is in the United States of America. We need a clear commitment that the individuals who have been sanctioned by the Americans and the European Union will also be sanctioned here.

Finally, while we are at it, could we now end the complete scandal of the Treasury itself licensing sanction waivers for Russian warlords to fly lawyers from London to St Petersburg to summon up a case and to sue journalists such as Eliot Higgins in English courts? What a complete scandal. To top it all, Eliot Higgins was told last week that he is the security risk, and as such cannot be allowed to go to cinema showings of the new film about the brave Mr Navalny. What have we become when we are licensing English lawyers to sue English journalists in English courts? It is not good enough. It is an outrage and it needs to stop, and we need to send a clear signal from this House this afternoon that it ends now. While the Minister is at it, he might consider paying Mr Eliot Higgins’s legal bills. This will surprise the House, but I am told that Mr Prigozhin has not paid his legal bills, which are about £116,000, while poor Mr Higgins has. He has had to cough up about £70,000, so perhaps the Government could do a little whip-round for Mr Higgins and supply an apology to him and to Bellingcat at the end of the debate.

We have to make sure that the weapons supplies are in place and that the sanctions regime is far more effective, and the third piece of the puzzle is that we have to commence the search for justice. It is excellent that the United Kingdom has come together with its allies to ensure that there are prosecutions for war crimes, but many of us in this House will want to see prosecutions for the crime of aggression as well. The abuse that has been laid out has been appalling, with murder, torture, rape, deportation, executions, electrocutions and the crimes of Bucha. The sexual assault of a four-year-old child was reported to the United Nations last week. That is why all of us in this House today should welcome the statement by the vice-president of the United States last week that the US has formally determined that Russia has committed crimes against humanity. We should make the same declaration ourselves. We should do it quickly, and I hope we will hear a gameplan for just that from the Minister at the end of the debate.

[Bob Stewart]

Speaking as someone who has given evidence in war crimes trials—five of them—the thing that really horrified me was that we only got a very small percentage of the people who carried out such crimes. I am talking about genocide and war against humanity. It was a percentage so small that it is almost impossible to measure. If we are going to do this properly, we have to put a heck of a lot of effort into having war crimes trials—almost more effort than with the Nuremberg trials and so on.

[Liam Byrne]

The whole of the House is grateful for the work of the right hon. and gallant Member, because we know that more people were prosecuted because of the work he did than otherwise would have been the case. He is absolutely right to say what he has said. It was 80 years ago that the free world came together to ensure the prosecution of the guilty at Nuremberg. The table of crimes presented was clear. It was crimes against humanity, and we should remind ourselves in this House exactly what that table of crimes entailed: murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and persecution on political, racial and religious grounds. Those are precisely the crimes that President Putin has committed in Ukraine, and we must make sure, just as we did in Nuremberg, that the free world comes together once more to hold him, as well as his henchmen, to account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

The grim reality is that war in Europe is no longer in our rear-view mirror; it is happening now. We are living through a bleak new chapter in the history of Europe as Putin seeks to destroy the sovereignty of our Ukrainian friends and to attack the principles of democracy that the rules-based world order is built on.

As the UK falls silent on Friday morning for a national moment of reflection for Ukraine, we are reminded of the devastating toll that this war has taken on the Ukrainian people: the tens of thousands of lives that have been needlessly lost; the families that have been torn apart and displaced from their homes, with over 100,000 of them now here in the UK ; the women who have been raped and violated; the children who have been stolen by Russia; and with the economic and social fabric of the nation left in tatters.

There is the ongoing struggle for peace: it is the Ukrainians’ fight, but it is also our fight. Yet despite all the suffering and horror that Ukraine has endured, the flame of freedom burns bright in Kyiv: we need only look at the extraordinary resilience of the Ukrainian people in the face of Russian aggression that we have heard about in speeches from both sides of the House today, praising the skill, bravery and fortitude of the Ukrainian military to defend their homeland, and, as we heard from the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), the incredible and inspiring leadership of President Zelensky. Just under a fortnight ago, Members in this House were privileged to hear from President Zelensky in his address in Westminster Hall. His speech moved us all and reminded us what is at stake.

Colleagues from across the House have made extraordinary contributions in this debate and I am saddened that more of us were not present to hear them. It is good to have two former Prime Ministers speaking in a debate; if I am honest, it is not normal for those two individuals to elicit cross-party support given the events of the past year, but there has been an extraordinary level of cross-party consensus in this debate. There is a unity that goes across political parties, across nations, and across our continent in our support for Ukraine and our determination that Putin must lose. That is a message Putin hoped would never be thought or shared, because he hoped to fracture the west and to change the united position we had to one of division where we turn against each other, and that has not happened.

[Bob Stewart]

I think I am the oldest person in this Chamber by a long way. I remember the Vietnam war, and the Americans were forced to withdraw from Vietnam by public pressure at home, largely. We have not talked in this debate about what is happening in Moscow and other parts of Russia, but it must be horrendous, with 60,000 dead, and with huge numbers returning with post-traumatic stress disorder, I am sure. We must put huge effort into getting through to the Russian people, to convince them that this war is not fair and not right and they should put huge pressure on their own Government to get rid of Putin and sort this out and withdraw. As the former Prime Minister my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) has suggested or implied—perhaps he will correct me—in the end we also must have a Russia that works and is a decent place for Russians to live, because Russian soldiers are just like our soldiers: they are doing their duty and they do not really have much choice.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. “You are what you eat”: that is true of food as it is of the media we consume, and the media the people of Russia are able and allowed to consume tell a very one-sided story. They tell a story only from the point of view of the Putin mouthpiece in the Kremlin. There is no challenge and no debate, so how we deal with misinformation and Putin’s deliberate calculation to deny his own people the truth is quite a challenge. We must address that in terms of information operations and how we tell a story, which the BBC World Service has been so good at, and which is a purpose for it now.

In this debate we heard about the UK’s past complacency in respect of Russian gas from the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), who, sadly, is not in her place at the moment. We also heard from Members on both sides of the House about why the Wagner Group should be listed as a terrorist organisation—it not just a sponsor of terrorism; it is the terrorism. If we do not act now, we will be repeating the mistakes of the past, because we are looking in the rear-view mirror to comment on what has happened when we should be looking forwards. We have seen what the Wagner Group has done in Syria and we see what it is doing in Ukraine, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) said, we can see what it could potentially be doing in Africa as well. So we need to hurry up and make that decision.

Putin’s criminal invasion of Ukraine is appalling, brutal, and unjust. Putin displays contempt for international institutions, humanitarian law and the rules of military conflict. Above all, Putin shows a callous disregard for human life, Ukrainian and Russian. He treats human life as nothing more than pawns to satisfy his monstrous ambitions, and that is why the Leader of the Opposition has said clearly that he should stand trial for his crimes at a special tribunal at The Hague.

As we know, Putin’s aim is not simply to take Ukraine. We are facing a tyrant ready to use his war to redraw the map of Europe. He wants to destroy the unity of the west, and one year on, as the former Prime Minister the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip has said, there is still no sign that any of Putin’s strategic aims have changed, but nor have they been achieved.

This war can only end in failure for Putin: he will fail because he miscalculated the incredible resolve of the Ukrainian people to defend their homeland; he will fail because he has underestimated the strength of resolve on these shores and across the west to support Ukraine for as long as it takes to defeat Russia; and he will fail because the millions of voices defending democracy will over time drown out the hate and division of tyrants and dictators.

The Government have had Labour’s fullest support on Britain’s military help to Ukraine. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition said on his visit to Kyiv only a few days ago, for as long as Putin continues to wage this criminal war, the Government will continue to have Labour’s fullest support, but as we head into the second year of this conflict there are several important questions that I would like to press the Minister on.

Iran

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord); I did not realise he had undergone that experience, and I appreciate the passion with which he speaks. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing the debate.

We have heard devastating accounts today of Iranians subjected to brutality at the hands of not just the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps but the Iranian justice system, tortured into submission and coerced into confession. We have a responsibility to those being held in jail, awaiting trial, sentence or even execution, that their cries for help do not go unheard.

It has been an excellent debate, and we have to hope that in some small way, the fact that we are here speaking about this makes some difference. In particular, the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) about her constituent’s cousin, Mehdi, who is being held, really brought home to me that these are real lives at stake. If we can save the lives of even a few of them by speaking out today, it has to be worth while.

Others have mentioned the image of the Iranian men’s football team refusing to sing the national anthem in their World cup game with England. That was an incredibly powerful statement, as they stood united in defiance with the women of Iran in the stands and watching the game at home. Their gesture will have been seen far and wide during the most watched sporting event in the world, yet back at home, the authorities in Iran appear oblivious of the world’s gaze. Former Iranian footballer Amir Nasr-Azadani was sentenced to 26 years in prison this week for taking part in the November protests. Standing up for basic women’s rights was deemed tantamount to “waging war on God” by the court. Comparatively, Amir got off lightly; the two men sentenced alongside him were executed.

The regime is no stranger to the death penalty. Some 314 people were executed in 2021 for various offences. I would hope that everyone in this place stands united in their opposition to the death penalty, no matter what the circumstances are, but the scale and precision of these verdicts suggests that something more deliberate and more sinister than we have seen previously in the use of the death penalty in Iran is now happening. These executions are being used as yet another tool of oppression, to silence people, instil fear and stop any expression of dissent. By adopting a very liberal definition of which acts warrant the death penalty, the Islamic Republic of Iran is bent on delivering illiberal justice. There is no transparency in the court proceedings. It is simply a case of revenge and retribution by the Iranian authorities.

There has been well-informed discussion about whether we should proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organisation, and I join calls for the Government to follow suit. I was interested in what the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), had to say about this being a policy position, not a legal one. I also noted what the hon. Member for Hendon said. I hope that we can get some clarity from the Minister about exactly what we are able to do and that he will take the strongest possible action. I also hope he will respond to the points raised about sanctions running out.

Those who have protested peacefully since the killing of Mahsa Amini and continue bravely to speak out despite the risks to their safety have my admiration and full solidarity. It was so inspiring to see young schoolgirls leading the push for change under the rallying call of “Woman, Life, Freedom”. The sanctions and asset freezes outlined by the Foreign Office in response to the violent crackdown are welcome, but the priority now must be stopping the scheduled executions.

The Foreign Secretary said in December:

“We are not passive observers and we should not merely voice our feelings: we will use our country’s leverage to make a difference.”

Why, then, did the BBC report on Tuesday that the Foreign Secretary has not directly spoken to Iran’s chargé affairs, Mehdi Hosseini Matin, despite instructing the Foreign Office to summon him four times? I appreciate the signal that summoning an official sends, but is it not time we sent an even stronger signal? Is it not time we went further than condemnation and used our leverage to make a difference? I appreciate that it is not in our gift to stop the Iranian regime in their tracks, but what leverage does the Minister think we have? I believe that we can and must do more. That includes securing independent access to trials, trying to secure a moratorium on executions and trying to hold the Iranian regime properly accountable.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The key question is, what can we do? The answer to that is: not very much, honestly. But what we can do is make one hell of a lot of noise about what is happening in Iran, in the UN and in every avenue we can use internationally, because it is absolutely appalling.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I was for four years in the shadow foreign affairs team with the human rights brief, and I often felt I was taking part in debates where there was a lot of hand-wringing and expressing horror at what was going on in the countries we were talking about. It felt so frustrating and futile to be talking about these issues, and there is a certain sense of impotence in terms of what we can achieve, but he is right to say that we should not let that hold us back from speaking out, because it is about joining our voices. It might not make an immediate difference, but we have to continue speaking out, in the hope that one day at least, it will make a difference.

To conclude, if the international community fails to increase pressure on Iran, the executions will continue, and the situation is likely to get worse. If we stand with the protesters, we may secure their freedom, and we will have honoured our commitment to protect human rights everywhere without discrimination.

[Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the Backbench Business Committee on securing this incredibly important and timely debate. All that it takes for evil to prevail is for good men and women to stay silent, so I am absolutely delighted that this House is not staying silent. I have enjoyed listening to the speeches from around the House, and I particularly enjoyed listening to the learned submissions from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), who was in her place and is not any longer.

I have a number of refugees living in Southend and Leigh-on-Sea in my constituency who are as horrified as I am at what is happening in their homeland. It is as appalling as it is unlawful. I also have a small personal interest in this matter. My aunt, who is in her 80s, travelled abroad in her 20s, when she got as far as Iran and found the country to be so beautiful and free that she fell in love with an Iranian. She then lived there for at least two very happy decades in a country that is of course one of the most ancient civilisations in the world. Looking at photographs, we see that women were dressed, as we are, in western dress; they were encouraged to work and were encouraged to be educated. They had to flee in 1979 and come back to this country. It is horrifying how, in 40 years, that country has gone back 400 years. The misery and pain that has been inflicted on the people by turning Iran into a medieval country is simply horrifying.

However, I do believe that, for the first time in 40 years, Iran is on the precipice of a fundamental change towards democracy. We have heard it described as a knife edge, but I always prefer to be optimistic and to look forward. It is a change on behalf of all women that we should support and welcome. Over the past six months, we have seen an incredible uprising against this tyrannical, misogynistic regime in Iran. We have seen the protests erupting across the country, and we have seen the people calling for an end to this medieval, theocratic regime and for the establishment of a new democratic and free country.

As has been said, this popular movement is best summed up with the slogan of the protesters: “Woman, Life, Freedom”. It is women who have absolutely been at the heart of this uprising. We have heard how it started with one brave woman, Mahsa Amini, who was arrested in September last year for disobeying Iran’s strict Islamic dress code forcing her to wear a headscarf. She was murdered in custody on 16 September, aged just 22. Not surprisingly, and quite rightly, this was a lightning flash across the world, sparking these protests by women. Young people—men and women—want to see a new free Iran, and we have heard in graphic detail the response with which they have met.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my good friend for allowing me to intervene. The truth is that, if there was a free vote in Iran, this lot would be swept away, but there will not be a free vote. Iran is governed by people with guns and secret police who terrify the people. They terrify everyone, and if we were there, we might well be terrified as well. We might well be on a tipping point, but the fact is we have been on a tipping point in Iran for at least 10 years, and nothing has happened, because these people have such a grip on the people of Iran, and it is such a shame. For goodness’ sake, can we somehow, please God, get that tipping point over and let us have freedom for everyone in Iran, because it is a wonderful country?

[Anna Firth]

My right hon. Friend sums up perfectly what is needed and how important it is that we in this place encourage the Government to get over that tipping point and take meaningful action.

The brutality meted out on these brave protesters since September is just appalling. More than 19,200 have been detained—nearly 20,000 people—for doing nothing more than exercising the basic human rights that we in the western world take completely for granted, and 500 have been killed. These figures are just unbelievable. There have been four executions of protesters in the past two months. We know from high-profile cases, such as that of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who was falsely imprisoned for over six years, that this regime cares nothing for the rule of law, and I really fear for the protesters who have been imprisoned, especially as the average age of those protesters is just 15. All mothers—all parents and grandparents—around the country will know how it would feel if their 15-year-old was taken against their wishes, imprisoned and executed.

Despite that, the protests show that brave women have had enough. They will no longer put up with being legally and brutally repressed. Women in Iran have been treated as second-class citizens since the revolution of 1979, as is evidenced by how excluded they are from public life. Women make up just 16% of the workforce, but in most European countries, as in the UK, the figure is 60%. It is partly because of the repression of women that Iran is on the UK’s list of 31 human rights priority countries. I am sure the Minister will join me in applauding the bravery of the young women standing up against this regime.

This is more than just a movement to secure the removal of forced veiling, valid though that aim is; it is now a movement towards lasting democratic change. When the regime does change, I hope that the tenets set out in the 10-point plan of Mrs Maryam Rajavi, the president-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, are looked at and embodied. Those points call for nothing less than complete gender equality—gender equality in the realms of political, social, cultural and economic rights—as well as equal participation for women in political leadership, the abolition of any form of discrimination against women, the right to choose one’s own clothing freely, the right to freely marry, the right to freely divorce, and the right to obtain education and employment. Those are rights that all women in this place and throughout the western world take completely for granted, and quite rightly.

In October last year, I called in this Chamber for the UN to remove Iran from the Commission on the Status of Women. It seemed to me utterly extraordinary that Iran should have any place whatsoever on a body designed to look after women’s rights. I was delighted when the UN voted to remove Iran from that commission in December. These political statements, while they may seem like empty words and not real action, are incredibly important, because they show that the international community condemns what is going on.

The UK is no stranger to taking action and disapproving of certain regimes, and I am proud that we have taken some action in relation to Iran. Since the beginning of the latest round of protests, the UK has imposed sanctions against the morality police and other senior figures in the Iranian regime. We now sanction 119 individuals and two entities in Iran, and we have rightly sanctioned the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Since its creation in 1979, the IRGC has been actively oppressing dissidents inside Iran and spreading terrorism abroad. We have heard that the IRGC funds and supports terrorist groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and many other regional proxy groups. It also plays a leading role in the suppression of the rights of women and in violently suppressing protesters.

I believe, however, that we now need to go further. The USA and Canada have gone further, and they are doing more than sanctioning the IRGC, which they now proscribe as a terrorist organisation. I urge the Government to follow suit. Proscribing the group would mean that it would become a criminal offence to belong to the IRGC, attend its meetings, carry its logo in public or encourage its activities. Most importantly, it would put the body on a similar legal footing to al-Qaeda and Daesh, where I believe it belongs. I was encouraged to read reports in The Daily Telegraph last week that the Government are considering taking such action, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

To conclude, proscribing the IRGC would send a strong signal to the Iranian regime that it cannot continue to supress women. It would send a strong signal to the women of Iran that the UK is on their side. Above all, it would send a signal to the Iranian regime that its time is up. Change is coming. The people of Iran will continue to fight for that, and we in this place will continue to stand with them and support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this debate. It has been a powerful debate that will send a strong message to the Iranian regime about our views in this country.

I rise on behalf of my Iranian constituents and in full solidarity with the Iranian people in their fight against their repressive and abusive regime. I speak also on behalf of many constituents in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields who have contacted me about the situation. It is breaking many hearts, as I know from people I have met in my surgeries and on the streets. I bump into people who say how much they would like me to speak out about what is happening in Iran. They have been on protests in London. They can go to those protests without fear of being kidnapped on the way, being thrown into prison, having a sham trial, and being tortured and abused, which is what so many young people in Iran are facing—even those wrongly thought to be going to a protest. It has been heartbreaking to hear those stories about people going to protests, just as young people in Putney do all the time, and suffering that abuse.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank the hon. Lady—my hon. Friend—for allowing me to intervene. If any of us were to make a speech such as the one we have made this afternoon in Iran, we would be dead meat very quickly. We are extremely lucky to be able to speak as we do and condemn this awful regime. All I can say is that we have to make as much noise as we can to try to get rid of it.

[Fleur Anderson]

I welcome that intervention. I really believe that that is what we are doing in the debate today. I am pleased to be able to join Members from across the House who are united in so many ways on this issue.

On 8 January, one person was killed by the regime who had been to visit his parents’ gravestones. He was wrongly thought to be part of a protest that was taking place nearby and that resulted in him being murdered by the regime; he was sentenced to death.

The extensive use of force against protesters is horrific. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has said that more than 300 people have been killed in the latest crackdown by the regime, including 40 children. More than 18,000 people have been arrested and a reported 488 people have been killed. We know that the mistreatment of women has been a brutal reality for Iranian women for many years, both in Iran and overseas. That is state sanction of misogyny and murder of women on a mass scale.

I have previously spoken to support the brave women and girls of Iran in their protests and about the abhorrence of the death in police custody of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini. She was the same age as one of my daughters. That really brings home to me that these young people are being so brave in their protests. They are the same age as my children, who could easily face the same situation as so many in Iran. There is also the online harassment, kidnapping and execution of so many others.

Colleagues raised the 26 individuals at risk of execution without fair trial for made-up offences. I add my voice to those calling for their immediate release. One of those individuals, who has since been hanged, was 22-year-old karate champion Mehdi Karami, who had dreams of one day competing in the Olympics and won numerous medals for Iran in various competitions. Mehdi’s last words were:

“Dad, they’ve reached a verdict. Mine is execution by hanging. Don’t tell mum.”

He was a proud Iranian patriot who wanted to live a normal life and stand up for his country at home and abroad. It is just heartbreaking.

Another case raised today is that of Alireza Akbari, a dual national UK citizen who has been denied representation, denied legal process and is on death row with an imminent execution fate. His family have been called in for a final meeting. The Foreign Secretary has denounced his treatment as politically motivated. I hope to hear from the Minister about what actions have been taken by our diplomats to secure his release and to avoid his murder. We cannot stay silent.

As has been mentioned, the IRGC is destabilising the region. It goes far beyond the context of Iran, and not least to Lebanon, which I visited last year. This week, I spoke to community leaders about its current political disarray and economic collapse, fuelled in part by the actions of Hezbollah under the patronage of Iran. The Government could be doing more in relation to the ongoing abuses of human rights in Iran and the activity of the IRGC on British soil.

What can we do? First, we must continue to stand firmly against the Iranian regime. The Government’s announcement of sanctions against certain regime figures is welcome, but they should be the start of more. We must continue to ramp up our sanctions regime, bringing to justice human rights abusers from the bloody 2019 crackdown as well. I hope to hear later that the Minister has been thinking seriously about new sanctions against the regime, sanctions against the families of those already sanctioned, and how we can ratchet those up.

Secondly, we must maximise support for Iranians on the ground. For example, we could consider ensuring that all political prisoners in Iran have political sponsorships in the UK, following similar moves by politicians in Germany, which has saved Iranian lives and overturned death sentences. We need to ensure that Iranians have internet access so that they can facilitate and organise protests, and welcome Iranian refugees here with open arms. The Government should give Iranians who are fighting with their lives the options to flee and issue visas, especially to those people who have been given death sentences in Iran and those women who are leading the protests.

I end by posing five questions to the Government. First, will the Minister confirm today, as has been asked by so many Members across the House, plans to proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in full in the coming days? If not now, when? The Government should move quickly to decide whether to follow the US and other countries to formally proscribe the IRGC.

Secondly, what plans does the Minister have to expand the sanctions regime to other Iranian human rights abusers, such as the then technology Minister Mohammad-Javad Azari Jahromi and the IRGC commander Salar Abnoush? Thirdly, does the Minister agree that now is the time to speak the truth plainly when calling out Tehran’s malign behaviour, including being bold enough to label the regime’s state hostage-taking policies for what they really are?

Fourthly, there is a large Iranian diaspora in the UK, including in my constituency, who are fearing for their family and friends in Iran and in desperate worry because often they cannot hear from them. However, the community is under threat here, too. Can the Minister set out what the UK is doing to ensure the safety of British-Iranian journalists and to tackle pro-Iranian extremism, which we have seen in the UK? Fifthly, what would it take for the Government to take steps to expel the Iranian diplomats here? I understand that the consequence would be the expulsion of our diplomats from Tehran. Could the Minister outline the benefit of our diplomats staying in Tehran—that would be the reason not to expel the diplomats here—but also what it would really take: what are the red lines by which we would expel the diplomats here? We cannot continue to say that this is a regime similar to others—as we have heard today, it has gone far beyond that.

The clock is ticking. Since we broke for our last recess, more innocent Iranian citizens have been executed. Every second counts. Feet dragging costs lives. Those brave souls who have stood up against the brutal regime need all the help that we can give them. I end with solidarity for the people of Iran, support for a democratic solution and to stand up for all other victims of oppressive and brutal regimes across the world. “Woman, Life, Freedom.”

West Balkans: Council of Europe

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Without doubt, the crucible and cockpit for all crisis in the western Balkans is Bosnia. This country has 3.2 million people, ethnically south Slav in nature, but split into three basic religions. Muslims make up 51%, and they are often called Bosniaks. Eastern Orthodox people represent 31%—often called Bosnian Serbs. Roman Catholics represent about 15%—normally called Bosnian Croats.

In 1992, the Bosnian Serbs attacked their neighbours, seizing large tracts of land, which they ethnically cleansed of non-Serbs. As the war went on, the Croats and Muslims also carried out their version of ethnic cleansing. An estimated 2 million people were driven from their homes. In September 1992, the United Nations authorised the deployment to Bosnia of a protection force, UNPROFOR. The UN troops were often called peace- keepers, but actually that was not their role. There was no peace to keep in Bosnia and UNPROFOR did not have the mandate to enforce it either.

Although several British Army observers, medics and liaison staff were already on the ground in Sarajevo and elsewhere, Britain’s main contribution to UNPROFOR was a battle group based on the 1st Battalion, the Cheshire Regiment and a reconnaissance squadron of the 9th/12th Lancers. Around 2,400 troops deployed under Operation Grapple, which is what it was called, in November 1992, and I led it.

Our military has been directly involved in Bosnia since then, and 59 service personnel have lost their lives trying to help the country, among them my escort driver, Lance Corporal Wayne Edwards, and my interpreter, Dobrila Kalaba, who was deployed by us although technically not in the Army. Both were shot in the head, and I was shot in the leg. It did not seem to make much difference to me—I am still here—but I am very sad about the other two. Unsurprisingly, therefore, I have a deep personal connection to Bosnia, which I retain to this day.

The war, which started in 1992 when I was first there, continued until the massacre of Srebrenica in July 1995 and ended with the Dayton peace accords in 1996. That stopped the fighting and established a triumvirate of uneasy power sharing between the three major sides: Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats and Bosniaks. Dayton was supposed to last only a few years until politics could be adjusted to make Bosnia a somewhat democratic and viable state, but the Dayton arrangements have become the status quo, and they are simply cracking at the seams.

The Bosnian Serbs in so-called Republika Srpska are seriously threatening to break away, and the Bosnian Croats are also making similar growling noises. If that happens, almost all authorities on the region believe we could easily see the renewal of civil warfare in Bosnia. Between 1992 and 1996, approximately 200,000 people were killed in that war and, as I have mentioned, 2 million people were displaced. That tragedy must not be repeated.

I believe that we, the British, are in a good position to influence what goes on in Bosnia. Our reputation there is quite high as a result of the actions of our soldiers over the years, as well as the continued interest that we hold in the country—witness the fact that Sir Stuart Peach is the representative there, and a good one too. In my experience, the one thing Bosnians respect is good, motivated and professional soldiers on the ground, who know what they are doing. I do not suppose that it will come as a surprise to colleagues that I believe that we could go in there again.

Currently, we have very few military forces on the ground there and we do not contribute to the so-called EUFOR, the European Union Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is utterly and completely useless and does nothing but wander around the country, but we have a few staff officers at the nascent NATO headquarters recently established there. It would be a hugely significant signal if we were to send a British battle group to Bosnia under NATO command. I suggest that should happen, and soon.

My interest in Bosnia has not waned over the years. I have been there twice this year and will return again on 8 December. As my friend, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), has already mentioned, it is a tragedy that 170,000 people left Bosnia last year. They were mainly youngsters. Consider that 170,000 as a percentage of the population of 3.4 million. They are heavily bleeding the people who could be the future of Bosnia. Those people would not be leaving if they believed they had a future, so we, the British, who have invested so much in the country and have paid a blood price, should do all in our power to help that country of decent people sort itself out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do. I know the Minister will respond positively. She knows that I have a deep interest in that issue. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, it comes up all the time, and I will go on to speak about it. The hon. Member for Henley referred to fit and healthy single males who seem to be leaving Albania with regularity to come to the United Kingdom. I am not against any person who wants to emigrate, but do it legally through the system. Don’t jump on a boat and come across.

I watched a TV programme last week that looked at a village in Albania. The village previously had a population of around 1,000, but it was down to less than 100. Those left behind were elderly people and children—not many children at that—because they are all coming across. When it comes to Albania, maybe the Minister could give some indication of what discussions there have been through the Council of Europe and what the Council will do to ensure that people do not come across in these increasing numbers.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my good friend for allowing me to intervene on him. A good role for the Council of Europe that has not been mentioned is convening a conference to try to sort out a Dayton 2—a new approach to Bosnia. If the Council of Europe is so flipping powerful, it should actually convene this conference and get on with it. All these words and elections are meaningless if the country is broken because of its constitution, which is non-existent and frankly is a cockshy.

[Caroline Nokes (in the Chair)]

Mr Stewart, please can you think about the language you use in this Chamber?

[Bob Stewart]

Ms Nokes, I am so sorry.

[Jim Shannon]

The emotion of the occasion perhaps got the better of the right hon. Gentleman. I wholeheartedly support—with the exception of the last couple of words, of course—what he says. We have stated on multiple occasions that the UK is committed to the western Balkans and to the defence and promotion of freedom. The west has proven instrumental in ensuring support for the west Balkans’s call for greater Euro-Atlantic integration with the United States for both economic and cultural prosperity.

One major factor posing great concern is Russia. I spoke on this issue last time, and we have truly seen the utter malice and evil that Russia has subjected Ukraine to since we last spoke on the issue. The Kremlin has repeatedly demonstrated that the Balkan states are a conducive environment to push back against the west, especially the USA. Putin’s regime has refused to accept Kosovo’s independence, attempted a brazen attack against Montenegro and committed covert attacks to target arms supplies that were destined for Ukraine. Russia is clever when it comes to subversion and in its violence, brutality and wickedness. When we look at these things logically, Russia has absolutely nothing to offer the west Balkans. These countries are in desperate need of prosperity and greater stability, and there is no comparison between the Council of Europe and the corrupt regime of Putin. That is the real threat in the Balkans.

Part of the Berlin process is to ensure that nine EU member states, along with the west Balkans and the UK, engage with the six Balkan Administrations to promote regional co-operation and integration agendas between EU and non-EU states. I know the hon. Member for Henley is trying to do that through his leadership. Through the Council of Europe, we care much about striving for democracy and promoting fair elections. No smaller state should be subject to violent extremism. The ongoing war in Ukraine has been devastating, and the United Kingdom has a role as a western ally to help Balkan states preserve companionship and autonomy. It has been clear that Serbia has moved closer to Russia by not imposing sanctions on the Administration. We have to look at what we can do to impress on Serbia the importance of making efforts to distant itself from Putin.

I will conclude, as I am very conscious that others want to speak. The UK works very closely with Governments in the Balkans region to support internal reforms and the rule of law. I wish for that to continue. I call on our Government—my Government—and the Minister who is in Westminster Hall today to ensure that there are ongoing conversations and support for the future of the western Balkans. I thank them—the Minister and the Government—as well as the Council of Europe, and in particular the hon. Member for Henley, for their work and achievements thus far.

Missile Incident in Poland

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I would also like to put on record my recognition of the fact that right across the House, including from the SNP Benches, we have had a unanimity of voice on the world stage. If Vladimir Putin felt that his aggression in Ukraine could in any way drive wedges between people who are like-minded on these issues, he was wrong. That is true in this House, and it is true on the international stage.

I thank the hon. Member for the points he has made. He has made an incredibly important point about the evolving threat. As I said in my response to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), it is now clear that as Russia sees failures on the battlefield, it is moving to attacks from the air. We have provided surface-to-air defence missile systems and AMRAAM air-to-air defence missile systems. We will be looking at further air defence donations that can come from the international community and also, importantly, making sure there is integration in the air defence cover that Ukraine is able to provide. We know what Putin intends to do—as I have said, he intends to starve and freeze the Ukrainians into submission—and we have to stand shoulder to shoulder with them in order to prevent him from doing so.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I presume that the Foreign Secretary agrees with me that article 5 of the NATO treaty is just as relevant now as it has ever been—in other words, that an attack against any member of NATO is an attack against all of us—and that we should make it absolutely clear to Russia that that remains the case.

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. and gallant Friend makes an incredibly important point about the importance of our collective defence. I remind the House that the NATO Secretary-General’s assessment is that this was not a deliberate attack, so in this instance, article 5 would not be the most appropriate response. Again, I commend the Polish Government on their swift and decisive, but calm and measured, response to this incident. I had a conversation this morning with our permanent representative at NATO in Brussels; NATO also acted swiftly and calmly by discussing this incident, and the response will be calibrated to the facts on the ground. However, as I say, my right hon. and gallant Friend is right that our collective defence is a cornerstone of our safety.

Yemen Peace Process

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It is a real pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Yemen is important to us, and I want to concentrate on why that is. The south-eastern end of the Arabian peninsula was once crucial to the functioning of the British empire. A settlement in Aden was occupied by Royal Marines in 1839. It became a bunkering port for passing ships on the way to India. After the opening of the Suez canal in 1869, Aden became vital as a staging post for ships going to and from India and the far east. When oil replaced coal as the main fuel for ships, the importance of Aden was reinforced, particularly as it is so close to the middle-eastern oil fields. Unsurprisingly, BP built a rather large facility there.

As time passed, Aden and its hinterland became a formal part of the British empire, the Aden protectorate. That was the southern bit, as my two lady friends, my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) and the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), will recall, although they were still in nappies when I was running around there—I am old, in other words. I have lost my place now.

[Valerie Vaz]

Yes, we have reminisced a lot together about what a lovely country it was. It was wonderful for me that there were so many different nationalities there; I was taught by Italian nuns and had Greek friends. There were people from Goa, and all sorts of other people, including of course the Arabs, with their brilliant hospitality. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that we need to restore that beautiful country.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank the right hon. Lady, whom I call a good friend, although she is not formally meant to be a friend; technically, she is not a friend, but she really is a friend. I have been able to find my place now—thank you.

The colony of Aden consisted of 23 sultanates when we were there. There were emirates, sultanates and several independent tribes. All this was run from London and controlled by the British Government, although not completely. In the 1950s, when I was there, some tribes were in open rebellion against British authority, which led to a protracted insurrection that we all remember. Well, others might not remember it as much as I do.

In 1967, the United Kingdom had enough. Aden was given independence as South Yemen, and British forces withdrew. The Aden protectorate was renamed the People’s Republic of South Yemen. The Yemen Arab Republic was to its north—that is the division we were talking about. In 1990, north and south joined to become Yemen.

My particular interest in Yemen comes from the fact that as a child I lived there from 1953 to 1957. I was there because my father served there, like the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley. My father was a company commander in the 1st Battalion of the Aden Protectorate Levies, charged with keeping order “up-country”, as we called it. He was always away, and I never really saw him. He was always on operations, and there was pretty fierce fighting. In 1955, he was awarded the Military Cross.

Since 1990, Yemen has gone from bad to worse. It is such a dangerous place that it would be utterly foolhardy for foreigners to go there without protection. We have already identified how poor the country is; it is actually very poor. It is the poorest country in the middle east and a very fragile state. Yemen has essentially become a cockpit where some would say the two main branches of Islam are fighting tooth and nail by proxy. The official Government of Yemen are now backed by Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Sudan, the Gulf states and, through them, us as their allies, and the United States. The rebels are mainly from the northern Shi’a Houthi grouping, who, I seem to recall, used to take great delight in shooting at my father in the 1950s.

[Mrs Drummond]

They are not Shi’a; they are Sunnis from the Zaidi part of the Sunni doctrine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

Forgive me if I got that wrong; I am perfectly willing to be corrected. To complicate the situation further, al-Qaeda has turned up. Perhaps the most dangerous of the al-Qaeda factions is in Yemen. Just to make the problem even more difficult, so-called Islamic State is present as well, or Daesh, as I might prefer to call them. That is a very rude word in Arabic, and I will not explain what it means, but frankly it is correct.

We have a responsibility here, because we drafted the original UN Security Council resolution 2216 in April 2015, which demanded that the Houthis withdraw from all their seized areas and relinquish all seized arms. We established an arms embargo against the Houthis and the forces loyal to the former president. Security Council resolution 2216 was passed unanimously. The five permanent members of the Security Council must agree it; otherwise it does not pass. In this case, four did. Russia did not, but it abstained, which under the rules allowed the resolution to pass, so it passed unopposed. United Nations action on the ground has not been very effective, but that does not stop leaders of the United Nations doing their very best to try to sort out the situation.

There remains little access to large parts of Yemen, but I am pleased that the UK provides so much aid. Are we the fourth or the second-largest provider of aid to Yemen?

[Mrs Drummond]

Second.

[Bob Stewart]

We are second. Aid must get through. We have mentioned people starving and a lack of medical supplies, but all I can remember about Aden is how little water there was there. Water is crucial—good clean water. Certainly, in the early days, some of the Saudi-led airstrikes went wrong, and they have clearly killed innocent people. However, in 2016, when I visited the Riyadh air operations centre, which controls all operations, I was impressed by the attitude of the air controllers and the coalition pilots to what ex-military people like me call weapons release. From what I saw, they were doing their very best then, and have done since, to avoid civilian casualties. Indeed, I heard real evidence that they often returned with full bomb loads. They were not positive that they would not hurt people, so they did not have weapons release.

The Gulf Co-operation Council and Saudi Arabia are very close allies of our country. We must be quite clear that, regardless of its mistakes, the Saudi-led coalition is operating under the authority of a unanimously adopted Security Council resolution. It is acting for the Security Council. It is acting for the forum of the world. It is doing the work on the ground in response to the Government of the world, if one wants to think of the United Nations like that. After all, the usurpation of power in Yemen was illegal. The Government of Yemen are a legal Government. We do well to remember that. It is far too easy for us to sit here and castigate what our allies do sometimes. The Saudi-led coalition is doing its very best to implement international law and the Security Council resolution that we, the British, drafted.

Obviously, everyone here realises that the only way ahead for Yemen is a political solution. That solution must obviously involve the United Nations. I suspect that it has to involve countries such as ourselves, other Arab countries and the United States. Perhaps, dare I suggest, it has to include Iran.

According to the United Nations, as we have heard, 150,000 people have been killed in the war in Yemen, and that does not include the 227,000 who died as a result of famine. I cannot believe that people in this world are dying because they do not have enough food. That is appalling. It is something that, as human beings, we have a real responsibility to sort out. Lack of food, kids dying—it is just dreadful. The lack of healthcare facilities just piles it on, too.

I should stop shortly, because others want to speak, but I hope that I have emphasised that we, the British, have a responsibility for action in Yemen. I know that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is acutely aware of the United Kingdom’s long-standing concern about what has happened in the country, and that the issue is not on the backburner. It is very difficult to sort this one out, but surely a world that can land a spacecraft on a flipping comet can find a way to stop Yemen going through the bloody awful hell that it is enduring.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies. I thank the hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) for bringing forward this important debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. We are debating the peace process in Yemen, but the brutal fact is that before the UK can make any meaningful contribution to any peace process in Yemen, the Government need to make up their mind what their position and intentions are towards Yemen and the horrific situation there. The Government are wringing their hands about the deliberate killing, widespread rape and intentional starvation of millions of people—there are more than 20 million people in need of humanitarian assistance and 4 million displaced—while knowingly fuelling the emergency by refusing to ban arms sales to one of the main actors in that brutality, with the ridiculous excuse that there is “no clear risk” that weapons sold to one of the main aggressors against civilians in Yemen might be used on civilians in Yemen.

UK-produced weapons make up around 20% of Saudi arms purchases. Even the US Government, which made up most of the rest of the Saudi arms supply, has now decided to pause its weapons sales to the country and has gone as far as to reset its military relationship. At the same time, we have the UK acting as penholder for Yemen on the United Nations Security Council, supposedly taking the lead on the Council’s activities and resolutions regarding Yemen. The UK Government do not just wring their hands about the emergency that they help to fuel; they lead the international hand wringing.

The penholding has done nothing practical to improve the situation for Yemeni civilians. Instead, earlier this year the UN decided to shut down its investigation into war crimes in Yemen, apparently under pressure from the Saudi Government—a lack of oversight that observers say has seen an acceleration in the rate of atrocities committed as perpetrators feel able to act without scrutiny, let alone consequences. The UN’s abdication of its role in Yemen mirrors the UK’s two-faced stance, and makes it all the more urgent that the UK finally acts in a manner consistent with its expressed concerns about all the horrors taking place in Yemen.

Ending arms sales to Saudi Arabia is the obvious first step if our Government are serious about the UK’s role in helping to end the mass murders, rapes and starvation. But it must not end there. The UK must also use its penholder role to—

[Bob Stewart]

Can I ask the hon. Lady who she thinks is most responsible for the mass murders and rapes? According to my understanding, it is the Houthis.

[Claudia Webbe]

I think our responsibility is to work towards peace, and we need to focus our efforts on ending the arms sales that rain bombs down on the Yemeni people.

The UK must use its penholder role to push the UN into restoring its mandate for war crimes investigation immediately to ensure that those who carry out those crimes are identified and held to account. The horrific situation in Yemen demands nothing less than a concerted and consistent political stance and a matching push for action. Instead of turning a blind eye while companies profiteer from the horror, the Government must step up now.

Srebrenica

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Graham Stuart)]

It is a great, albeit sobering, pleasure to follow so many powerful speeches from Members on both sides of the House, showing the unity to which so many referred. There is real-world power in standing up for the principles and values that are shared on both sides of the House, and that all of us, including the UK Government, wish to back and reinforce.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) and the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this debate and, of course, the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. It is fantastic to have Members on both sides of the House who not only speak with passion on this issue but have deep personal knowledge and engagement from their previous professional career. I pay tribute to them for their work as the respective chairs of the all-party parliamentary groups on Bosnia and Herzegovina and on Srebrenica. The professional career of my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) also involved him in that part of the world.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am very much involved in Bosnia, so I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate, which is terribly important because it is widely viewed in Bosnia. People pay huge attention to what is happening, because they do not get this sort of debate in their own country. The young people, by the way, do not want another war, and people in Bosnia are watching what we say and do very carefully.

[Graham Stuart]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention.

Colleagues on both sides of the Chamber are right to continue drawing attention to the fragile situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and to the lessons we must all learn from the Srebrenica genocide. I am grateful for the contributions made by hon. and right hon. Members, and I will try to respond to the points they have raised.

This debate comes just after the 27th anniversary of the genocide at Srebrenica. As colleagues have said, it was the worst atrocity on European soil since the end of the second world war. Today, as we did on Monday, we remember the victims of those terrible events and stand with the families in their ongoing fight for justice so many years on.

There is no question but that what happened in Srebrenica was genocide. That was the conclusion of the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and of the International Court of Justice after extensive legal processes, yet some individuals and groups continue to deny these events. We have seen this over the past few days in and around Srebrenica, and we utterly condemn this behaviour. Glorifying the perpetrators and instigators of such heinous acts takes us further away from reconciliation and hinders the country’s ability to move forward and come together, so it is vital that we deliver justice and challenge the lies and false narratives, as successive speakers have said.

To date, a total of 57 individuals have been tried at the state court of Bosnia and Herzegovina for crimes committed in and around Srebrenica in July 1995. A further 20 individuals have been tried at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and its successor, the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, for crimes related to Srebrenica. We are proud to have supported this work.

Of course, we house Radovan Karadžić in a UK cell as he serves his whole-of-life prison sentence following his conviction for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and for the genocide at Srebrenica. Last month, the UK helped to pass a UN Security Council resolution on the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, extending the term of the current prosecutor. We will continue to fight to end impunity for war criminals, and to see that they are held to account.

As others have said, Bosnia and Herzegovina faces new challenges today. Threats are on the rise, from the knock-on effects of Putin’s war to the destabilising actions of Russian-backed secessionists, about which the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) spoke so powerfully.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 27th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Richard Thomson]

It certainly appears to me that there is a potential landing zone between what has been proposed by the European Union and what has been proposed by the UK Government—indeed, there is a bit of an overlap. I would offer to come along with Ministers, but they might feel that reinforcements had arrived and somehow weakened their position. Nevertheless, there ought to be a landing zone here for those of goodwill and good faith.

Even as a supporter of Scottish independence, I find it utterly inconceivable that any Unionist Government would have signed up to the kind of arrangements that placed a trade border down the middle of the Irish sea while denying they were doing any such thing. All the issues inherent in the protocol could have been avoided had the UK Government maintained a modicum of statecraft and respect for all parts of the Union, acknowledged the limitations of the mandate they had from the Brexit referendum and remained in as close alignment as they could with the single market and customs union, thereby minimising the economic harms we have seen to the UK since then and ensuring that no part of that precious Union was left behind. Yet even now it seems that the Government have not learned from their mistakes. The Scottish Government were not consulted by the UK Government before they took this action. I believe I am right in saying that the UK Government did not even afford the Scottish Government the courtesy of a phone call in advance to advise of these plans.

It has also been reported that the UK Government did not consult their top legal adviser—the First Treasury Counsel, Sir James Eadie—on the legality of their move. So we have a UK Government who are in contempt both of international law, as we have seen in other matters, and domestic law. Aspects around the Prime Minister’s current travails are bad enough, but to stand up and use the full authority of a ministerial office to say that which is not gets right to the heart not just of the problems being presented by the protocol in its current form but of the fitness of the Prime Minister, or anyone aspiring to replace him.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It is clear that the protocol is not working, and Northern Ireland business is suffering. In what way does this Bill act to the disadvantage of the European Union, because it seems to me that it is a very good way forward?

[Richard Thomson]

Well, it seems to me that whether it disadvantages or not is not something that Her Majesty’s Government get to decide. While I am clear that there are problems with the protocol, clearly there are aspects of it that are working very well, as indeed those on the Treasury Benches have admitted. I will set out some of the examples, particularly over trade, where it is not having the impact that we are told, in all aspects, that it is. I come from the point of view that trust has been broken between the UK Government and the people of all these islands, as well as between the UK Government and our international partners. That gets right to the nub of the issues about trying to renegotiate it.

We should not really need to say this, but it is absolutely vital that the UK Government should be able to respect the international obligations that they enter into freely. Lord Butler, who was head of the civil service for 10 years, has said that this country has repeatedly criticised states like Russia and China for breaking the rules-based international order and yet now holds that it is perfectly justified in breaching international law itself. It seems that in this Bill we are going from a “limited and specific” breach to something that is potentially extensive and egregious. General Sir Richard Barrons, the former chief of joint forces command, who served in Afghanistan, Iraq and Northern Ireland, has said that

“what the government is proposing is short-sighted tactics which will do much harm strategically in the wider world. In fact what is being done is particularly stupid.”

He went on to warn that these moves will empower our adversaries as

“it will undermine us with our enemies by giving them the opportunity to accuse us of hypocrisy when we call them out for breaking the rules-based international order. It will also undermine us with our allies who will doubt whether they can rely on us to keep to an agreement, keep to our word.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I will come to that point, but I simply ask the hon. Gentleman: if I were to do that, would he then support the Bill? I heard nothing in his contribution to suggest that he would.

Last July, I made it clear that:

“The Irish Sea Border is not just a threat to the economic integrity of the United Kingdom, it is a threat to the living standards of the people of Northern Ireland”,

and so it has proven. The impact of the additional cost of bringing goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland is contributing to the cost of living situation in Northern Ireland. It is driving up the cost of food in our supermarkets, it is driving up the cost of manufacturing, and it is making it difficult for businesses to operate effectively.

[Bob Stewart]

Further to that point, it seems that the people of Northern Ireland sometimes cannot get goods from Great Britain. Manufacturers here are not sending them to Northern Ireland, because of the additional burden of trying to get them there.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. Many of my constituents, and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, have experienced that as consumers and businesses. This is about not just businesses, but every citizen of Northern Ireland.

It is also about the democratic deficit. My Members, who were elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly and are Ministers in the Executive, are expected to preside over the imposition of regulations over which they have no say. They have no democratic input into how those regulations—the ones that regulate how we trade with the rest of our own country—are put in place. How can any hon. Member defend a situation where part of this United Kingdom is treated in such a way that its elected representatives have no say in many of the laws that regulate our trade with the rest of the United Kingdom? That is simply unacceptable and it is part of the problem.