Kurdistan Region of Iraq

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Bardell. I, too, thank the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) for securing the debate and for the way he opened it. I also thank the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for contributing to what has been a well-informed and thoughtful debate on an important strategic relationship.

Although I reply on behalf of the SNP, I should point out that since 2016 I have been chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the Yazidis. Like many others, I have had the privilege of visiting the region. Indeed, it was exactly a year ago that I flew into Irbil and visited Duhok, Shekhan, the holy site of Lalish and several of the Yazidi IDP camps—a subject I will return to later. I put on the record my sincere thanks to the hon. Member for Strangford for raising the plight of Christians, Yazidis and other religious minorities in Kurdistan. As soon as I saw him in his place this morning, I never doubted for a moment that he would.

The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke spoke movingly of the hideous genocide of the 1980s in which tens of thousands died at the hands of Saddam Hussein. He was right to highlight the crucial role played by Sir John Major. Since 1992 the Kurdish people have enjoyed a democratically elected Government of their own, giving freedoms and rights to people that would have been unimaginable under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.

Notwithstanding the very real concerns raised by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington about the current situation in respect of journalistic freedom and the freedom of trade unions, rights and freedoms have been strengthened through the emergence of a raft of civic society organisations, non-governmental organisations and women’s groups, alongside an institutionalised tolerance for religious, ethnic and linguistic minorities. Following the fall of Saddam Hussein, the first independence referendum in 2005 saw 99% support for the creation of an independent Kurdish state.

[Chris Stephens]

As the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned, it was the actions of the Saddam Hussein regime that allowed a thriving Kurdish community to develop in Scotland—in Glasgow and Edinburgh, for example—and that is best celebrated by the election of Councillor Roza Salih, Scotland’s first refugee councillor and a woman of very proud Kurdish roots, and we are equally as proud of her.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I thank and agree with my hon. Friend. Councillor Salih is a shining example of a young refugee woman who has recognised that she has a contribution to make. We are very grateful that she has made and continues to make that contribution to Scotland.

Of course, the 2005 referendum did not lead to an independent Kurdistan, because of threats from neighbouring countries, but it did enshrine the autonomy of the Kurdistan region in the new Iraqi constitution, which promised the protections of autonomy and citizenship based on a federal, ethnically diverse and inclusive model with strong minority rights and guarantees against discrimination.

It will come as no surprise to anyone present that, like the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke, the SNP supports Kurds’ right to self-determination and to decide their own constitutional future. We fully understand why, despite having a degree of autonomy, the people of Kurdistan still want their independence. That desire was expressed again in no uncertain terms in 2017, with another referendum, in which 92% backed independence on a turnout of 72%. It would be foolish in the extreme for anyone to assume that that desire has gone away.

To quote the words of the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke ahead of the 2017 referendum, he sympathised with the Kurdish position and understood

“why the Kurds feel that federalism has failed and their belief that it cannot be revived.”

It is therefore essential that, in building a healthy, co-operative, mutually respectful relationship with the Kurdistan region of Iraq, the United Kingdom never loses sight of Kurds’ fierce desire for their own independent nation state. There is no doubt that today the UK Government have a key role in facilitating the development of a good relationship between the Kurdistan region and the rest of Iraq—one that helps to realise the economic potential of both and strengthens security and democratic Governments not just in Iraq but in the region as a whole.

We have seen in recent weeks that these are extremely worrying and volatile times for the whole region. Tension between the KRG and the federal Government in Baghdad has not gone away, and is currently being exacerbated by a fiercely contested dispute over the status of the province of Kirkuk and control of its oil fields. The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke was right when he said that against that backdrop, and the unfolding catastrophe in Gaza, there was a missile attack last month by an Iran-affiliated group that claimed to have hit an Israeli spy base near Irbil. It was a blatant and flagrant breach of sovereignty, which was rightly condemned by both the KRG and the federal Government. Of course, Iran has form, having already attacked Kurdistan in 2022 in response to protests following the death of a young Iranian Kurdish women, Mahsa Amini. Those attacks killed 20 people, including civilian women, refugees and children.

The long-running conflict between Turkey and the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party, which has seen tens of thousands killed in the last four decades, has never been resolved. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford again for raising the question of what exactly the UK can do to help to facilitate a deal between the PKK and Turkey. Anything the UK and its partners can do to bring stability, dial down tension, and crucially avoid any escalation would be extremely welcome right now.

Of course, Kurdistan is not just having to cope with external pressures. Internally, it is having to cope with the consequences of the war on Daesh and a mass influx of people fleeing that barbaric onslaught. In the attack on Sinjar and the appalling genocide of the Yazidis that followed, Daesh fighters killed thousands of men and boys, abducted male children to fight as child soldiers, and kidnapped and sold into sexual slavery Yazidi women and girls, 2,700 of whom are still missing today and whose fate we cannot ever allow to be forgotten.

Those who could fled, many to Kurdistan. They never expected to stay and have always yearned to return to their home in Sinjar to rebuild their lives, but that has not happened because of a lack of security and an all too real fear that although Daesh has been defeated militarily, the ideology that fuelled them is still very much alive. That has resulted in a refugee crisis in Kurdistan, with more than 120,000 Yazidis still living in dire poverty and makeshift camps almost a decade after fleeing their homes in Sinjar when Daesh attacked.

Just this time last year, I visited several of the internally displaced people’s camps with the humanitarian NGO Bellwether International, to see the conditions in which the Yazidi people are forced to live. It was a harrowing experience to see thousands of families living in row after row of plastic-sheet tents, and to see children born into those camps who know nothing else but growing up in those conditions—where their parents, and particularly their mothers, still live through the trauma they went through at the hands of Daesh.

The camps are desperate places in which people who want to return home are losing hope. I cannot escape the conclusion that the international community has completely abandoned these poor people and no longer regards their situation as an emergency, leaving it to the Kurdish Regional Government, NGOs and charities to look after them. In addition to all the other issues that have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members, I ask this of the Government: please do not forget or turn your back on the Yazidis stuck in IDP camps, and please be part of the search for a long-term solution that will allow them to return home, to rebuild their lives in security and safety.

Oral Answers to Questions

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Palestinian recognition is an inalienable right, not a privilege to be conferred by others. Although I was pleased to hear the Foreign Secretary say last night that the UK,

“with allies, will look at the issue of recognising a Palestinian state”,

I feel we have been here before, most notably in 2014. Given Netanyahu’s categorical rejection of a Palestinian state, what are the next steps? When will we hear about them, and how confident can we be that we will not be sitting here in another 10 years, wishing we had acted to prevent a genocide?

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for prior sight of his statement. On Friday, despite concerted efforts to dismiss, ridicule and undermine South Africa’s case, the International Court of Justice delivered a damning provisional ruling that ordered Israel to take all measures to prevent acts of genocide in Gaza. The ruling has left the UK Government with nowhere to hide, as they now have a legal obligation to protect Palestinian civilians—an obligation that should, at the very least, mean an immediate arms embargo on Israel. However, we all know that the best way to protect civilian lives, stop the killings and secure the release of the hostages is an immediate ceasefire.

The ICJ ruling also demanded that effective humanitarian assistance be provided to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in Gaza. Instead, the UK Government immediately chose to cut funding for UNRWA —one of the few organisations that stand between the people of Gaza and mass starvation—on the basis of 12 of its 13,000 employees having been accused of taking part in the atrocities of 7 October. If those accusations are true, it is absolutely right that action is taken against them and that they be held to account. However, by deciding to cut funding to UNRWA, the UK Government have imposed their own collective punishment on an already beleaguered and desperate civilian population, knowing with absolute certainty that that decision will result in the deaths of thousands of Palestinian civilians.

Can the Minister explain the thought process that led the Foreign Office to that decision? What cognisance did it take of the ICJ ruling, and why did it choose to ignore it? What assessment has the Department made of the numbers of Palestinian children who will die as a direct result of that decision? Finally, does he not see that, by continuing to arm the IDF, this Government place themselves on the wrong side of history, and that history will judge them accordingly?

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman made four points, I think, which I would like to address. The first point was the importance of a ceasefire. He should be very clear that the Government want to see an immediate humanitarian pause so that we can get the hostages out and humanitarian support in, leading then to a sustainable ceasefire. I have explained our position. It relates to his fourth point, about how we ensure that this suffering ends and manage to get the necessary humanitarian supplies into Gaza.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the ICJ. As I set out in my statement, we respect the role and independence of the ICJ. I pointed out that the Court has called for increased aid into Gaza and measures to ensure basic services, ordered the immediate release of all hostages and reminded all parties to the conflict that they are bound by international humanitarian law. We agree with that. It is extremely important that those points are respected.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the cutting of UNRWA funding. We are not cutting funding to UNRWA; we are pausing any future funding. We have made the funding available and there is no funding due for the rest of this financial year. Clearly, future funding will depend on the result of the inquiries now in process.

Human Rights in Hong Kong

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I thank you, Mr Twigg, and the Minister for understanding that I will have to leave early to attend a Holocaust Memorial Day event in Parliament. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, and I thank the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for securing the debate and for the way in which he opened it. I also want to put on record my appreciation of Hong Kong Watch, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the International Federation of Journalists and all those who do so much to defend human rights and democracy in Hong Kong under enormous pressure.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that today’s debate has united Members on both sides of the House in support of the people of Hong Kong, their democratic institutions and their fundamental human rights. They have enjoyed these human rights for years: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, the right to strike, the freedom to travel, the freedom of association and, as we have just heard from the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce)—and, indeed, as we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—freedom of religion or belief.

Everyone who has spoken has noted how the 1984 Sino-British declaration promised the people of Hong Kong that they would

“enjoy a high degree of autonomy”

for 50 years after the handover to China. They were also told that their lifestyle, rights and freedoms—everything they enjoyed—would remain intact and unchanged for half a century after 1997. We are little more than halfway through the 50 years that were guaranteed, but those basic freedoms and those human rights that they were assured of have become a distant memory. Lord Patten’s famously optimistic line was:

“Now, Hong Kong people are to run Hong Kong.”

Sadly, that could not be further from the truth.

Although we recognise that 1997 was an important step in global decolonisation, we deeply regret that, contrary to what was promised to the people of Hong Kong in a legally binding international agreement, the Chinese Communist party has completely reneged on its end of the deal. The steady erosion of personal and political freedoms has now become a full-on assault, as the Beijing Government, through the passage of the insidious national security law, embarks on a draconian programme of assimilation and integration of Hong Kong into the Chinese mainstream. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, that completely dismantles, once and for all, the notion of there being one country, two systems.

We have heard that national security laws were passed in June 2020 in response to huge pro-democracy protests. That crackdown has led to a mass exodus of people. Although those laws are specifically designed to criminalise secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign organisations, they have effectively stripped away freedom of expression and peaceful protest, and extinguished Hong Kong’s independent free press, turning Hong Kong, in just four years, from being one of the most open cities in Asia to one of the most repressive.

Those national security laws are designed to create doubt and ambiguity in the minds of the people as to whether what they are doing—indeed, what they have always done—could now be considered a criminal act. The only people who know what the law actually means are the people who make it, and there is a deliberate fug of ambiguity and confusion about what actually constitutes an offence that would endanger national security. That fug of ambiguity has had the desired effect because, as we have heard today, dozens of civil society organisations and trade unions, as well as the independent press, disbanded and shut down, for fear of falling foul of a law that they simply do not understand.

Every speaker today has talked about the most high-profile victim of these national security laws, Jimmy Lai. The 76-year-old UK national is a citizen standing trial on three charges under these laws and faces a further charge of conspiracy to publish seditious literature. Since his arrest in 2020, Mr Lai, a strident and fearless pro-democracy activist, has been held in solitary confinement and has now spent more than 1,200 days in prison. This political show trial of a long-time critic of the Chinese Communist party started early last month, and he faces life imprisonment. We must prepare ourselves, because it is a question of when, not if, he is found guilty. That is because, not surprisingly, there is a 100% conviction rate under the national security laws. I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who is no longer in his place, for raising the issue of former UK judges giving legitimacy to such a repressive regime and a system that has no legitimacy.

Amnesty International’s deputy regional director, Sarah Brooks, has said:

“Jimmy Lai is the most high-profile public figure prosecuted under Hong Kong’s National Security Law, and the world will be watching.”

She added:

“The prosecution of Jimmy Lai shows how Hong Kong’s repressive National Security Law is being used to stifle press freedom and crush civil society.”

She is right that the world will be watching.

The International Federation of Journalists has said that the use of these laws

“and archaic sedition legislation to silence critical and independent voices in Hong Kong must cease”,

and has called for all such charges to be dropped.

Even the United Nations has expressed deep concern about what it sees as an inextricable link between Jimmy Lai’s outspoken, pro-democracy criticism of the Chinese Government and his arrest and the show trial. It is clear that Beijing and Hong Kong are orchestrating an assault on the free press and freedom of expression. Jimmy Lai’s trial epitomises that rapid decline in the rule of law in Hong Kong.

In 2022, I described in this Chamber the situation in Hong Kong as grim. Sadly, it is even more grim today and there is little prospect of it getting better any time soon. In that debate two years ago, I and every other speaker raised the issue of the Magnitsky sanctions, asking the Government why, despite the flagrant breach of human rights law, no senior Hong Kong official had been sanctioned. That question is relevant today and I ask it again. What is the point of having the ability to sanction those who flout international law if we are not prepared to use it? If the ripping up of an international treaty, a crackdown on the free press, a curtailment of civil liberties, a full-on attack on democracy and the imprisonment and potential jailing for life of a UK national cannot bring the Government to use Magnitsky-style sanctions, the question must be: what would it take?

Afghanistan: UK Government Policy

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) on securing the debate and on the thoughtful and considered way that he opened it, posing many challenging questions for us all. I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for their contributions.

Until the return of the Taliban in 2021, the core objective of UK policy on Afghanistan was to promote stability by building a viable Afghan state in which everyone, regardless of gender, religion or ethnicity, could build a life. As the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East said, the policy was to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. However, despite tens of billions of pounds in international aid being poured in—much of it from the UK—Afghanistan is in a state of near collapse following the withdrawal of international financial support, the imposition of sanctions and the freezing of state assets.

The right hon. Member for New Forest East was absolutely right to say that the obscenely rapid withdrawal in 2021 betrayed so many people who had put their trust in us. That has left Afghanistan on the precipice of a dire humanitarian crisis, with high infant and maternal mortality, vulnerability to climate change, food insecurity, widespread corruption and drug production all remaining significant problems. Indeed, 90% of Afghanistan’s population is living in extreme poverty, so it is absolutely essential that the United Kingdom recognises its historical responsibility to the people of Afghanistan, and that we try to get as much aid as possible into the country, and to those who need it most.

I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s argument that engagement does not mean endorsement, but remain unconvinced that a return to normalcy is desirable at this stage, given the conflict in the regime in Afghanistan between Kabul and the power brokers in Kandahar, and I wonder just how much aid, support, recognition or legitimacy we would give to that regime. The question is: how can we provide aid and support without legitimising and assisting financially a brutal, theocratic regime that oppresses women, religious and ethnic minorities, and indeed anyone who veers from their very narrow and blinkered view of the world?

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central and the hon. Member for Strangford for saying that we also have to protect and assist as much as we can those Afghans who fled to neighbouring countries, particularly Pakistan, in 2021, and now face the terrifying prospect of being deported back, and to facing a very dangerous and uncertain future. Of course, as I think every Member has said, we have a moral responsibility to those brave Afghans who, prior to 2021, were trained by and worked with British forces—including interpreters, who, as the hon. Member for Strangford said, now live in fear of Taliban reprisals.

Along with every other right-minded person, we in the SNP are unequivocal that the Taliban’s treatment of women and girls is absolutely unforgivable. As other Members, including the hon. Member for North East Fife, have said, since the return of the Taliban to power in Afghanistan, so much of the progress made in the previous 20 years has been eroded, and the pledges that were made, particularly around education, have been reversed or abandoned.

Two years on from seizing power, the Taliban have banned women from going to parks, gyms and public bathing houses; they have stopped women pursuing education beyond the sixth grade; and women are all but prohibited from working, other than in health and education. The Taliban even issued a decree banning women from working in national and international non-governmental organisations, and then they extended that ban to cover women working for the UN’s agencies, which is already having an impact on the delivery of aid. It makes it harder to assess the needs of women and girls, and increases safeguarding risks. We fully and absolutely support the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in its condemnation of that ban and in its assessment that the decision puts at risk millions of Afghans who depend on humanitarian assistance for their survival.

Indeed, the treatment of women and girls in Afghanistan has been rightly described as gender apartheid by the UN. Last year, in a joint report to the Human Rights Council, the situation in Afghanistan for women and girls was described as being the worst in the world. The report said:

“While the backlash against women’s and girls’ rights has unfolded in different countries and regions in recent years, nowhere else in the world has there been an attack as widespread, systematic and all-encompassing on the rights of women and girls as in Afghanistan.”

We must never lose sight of that fact.

I commend the work of Baroness Helena Kennedy of the International Bar Association’s human rights institute. At the start of this week, on 8 January, with the support of women from both Houses of Parliament, it launched a gender apartheid inquiry, which will look at the situation of women and girls in Afghanistan and Iran. It will consider how those regimes’ discriminatory and misogynistic policies, and their harsh enforcement methods, constitute the most appalling gender persecution.

It is not just gender-based persecution that is the hallmark of the Taliban; the persecution of ethnic and religious minorities, particularly Hazaras, has also defined the Taliban’s time in power. Once again, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford for his unstinting work in supporting freedom of religion or belief around the world.

In late 2020, I was proud to be part of the cross-party group of MPs and peers who worked on a report that highlighted the atrocities suffered by the Hazara community in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the first half of 2022 alone, those atrocities led to hundreds of members of that community being killed, and even more injured, as a result of targeted attacks, including the bombing of Hazara schools, places of worship and other centres. In September 2022, a suicide attack claimed the lives of 50 girls and young women belonging to the Hazara community. Sadly, attacks on Hazaras continue unabated, and although the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is in possession of the report that we published, it is yet to respond. I am grateful to Lord Alton for reminding the Department of that just last week.

We have to face facts: over decades, a string of badly formed policy decisions made with short-sighted and politically questionable objectives has proven very costly, both financially, and, tragically, in terms of lives lost. The UK Government are in a position to put some of that right, and to make amends to those who have suffered most from their policies. As the right hon. Member for New Forest East, the hon. Member for Strangford, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central said, the UK Government cannot and must not abandon Afghans fleeing this crisis, nor leave them to the mercy of the Taliban. There must be a commitment to helping all those Afghan nationals who risked their lives to assist the United Kingdom. Getting those people and their families resettled in the UK must be a priority and a matter of urgency for this Government.

We have to show determination to support in any way we can women and girls who face the violent, discriminatory policies of the Taliban. We must pledge to assist those protecting refugees in Pakistan, and we must show the beleaguered Hazara community, and other minority groups in Afghanistan, that they have not been forgotten or abandoned.

This has been an incredibly useful debate, and it has been very challenging. I do not agree with the conclusions of the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East, but I welcome the opportunity to listen to him, and to have put into context what was condensed into a 45-second news clip way back in the summer. It has been a useful exercise for us all. I thank him for securing the debate, and every hon. Member who has taken part in it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Israel and Palestine

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and may I wish you and your staff a very happy new year?

Of course, it has not been a happy new year for the 2 million desperate and terrified people trapped inside Gaza, for whom 2024 brought further constant bombardment as well as the threat of famine and disease, with 50,000 people injured and almost 25,000 confirmed killed. That proves that repeated pleas from this Government and others for Israel to abide by international humanitarian law have been routinely ignored.

Scotland’s First Minister recently described what is happening in Gaza as “tantamount to ethnic cleansing”, and South Africa has asked the International Court of Justice to urgently declare Israel in breach of the 1948 genocide convention for its continued killing of Palestinians, the destruction of homes, the expulsion of people and the blockade of food, water and medical assistance. Do the UK Government think that Scotland’s First Minister and the Government of South Africa are wrong in their assessment of the current situation? If they are wrong, how are they wrong specifically?

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The Government respect the role of the ICJ and we will of course follow what is going on with great care. We have always made it clear that it is up to the courts to determine these matters and that all parties must ensure that their actions are proportionate and necessary and minimise harm to civilians.

Israel and Gaza

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I, too, send my very best wishes to the family of the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran).

As we know, later today the Government’s call for a sustainable ceasefire will be tested at the UN Security Council. If the Government again decide to abdicate their responsibility to humanity and abstain, they will be giving Netanyahu the political cover he needs to prosecute a war in which tens of thousands have already been killed and in which, at the weekend, according to the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem,

“a sniper of the IDF murdered two women inside the Holy Family Parish in Gaza.”

If the UK is unable to support a ceasefire now, when will it? What has to happen before this Government say enough is enough, and that the indiscriminate killing of innocents, the blanket bombing of civilian infrastructure and the killing of journalists has to stop now? How many more breaches of international humanitarian law will it take for this Government to find the moral courage to say, “This has to stop, and it has to stop now”?

Trial of Jimmy Lai

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this urgent question, and Lord Alton, Baroness Kennedy and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for their continuing and unwavering support for Jimmy Lai, who, as a UK national, is entitled to expect much more support from the Government than he has thus far received.

A 76-year-old pro-democracy campaigner in ailing health has been imprisoned for more than 1,000 days on trumped-up charges, yet it was only yesterday that his Government finally called for him to be released. I hope that I have misunderstood the Minister, but are we to believe that the UK’s influence is so diminished that we cannot get access to Mr Lai in prison? Will she detail what practical support is being given to him now that his show trial has started, and will she give a cast-iron guarantee that, in the event that Beijing gets the verdict that it is looking for, the Government will proactively come to this House to make a statement on what action they intend to take, rather than having it dragged out of them through another urgent question?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I will not reiterate my previous answer on the subject of consular access and the challenges that we face in being able to support Jimmy Lai in that way. I reiterate the hon. Member’s point that many colleagues across the House have been ardent champions and supporters of Jimmy Lai, and indeed of his family as they seek to ensure that his case is understood across the world. We will continue to call for Jimmy Lai’s release. The national security law needs to be repealed. Those are messages that we will continue to highlight with the authorities at every possible opportunity.

Citizens’ Rights

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. His moment has come! The House should be grateful for his tremendous work in the days of the Department for Exiting the European Union, in which he served very ably for an extremely long time. The fact that citizens’ rights are in good shape is in no small part down to his setting up of the scheme. He is right to ask whether issues go right to the top. We make representations at the highest level—the Foreign Secretary discussed citizens’ rights with Vice-President Šefčovič very recently—so it has the full attention of ministerial and official effort.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for prior sight of his statement. I, too, am pleased that both sides appear to be working constructively to uphold the obligations laid out in the withdrawal agreement.

As we have heard, however, the situation remains far from ideal for many, including EU citizens living in the UK. I understand that during the meeting held earlier this month, the EU raised again the lack of clarity for EU citizens who hold new UK residence status, questioning whether their rights were guaranteed by the withdrawal agreement, or solely by domestic law. Perhaps the Minister could confirm whether it is the former or the latter.

The Minister spoke of his concern about UK nationals in the EU being unable to evidence their permanent residence rights in certain member states. I agree that that must be a huge concern for those involved, but it is also the case that 6 million EU citizens in the UK have digital-only immigration status. Given the long experience of the Home Office having a less than perfect track record of file maintenance, will the Government do something now about providing EU citizens with a physical back-up to confirm their immigration status?

There is also concern around those to who have been granted pre-settled status but who do not yet have, or who cannot evidence, five years of continuous residence. With 3,500 universal credit applications refused, the right to reside requirement appears to be almost a hidden form of no recourse to public funds. Would it not be far better to strengthen the bonds between the UK and the European Union by recognising EU citizens’ rights with access to social security?

Finally, can the Minister tell us what EU member states thought about the new salary threshold, which means that British citizens will be unable to live legally in the UK with spouses from EU member states? Did they see that as maintaining the constructive dialogue and remaining committed to upholding the rights of beneficiaries and their eligible family members, as the Minister suggested?

[Leo Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman asked about the route via which rights were applied. The withdrawal agreement guarantees the rights of those joining family members with settled status, and no one’s rights will be undermined by any other factor. He then asked about digital status. We live in a digital age, and this is overwhelmingly the convenient and efficient means of providing documents, but should individuals struggle with the digital means, a dedicated resolution centre is available, so there is recourse to assistance for the more analogue-minded individuals who might need it.

Of course access will continue. As we have seen—and I noted the numbers in the statement—the volume of applications reflects the fact that a large number of EU citizens are still coming to the UK to join family members under the arrangements set up by the withdrawal agreement. That, I think, is a positive reflection of the success of the scheme, and also of the fact that those people are attracted to live and work in the UK.

The hon. Gentleman invited me to go beyond the scope of the statement by commenting on the salary threshold. I will not accept that invitation, but I will say that I think there is a warm realisation between the UK and member states and the Commission that the withdrawal agreement is working well. Citizens’ rights are overwhelmingly in good shape, and there is that warm positivity between the UK, the Commission and member states to ensure that we get this right.

Venezuela: Threat to Guyana

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) for securing this urgent question. It is indeed ironic that the day after the excitement of COP, here we are discussing the potential annexation of one country by its larger and more powerful neighbour because of the discovery of a huge oilfield containing 11 billion barrels of light crude. It matters not that the 1899 border issue remains controversial for Venezuela, because it has to respect international law.

I am pleased that the International Court of Justice has warned Maduro not to take any action that could alter the status quo, but can the Minister tell me what discussions the UK Government have had with representatives of the ICJ? Have discussions been had directly with the Venezuelans on behalf of the UK Government? To what extent does he share my concern that our previously weak response to states using dubious referendums, followed by the use of military force, to annex parts of a neighbouring country, as Russia did to Crimea in 2014, has emboldened people like Maduro to believe that should he take military action, the consequence for him would be extremely limited?

[David Rutley]

Again, it is good to see support for Guyana across the House. Whether this is because of Venezuela’s aspirations about oil or some other matter, whatever that might be, its actions are completely unjustified. As the hon. Member indicated, we need to call it out. The 1899 border issue is settled. We support Guyana in its efforts to resolve this matter in whichever way it wants to through the ICJ, but it needs to be done peacefully.

The hon. Gentleman also makes an important point about Russia. These actions are opportunistic. There are huge issues geopolitically, and dictators or other Heads of Government should not seek to exploit these moments when there are far bigger issues at stake elsewhere in the world, so we need to call it out. As I said earlier, we are keeping this under very close scrutiny and will take whatever actions we think are appropriate, along with our regional partners.