Prevention of Sexual Violence in Conflict

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Hodgson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I agree with what she said. The UK needs to play a leading role in that regard.

The international community should work to create an international commission with the sole mandate of focusing on sexual violence in conflict. To the hon. Lady’s point, we would be leading the way on the matter. That idea has been pioneered by Baroness Helic, informed by her role helping to create the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative, and inspired by the International Commission on Missing Persons. That was formed following an agreement during the G8 and has now transformed into a treaty-based body that works in more than 40 countries.

There are gaps in international architecture, which means that sexual violence is slipping through the net. Instruments used to achieve justice internationally are able to focus only on perpetrators at the highest levels, and national courts often experience limited resources or a lack of willingness. The proposed commission would perform a similar function to the International Commission on Missing Persons, which has the dual aims of ensuring the co-operation of Governments and others in addressing issues of missing persons, and providing technical assistance to Governments in locating, recovering and identifying missing persons.

The proposed commission would have a two-pronged approach. First, it would work with Governments and other international bodies to co-ordinate the deployment of experts in countries where sexual violence in conflict has occurred, to help collect vital evidence and record testimonies in a sensitive way, and build up local expertise. On 7 October, the primary focus of emergency services was responding to the heinous act of terror, which meant that forensic evidence of sexual violence diminished over time. Should a body such as the one that is proposed have existed, it could have played a key role in collecting that vital evidence in a timely but culturally sensitive manner, which would ultimately have helped refute all the denials.

Secondly, the commission would act as a centre for excellence, helping to drive forward forensic technology that could help in confirming the use of sexual violence and provide a space to share best practice, train and educate investigators, and discuss preventive strategies. I believe that such a body would provide the much-needed tools and joined-up co-operation required to hold perpetrators to account and bring victims justice. I believe that we must take these steps to prevent backsliding on the progress that has been made so far, to ensure meaningful justice for victims, to deter future crimes and to press for further international change that will make a difference.

We must take steps to address sexual violence in conflict, because those who have been victims of it, and those who will sadly, no matter what we do, become victims in future, cannot afford for us not to.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to speak. I call Jim Shannon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

As ever, my right hon. Friend prefigures what I am going to argue, about that mindset change and that cultural change. There is this idea that as long as we stop the war, we stop the violence, and that is enough. It is not enough, and that is what we need to change.

I also want to recognise that this is not just about sexual violence by states. As I get older, I seem to find myself in more and more agreement with my colleague the hon. Member for Strangford—I do not know whether that is accidental or deliberate. He talked about Boko Haram. We have seen in conflicts around the world the use of violence by insurgent organisations. NGOs report that sexual violence often occurs in religious conflict, particularly in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, where sexual violence is used to keep minority communities in their place.

Almost 10 years ago, ISIS seized huge swathes of Iraq and Syria and launched a genocidal campaign against the Yazidis in northern Iraq. Some 6,000 women and children were captured. To this day, half of them are still missing. The captive women and children were used for sexual slavery and trafficking. One of the most horrifying points for me about the Yazidi community and how they deal with the trauma is that those women who are still missing, and who are not presumed dead, are considered to have stayed displaced because they are staying with children who have been the product of rape. They face an impossible choice of being separated from their children if they return to freedom.

Boko Haram is a good example of where women have been brutalised by insurgents and then further brutalised by the state, and stigmatised by Government state action. In Nigeria, the governor of Borno state, Kashim Shettima, publicly warned that those women who had become pregnant by Boko Haram fighters could breed a new generation of terrorists, and advocated for those women to be educated not to bring up their children to be terrorists. That is the cycle of blame and shame continuing on.

It is also not just women and girls who are risk; again, the hon. Member for Strangford is absolutely right. There is evidence from the Red Cross that there is sexual and gender-based violence against men and boys, and particularly against LGBTQI people in humanitarian settings, and also against refugees. One of the most depressing studies you will ever read shows that approximately one in five refugees who are displaced women have experienced sexual violence as part of fleeing a conflict zone.

We condemn without reservation those who question whether sexual violence happens. We condemn without reservation any of those people who seek to minimise it or say it is less of an issue in some conflicts than in others. It is an issue in all of them. That matters because over 90% of survivors of sexual violence do not report it to the police or officials in those conflict zones because of their lack of faith that anything will happen. That is understandable when we look at the mixed record of our action, which is where my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) is absolutely right.

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda does not reflect the high levels of sexual violence that we know happened in that conflict in its record for action. In contrast, after what happened in the former Yugoslavia, 93 individuals were indicted. Some 44 of those were for crimes involving sexual violence. Of those 44, 29 were convicted, representing a 69% conviction rate.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. I will call the final speaker at 3.18 pm, so she has a couple of minutes.

[Stella Creasy]

I apologise, Sir Charles; I am confused about my timing.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

No, you are giving a wonderful speech. It is just that I have to get the last speaker in.

[Stella Creasy]

Absolutely. Let me say just a few things. First, sexual violence when it happens in conflict is not an accident. It is deliberate. Whether it is organised or happens progressively, it is not an accident. Secondly, it is not inevitable. Analysis of sexual violence in conflict over the last 45 years shows that it has been different in different conflicts. For example, rape was widespread in the civil wars in Sierra Leone and Timor-Leste, but far less likely in El Salvador. That is why we have to break the cycle, and we break the cycle only by saying that it matters.

My appeal to the Minister is for the UK to demand an explicit accountability mechanism for the allegations of sexual violence in Israel and Palestine as part of the peace process. Let us not brush this under the carpet. Let us not say that once the conflict has been resolved—we all desperately want that urgent ceasefire—that is enough. Let us have accountability for all these mechanisms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

I just wanted to say that the UK has made an offer to Israel and Palestine to support evidence gathering and technical support on the issue of conflict-related sexual violence, as per the report of the special representative of the Secretary-General, Ms Patten.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Stella Creasy—one more minute.

[Stella Creasy]

I appreciate what the Minister is saying. Will he also clarify that the UK has made representations with the United Nations and the International Criminal Court for a specific criminal tribunal process for this conflict to be part of the ceasefire negotiations, so that all actors, including Hamas, Israel, and the third-party actors who are supporting the peace process, recognise it, respect it, contribute to it and prioritise it?

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I imagine that will be answered in the wind-ups.

Ceasefire in Gaza

Charles Walker Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

rose—

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

rose—

[Brendan O’Hara]

Well, we have seen the way public opinion is blowing, across the world and here in the UK, with millions taking to the streets, and polls showing 75%-plus support for an immediate ceasefire. The harsh reality is that the Government, having expended so much political and diplomatic capital on defending and justifying Israel’s prosecution of this war, now find themselves stuck on the wrong side of global opinion. [Interruption.] Consequently, the UK’s international reputation has been so diminished that when the process of finding a just, lasting peace in the region begins, the UK will struggle to play a meaningful part in it. [Interruption.] If the Government cannot see the long-term damage that they are doing, it is up to this House to tell them by demanding an immediate ceasefire.

An immediate ceasefire has already been endorsed by Pope Francis, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the Archbishop of York, Scotland’s Catholic bishops, the Catholic bishops’ conference of England and Wales, the Church of England’s House of Bishops, the Muslim Council of Britain, the Quakers, the leaders of the Methodists and the United Reformed Church, the Lutheran World Federation, the UN Secretary-General, the UN General Assembly President, UNICEF, the World Food Programme, the World Health Organisation, Save the Children, Amnesty, Médecins Sans Frontières, Oxfam, ActionAid, the International Rescue Committee, Action Against Hunger, the Co-operative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Medical Aid for Palestinians, the Council for Arab-British Understanding, the Balfour Project, Islamic Relief, Christian Aid, War on Want, the Carter Centre, War Child, Unite the union, Unison, the King Centre, World Vision, WaterAid, Tearfund, Street Child, Start Network, Peace Direct, Mercy Corps, CIVICUS, and scores and scores more churches, non-governmental organisations, charities and individuals who have seen Israel completely abandon international humanitarian law by imposing collective punishment on a defenceless civilian population. [Interruption.] In just 16 weeks, an estimated 18,000 Palestinian children have been left without a single living relative.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I will give way in a moment.

Frankly, colleagues, the SNP motion appears one sided. For any ceasefire to work, it must, by necessity, be observed by both sides, or it is not a ceasefire. That is why we are clear that Israel cannot be expected to cease fighting if Hamas continue with violence. Israelis have the right to the assurance that the horror of 7 October cannot happen again. I have no doubt that the SNP agrees with those sentiments—I heard them in the speech of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute—so it should vote for the Labour amendment.

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I am listening closely to the right hon. Gentleman. The problem is that we in this House do not have operational control over the combatants. This war will end when both sides are exhausted, decide that they want it to end, and lay down their arms. I listened to the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara). He read out a very long charge sheet against Israel, but at the end of the day, Hamas are using their own people—men, women and children—as human shields, and they know what they are doing.

[Mr Lammy]

That is why I say that a ceasefire, by necessity, means both sides. Hon. Members should be very careful not to vote for the appearance of this House taking one side, however concerned we are about the loss of innocent life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

I have great respect for the hon. Lady, as she knows, but on her last point, she may rest assured that the Foreign Secretary, who knows Prime Minister Netanyahu well, and the Prime Minister specifically in a conversation last week have been clear on the importance of that. I hope she will consider that tonight when she decides how she will vote on the various amendments.

[Sir Charles Walker]

As my right hon. Friend said, and I think the shadow Foreign Secretary said, we are in the business of politics. If my right hon. Friend entered into negotiations this week with the Israeli Government, would we have more chance of persuading them to an immediate ceasefire or more chance of persuading them to the cause of a humanitarian pause?

[Mr Mitchell]

My hon. Friend makes his point extremely clearly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order.

[Sir Charles Walker]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I will take the point of order from Sir Charles Walker, but I do want to move on and put the Question shortly.

[Sir Charles Walker]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not know how we got to this point today, but it does not reflect well on Parliament. His Majesty’s Opposition have clearly behaved—and I do not mean this in any way as an offence—[Interruption.] Please, I do not. They have behaved—[Interruption.] People are frightened. People have weaponised this debate in this Chamber. Whips are frightened for their flocks, because Members of Parliament now feel that they have to vote in a certain way in order to safeguard their safety and that of their family. That is a far bigger issue than the debate we are having tonight, because if people are changing their votes or their behaviour in this place because they are frightened of what may happen to them or their family out there, we have a real problem. So this point scoring off each other is not going to resolve many issues.

Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme: Pathway 3

Charles Walker Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Because, to borrow a phrase from the Minister, this is a small but perfectly formed Westminster Hall gathering, we will start the Back-Bench wind-ups at 2.28 pm. Jim will do no more than 20 minutes and Debbie will do no more than five. The Minister has said—I think he will want to give a full answer—that if there is any chance we can squeeze out an extra two minutes for him, that would be good. I will manage the other three contributions, but just try to give the Minister a little extra time. I hope that is all right with the Labour Front Bench.

[Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Only if I get my full 10 minutes.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

You will get your full 10 minutes.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Pathway 3 of the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme.

It is an absolute pleasure to speak in this debate, Sir Charles. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to raise this essential issue. I am pleased to see many right hon. and hon. Members here to make contributions today, and we know why: because this is a critical issue. In the main Chamber today the Minister made a reference to it in an urgent question. I look across at the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). He kept his eyes down, so I could not catch whether he was happy or not, but perhaps today we will get some positivity. We will wait to see what happens.

There has been massive parliamentary attention on Afghan relocation schemes in recent weeks, both here and in the other place. That is important, because nearly 18 months after the fall of Kabul, the Afghan citizens relocation scheme still has thousands of available places. With respect to hon. Members present, it is important for those who are spending their lives hiding in Afghanistan, waiting and hoping for a decision on their expression of interest in claiming asylum in the UK.

For 18 years, tens of thousands of people in Afghanistan worked alongside British citizens to strengthen democracy and create a country where it was possible for women to work or obtain an education. It grieves me how the Afghanistan authorities treat women and others. It is disgraceful. They cannot get an education and cannot build a future. Afghan religious minorities are not allowed to operate or worship their God as they would like to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

As always, it is lovely to see you in the Chair, Sir Charles. I congratulate my dear friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate. He is always the last person to intervene in debates in the House, but on this occasion he was the first speaker. He has spent his life challenging and trying to make right injustice, not just in our constituencies and our country but across the world. He is an emblem of what being an MP should be about.

I should refer to the register of interests, as I am the vice chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Afghanistan. But my interest stems from the fact that one of my caseworkers is originally from Afghanistan. She was a judge and had to leave; there were two attempts to assassinate her because she had the audacity to set up education centres for women and girls. My passion for the subject is driven by her and I want to commend her for that.

Since the evacuation, Operation Pitting, in August 2021, Afghanistan has faced the worst political, economic and social conditions in 30 years. The brunt of that has been felt by women—it is absolutely appalling. There are 60 oral and written decrees restricting women’s lives: removing their participation in secondary and higher education and their employment in Afghan institutions; preventing travel without a male relative; limiting social lives and activities, including the right to protest and freedom of speech; and dictating what women wear. Can we imagine that? I know there are few women in the Chamber, but could the men in the Chamber imagine if that happened to them? It is absolutely horrendous.

Many of us will have seen on social media the public floggings meted out to women who dare to contravene any of those diktats. We have seen the results of the torture of women who have deemed to have stepped even further. Earlier this week, we learned about the murder of Mursal Nabizada, a human rights advocate, somebody who Marzia knew and a former member of the Afghan Parliament—the cowardice of the men who gunned her and her bodyguard down! I wanted to speak in the debate because unless we do something about the resettlement scheme that our Government committed to back in 2021, we will see more and more women killed—a femicide, if you like. I do not use that phrase lightly.

There are 70 women, former Afghan judges, who had that job taken from them in 2021 and are in hiding in Afghanistan. They sent many of the current Taliban gunmen to prison for a variety of abuses and offences. Those judges are on the Taliban’s hitlist, and if we do not do anything they will surely be targeted and gunned down. I urge the Minister to act. We promised in 2021 to resettle 20,000 people, and those women should be high on that list. We have settled just over 6,000, all under the first pathway apart from four. It is not good enough.

I agree with the hon. Member for Strangford that the Minister has a history of being an excellent advocate in this regard. Will he please indicate how many staff will be dedicated to this? I endorse the questions that have been asked by the hon. Member. We should not compare different schemes, but one cannot help but notice the difference between the attention that Ukraine has received and this.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Thank you for being absolutely on five minutes. I will give the three Back-Bench colleagues 10 minutes each, but I will stop them at 10.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the Minister for that clarification. It is important to put it right on the record, but it is still in sharp contrast to the numbers that are targeting the Albanians. We need to do more, and I am sure the Minister recognises that.

As a country, we must recognise the positive contributions of refugees. I have recently taken on an Afghan refugee in my office. He fled Afghanistan in 2021 under harrowing circumstances, and he is a wonderful asset to my team. Even in his case, although he was working for the British Council, the parliamentary authorities have been curiously unhelpful in supporting me to give him full employment access.

My Bath constituency has welcomed Afghan refugees with open arms. I am grateful to the generosity of the University of Bath in providing warm welcome scholarships and sanctuary scholarships to Afghan students at a time when Afghan refugees were suffering, struggling and hoping for a better future. The university has generously provided financial assistance to Afghan scholars and students who wish to further their academic and professional development skills. I am also grateful for the way Afghan refugees have been welcomed and supported by authorities such as Bath Welcomes Refugees and Julian House, and by local constituents in Bath.

It is unforgiveable that the Government are not offering the support and help that many in Afghanistan need. Many are highly qualified professionals who simply wish to come here, find a job and make a positive contribution. Many of my constituents continue to ask for assistance in relocating their relatives and friends from Afghanistan. For more than 17 months, British Council contractors have feared for their lives in Afghanistan, or Iran or Pakistan where they have fled to, waiting for their eligibility offers to relocate to the UK. I would be thankful if the Minister could explain why British Council contractors on the Connecting Classrooms project have not been contacted regarding their resettlement applications and how the UK Government will support Afghan refugees trapped in Iran and Pakistan who are being threatened by the Taliban while they wait.

The Government must restore the international development budget to provide much-needed help to Afghan people. I know the Minister has been a very vocal supporter of that, and I am very grateful. I hope that within Government now he pushes for that again. Our Government must stand by their word and open safe and legal routes to those at risk in Afghanistan so that they can come here to the UK. By taking those steps, we can finally uphold our obligations to the people of Afghanistan. That means working constructively with local authorities so that Afghans in this country can finally start their new lives properly here in a home rather than a hotel room.

The invasion of Afghanistan was controversial at the time, but the Conservatives and the Opposition supported the invasion. Either way, the UK now has a duty to help those left behind, especially those who have risked their lives to help the UK. Washing our hands of what is happening now in Afghanistan would be the most cynical abdication of our country’s duty.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I call Olivia Blake, for 10 minutes.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Charles. Before I begin, I would like to point Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I receive support from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project for my work on these issues and am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on migration. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the time for this debate and for talking with such heartfelt and genuine concern about this issue at a time when it has truly slipped down the agenda. I thank him for allowing us to voice our concerns to Ministers.

Just this week, community members and organisations supporting Afghans in the UK handed in a letter to Downing Street addressed to the Prime Minister to highlight the continued plight of those who fled Afghanistan nearly 18 months ago. As pathway 3 opens, it is right to anticipate some of the potential issues, as has been said, with the system, and reflect on the record of pathway 1 in order to avoid those issues. Since August 2021, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees has estimated that over 1.2 million Afghans have arrived in neighbouring countries, out of which 258,000 have approached those countries with protection needs. Put in this context, our commitment to help 20,000 people seems very small.

Nowhere is that more obvious than when comparing the numbers of people resettled through safe and legal routes to the numbers of Afghans crossing the channel in small boats and making claims for refugee status. Since the fall of Kabul, the number of Afghans arriving in small boats has increased dramatically. According to the Home Office’s latest data, between January 2022 and September 2022 Afghans made up a staggering 15% of all nationalities that came via small boat. Harrowingly, in total there were 4,781 arrivals—almost as many as the 6,000 people who have settled through pathway 1. That underlines the argument that the real crisis is the lack of safe and legal routes for people fleeing conflict and persecution.

The numbers we are accepting do not match our moral obligation to help. We are already seeing this reflected in the pathway 3 process. I agree with the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) that the first pathway 3 target to resettle 1,500 people is just so disrespectful and irresponsible. We are talking about people who have been contractors for the British Council and GardaWorld, and Chevening scholarship alumni too. During the eight-week window in which people were able to declare their interest in this pathway, 11,400 people applied. The number of people applying to the scheme vastly outweighs the number of people the Government aim to accept.

They say that later on the scheme will open to more vulnerable minority groups and women and girls, but how much longer can those groups afford to wait? The Taliban has now banned women and girls from education. Every month that they remain in Afghanistan, their vulnerability and the restrictions on them increase, so the Government must increase the scale of the pathway and the pace at which it is implemented.

To ensure that pathway 3 runs as smoothly as possible, we must learn the lessons from pathway 1. So far, just over 6,000 Afghans have settled in the UK through that strand of the resettlement scheme. Those who have made it to the UK under pathway 1 are yet to be able to bring their family members here, despite the Government’s promises that that would be possible.

Since Kabul fell to the Taliban in August 2021, the humanitarian situation has deteriorated even further. Members of the Afghan community in the UK will be worried about their loved ones who are still there. I understand that Afghans on pathway 1 have been granted indefinite leave to remain without refugee status, which means that they cannot access refugee family reunion. They rely on the Government to keep the promises about family reunion that were made in the context of the resettlement scheme. I hope the Minister will confirm that they will honour that commitment and urgently ensure that family reunion can happen for those already here under pathway 1.

Currently, there are no concessions for Afghans with family members who are resident in the UK for regular family reunion visas. Regular family reunion visas come with bureaucratic hurdles and huge costs. The Ukraine family scheme shows a different way forward, and the Home Office can learn from that. It must act now and develop a proper family reunion mechanism for Afghan families. I ask the Minister to think again and look at the lessons learned from the Ukrainian scheme to see whether something else can be offered to Afghans who have made their lives here and are worried about their families.

It is clear to me that the Afghan citizen resettlement scheme’s criteria for relocation are far too narrow. Its pace and scale are insufficient and leave vulnerable people at significant risk. They either stay in Afghanistan, where they will be unsafe, or they are left with no option other than to attempt dangerous journeys across the channel or be in places whether they are not safe if they have protected characteristics, such as LGBT people and religious minorities.

We must urgently open safe routes so that people can relocate, and we must immediately prioritise family reunion so that Afghans already in the UK can be reunited with their loved ones. Those people must not have to make perilous journeys and be persecuted by other Government policies if they choose to do so.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I thank Back-Bench colleagues for their succinct and informative speeches. I ask the Opposition Front Benchers to stick to 10 minutes, as the Minister wants to be generous in answering and wants to take interventions. Thank you for your forbearance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Lyn Brown]

Sorry?

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

No need to worry, just some friendly heckling.

[Ms Lyn Brown]

Oh, really? I will remember that. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing about this debate and allowing us all to discuss it today.

Hon. Members have rightly raised some horrifying cases. Last week, the BBC highlighted the case of Zuhra, who talked of her pride at having worked for the British Council in a massively high-profile role as a teacher who starred in promotional videos about her work. Now, because the Government have failed to offer her a way out, Zuhra lives in fear, constantly moving with her family to avoid being identified and targeted, while stifled by ever-increasing restrictions on women’s freedoms.

Despite the lack of any news about her application to pathway 3, Zuhra still has hope. Tragically, she blames herself for the danger her family is in thanks to her work for the British Council, but she still believes the Government will come through for her and her family. Will they? All I can say, after all that has happened, is that I pray that Zuhra is right to have hope, still, in this Government.

Let us face it: the abandonment of the people of Afghanistan during and following the withdrawal of international partners continues to be a source of absolute shame for this country. I personally advocated, as many colleagues did, for a Chevening alumnus who had reportedly been placed on the Taliban kill list. In total, I wrote to the Government about almost 900 cases of people in dire need in Afghanistan, following heart-wrenching cries for help from family and friends living in West Ham.

The bitter truth is that the Government utterly failed to match the urgency of those desperate pleas for help. Our Government did not prove capable of the same openness that our communities demonstrated when offering a welcome to those in dire need. In the months that have followed, the Government have time and again reduced the offer of sanctuary. We now know that, as of last month, just four people had been resettled under pathway 2 of the ACRS since the withdrawal from Kabul. I fully appreciate that this is not an FCDO responsibility, but that figure is appalling, and it weighs heavily on our international reputation.

Today, we are discussing the Government’s failure to deliver on the promise of pathway 3 of the Afghan resettlement scheme, which covers British Council contractors, GardaWorld security contractors and Chevening alumni. What links those three groups of people is that they all worked closely with the Foreign Office as an institution. They helped the UK to have a positive and secure place in Afghanistan and supportive relationships with its wonderful people over many years. Their vulnerability to reprisals today is the direct result of that work for us, and therefore the FCDO, along with the Government as a whole, owes them a debt of protection. Labour strongly supports protection for the more than 200 people who helped the FCDO in Afghanistan, and for their families.

Scott McDonald, chief executive officer of the British Council, is calling for urgent action to ensure that all those invited to provide biometrics are granted safe passage to countries neighbouring Afghanistan. He is surely right, because, as we know, an offer of protection from the Government is just the first step; many people will not have the right travel documents and will have to risk their lives trying to get them. It is concerning that we have not had clarity about what the Government are doing, despite constant calls from Members across the House. My colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), the shadow Minister for peace and disarmament, has raised that point repeatedly since January last year. I also want to highlight the work of the chair of the British Council all-party parliamentary group, the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), as well as that of all the other hon. Members present in the Chamber today.

Despite those cross-party campaigns, rather than clarity, we have had corrections to the record. Last week, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), told the House that half of the 190 former British Council contractors and their family members had been given the green light to come to the UK, but the Daily Mail has reported that just 47 have been invited to provide biometrics, and even those few will face extra security checks before they have any chance of coming here.

Then there was another correction. Last week, the Under- Secretary told the House that the figure of 1,500 was not “an upper limit” and that

“another cohort will be established from June”.—[Official Report, 11 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 290WH.]

It now appears that 1,500 has been set as a maximum for pathway 3, and that any additional pathways that are opened will not be designed to help the same group of Afghans in need of protection.

If the Minister of State has any further details about future schemes that could be opened, and when, I am sure all of us would be very glad to hear about them today. However, if he cannot give us that, surely he can answer a very simple question: how many former British Council contractors are still stuck in Afghanistan, and when can we expect them to reach safety here? Will he also say whether he has had engagement with regional partners such as Pakistan to facilitate safe passage for British Council staff who are attempting to leave?

The Government need to face up to the consequences of their failure and recognise the true urgency of the situation. Former contractors continue to face daily beatings and intimidation from the Taliban because of their past work with the UK. Many say that they have heard nothing back from the Government about their applications for resettlement. The time this is taking, as a result of administrative barriers, is utterly unacceptable.

Meanwhile, the circumstances of life in Afghanistan have become even more desperate. As we know, the Taliban have implemented more and more of their brutal ideology, particularly on women and girls, and on religious and ethnic minorities such as the Hazara people, who continue to face targeted attacks. Frequently, it is former officials or workers who are targeted, regardless of the Taliban’s official statements that personnel from the former Afghan Government would not be persecuted.

Many of those promised an opportunity for protection in the UK following the Government’s disastrous withdrawal have been failed. What does that failure say to the many foreign nationals around the world who work closely with our embassies and programmes? What does it say about how we value the non-UK staff and contractors who are utterly essential to our diplomatic, consular and development services?

In responding to the urgent question last month, the Minister said repeatedly that this process is moving from the FCDO to the Home Office as the initial stage is complete. Frankly, that news will fill many with dread. I hope he will recognise that the fundamental responsibility for offering these vulnerable people protection remains with the FCDO. If—or perhaps when—the Home Office fails yet again to do its part, I hope that FCDO Ministers will keep a close eye and perhaps step in to unblock things.

This debate is about a duty that we, as a country, owe to the people in danger because of their work with us. It is about making good just a tiny part of the damage wreaked by the Government’s failures in Afghanistan. I hope that the Minister will provide concrete assurances today that the shameful abandonment of so many good people and their families will be remedied soon.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I thank all colleagues for providing the Minister with additional time to answer their questions and take interventions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

Yes.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Before my hon. Friend intervenes, I remind the Minister to sit down at 2.58 pm to allow Mr Shannon two minutes at the end to wind up.

[Mr Baron]

Clarity is required here. Will the Minister answer some straightforward questions about the 200 British Council contractors who have initially been told that they are eligible under ACRS pathway 3? How many have been told that they can now proceed out of the country—if they can get out—into a third country? How many are yet to hear anything from the Government after making their initial application? Our understanding is that roughly 47 have been told to go, with another 150 still in the dark.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baron]

I will reflect carefully on that point, but I am not even getting any assurances privately about the numbers. It is all very well to quote big numbers, but— I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the British Council, so I apologise but I will focus on that—we know that 200 eligible contractors, the majority of whom we have heard nothing about, are deemed to be at very high risk or high risk of their lives. The figure on the record—the Minister was not reticent about giving out figures last Wednesday—is that 47 have been given the green light. That suggests that 150—security checks or not—have not been told to proceed. They are in the dark still. If not now, when can we get some clarification on the British Council contractors?

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Order. We are marching towards 2.58 pm.

[Mr Mitchell]

I ask my hon. Friend to allow us to consider whether we can provide any further information, but I want to be absolutely clear and concise in what I say today. Those are the reasons why we are not giving out further figures.

I was going to say something about broader support for Afghanistan from His Majesty’s Government, but I will not. I think I will conclude—

[Mr Mitchell]

There will always be arguments for and against figures. That is the settled position of the Government and I am not in a position today to comment any further on it.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) asked me about refugee status; all those arriving in the UK under the ARAP and ACRS have the right to work and access education, healthcare, and public funds. I hope that is helpful to her.

In conclusion, the UK Government remain committed to offering a safe and legal route to the UK for eligible British Council, GardaWorld and Chevening alumni affected by the appalling events in Afghanistan in August 2021. I acknowledge and understand the strength of feeling in the House about the speed of progress. The Government remain acutely aware of the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and are working with partners to try to influence the Taliban. We are also working at pace to deliver on our commitment to relocate eligible Afghans who supported the UK mission and our wider values and are at risk as a result. I look forward to the day we can confirm to the House that we have succeeded in repaying that debt of honour.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Mr Shannon, I will give you a maximum of two minutes, because that is what is allowed.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank all Members for their contributions. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) has left the Chamber, but she very clearly underlined the issues for women—what they can and cannot do and how they are flogged. It was a reminder of just how brutal the Taliban are. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) referred to the urgency of the matter. The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) speaks with knowledge; there have been lots of moral questions coming from us all, but they came from the hon. Gentleman today in particular.

I understand that the Government are trying to be careful with what they respond to, but we need to see urgency. I commend the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for employing an Afghan refugee in her office; that is really positive and I thank her. She referred to the fact that the Foreign Office is committed to helping those who worked with the British authorities, yet they are not getting into the UK.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) brings a wealth of knowledge to this subject, for which I thank her. She referred to the fact that women and girls are banned from education, and underlined the urgency to process their applications. She said that what has been done for Ukrainians can be done for Afghans.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) brings knowledge to all these debates. He referred to how inadequate the scheme is and how more contributions are needed. He also referred to how we must work alongside our NATO and USA allies.

There was a real passion from the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown)—a nice ferocity, as I called it earlier. She mentioned the 900 people she had helped. I say well done to her: we all stand in awe of her contributions. We all summed up very clearly that life in Afghanistan is now critical and we need to make good our duty of care.

I thank the Minister for his response. I he was trying to be careful with what he said, but he has grasped that we all feel the urgency. What we are all looking for today—what the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay and all of us want—is a scheme that works, and works urgently. We sit here in frustration, watching people in a far-off land who have given their all for us. We ask ourselves, “Why are we not doing more for them?”

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Pathway 3 of the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme.

Blasphemy Laws and Allegations: Commonwealth Countries

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce]

One of the problems is that many countries sign up to international covenants and rights, including of freedom of religion or belief, in their constitutions, and yet the court systems and the police investigation systems often do not apply the principles in practice. That does need to be looked at.

The social implications of Pakistan maintaining blasphemy laws cannot be underestimated in terms of mob violence, the burning of villages and the public parading of blasphemers, which are all too common. Two politicians who have advocated against blasphemy laws have been assassinated within the last 10 years. One defendant died from a gun wound after he was shot in court, when on trial in 2020.

What can be done to better respect and protect freedom of religion or belief? One of the outcomes of our London ministerial conference on FORB in July this year—I am delighted to report that no less than 88 Governments sent delegates—is to provide funding for lawyers via an organisation called Role UK, Rule of Law Expertise, to work in countries such as Nigeria to support law reform. That is exactly the kind of issue that the hon. Member for Strangford referred to.

We need to use the respect and expertise of UK lawyers in the Commonwealth to modify or repeal blasphemy, defamation of religion and other speech laws that allow for the persecution of individuals. Frequent concerns that have been expressed, such as the vague wording of such laws, lack of due process and arbitrary enforcement, need to be addressed. I am pleased to confirm that one of the “next steps” set of actions, which is being led by the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance with the aid of our experts, is to look at how legal systems can be strengthened to better reflect FORB in practice. UK Ministers should use every opportunity, including on in-country visits, to raise FORB concerns with their counterparts, including those raised in the debate today. What assurance can the Minister give me on that?

We should appeal to countries such as Nigeria and Pakistan to enact strong safeguards to ensure that individuals who take sharia blasphemy laws into their own hands are punished under law. This is a human rights issue. Sunni schools agree that only the ruler of a state should sentence people to death and that vigilantism on the basis of alleged apostasy should be punished, meaning no individual Muslim without state authority could execute an apostate. That is of relevance to Pakistan, where there is widespread violence at community level. There is a need for careful advocacy, supporting the position of many contemporary Islamic scholars, as articulated by the retired chief justice of Pakistan, S.A. Rahman:

“The position that emerges, after a survey of the relevant verses of the Qur’an, may be summed up by saying that not only is there no punishment for apostasy provided in the Book, but that the Word of God clearly envisages the natural death of the apostate…He will be punished only in the Hereafter.”

We need to urge Commonwealth countries to uphold and fiercely protect the rights of individuals to a fair trial and to ensure due process. Often the emotion of a crowd of accusers has expedited trials to the detriment of a court firmly establishing the facts. Again, careful advocacy locally led with the support of international non-governmental organisations can make an impact. We should thank organisations such as ADF, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Open Doors, CAN and Amnesty for their tireless advocacy. We should join with these NGOs in calling for the release of individuals facing the death penalty, and with the report of the UN Secretary-General on the 13 August 2020 in calling for a moratorium on the application of the death penalty for non-violent conduct such as apostasy and blasphemy, in line with the agreement of the international covenant on civil and political rights, which so many countries have signed up to, including Nigeria and Pakistan. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I thank Mr Shannon and Mrs Bruce for their contributions. We now go to the Front Benches. I call Mr Brendan O’Hara.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I call Jim Shannon—two minutes.

[Jim Shannon]

Thank you, Sir Charles. You are always very generous.

I thank everyone for taking part. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) not just for participating in the debate but for all she does as special envoy. She mentioned the conference at which 88 countries were represented—that tells us a lot about reaching out and grasping the importance of this. She referred to many cases in Nigeria and Pakistan, where it is not going according to plan and blasphemy laws have been used in a very adversarial manner.

The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) is a dear friend of mine and we speak on these issues all the time. He underlined how blasphemy laws are used to target and discriminate against ethnic minority and religious groups. It is clear that an accusation can become a death sentence.

The hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) is always here when we have these debates—I am alongside him and he is alongside me. I thank him for his participation, and in particular for the quotation at the end of his speech. That was quite wonderful. That is where we all want to be through this debate—we want a better understanding and respect for each other. That is the way it should be.

I especially thank the Minister. It is genuinely always a pleasure to see her in her place. We had a very positive response from her on the engagement that she and the Government have with Commonwealth countries. We want not just words expressed but actions in place. I very much welcome the commitment to ensuring that the murderers of Deborah Samuel are held to account, and the Minister has had clear engagement with the Nigerian Government. I am pleased to see that the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, which the hon. Member for Congleton chairs, and the G7 and the UN uphold their human rights obligations, and Lord Ahmad’s work is tremendous.

I thank everyone for their participation—particularly everyone who made constructive recommendations. We hope through this debate to make a positive movement forward. There are those across the world who have no one to speak for them. We in this House today have been that voice for the voiceless, who must have someone to respond to them. Today, this House has done just that.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

It has been a privilege to chair such a well-informed debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered blasphemy laws and allegations in Commonwealth Countries.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Before I call Tulip Siddiq, I wish to make a short statement about the sub judice resolution. I have been advised that there are active legal proceedings in the High Court between International Military Services Ltd and Iran’s Ministry of Defence. I am exercising the discretion given to the Chair in respect of the resolution on matters sub judice to allow full reference to those proceedings as they concern issues of national importance.

Colleagues, it will not have escaped your attention that the debate is massively over-subscribed. Many of you will be disappointed, but you are here showing your support, so thank you. If you intervene on colleagues and you are down to speak, you may be moved off the speakers list, because we will only get to 15 or 16 of you. There will be a three-minute limit on speeches after Tulip Siddiq has spoken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

I will get to my questions, if that is okay. I am conscious of the time.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

If Members have intervened on the hon. Lady already, please do not do so again. I think the hon. Lady was going to give way to Mr MacNeil and then Ms Vaz.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

If we were able to engineer a vote today on the payment of the debt, it would be unanimous. Is there a way that we can engineer a vote in the main Chamber on the debt, so that we add pressure on the Government to pay the debt and get Nazanin home?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Ms Vaz, you are not going to get in to speak. Do you have an intervention to make?

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Very briefly, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) and wish her and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) well. The Ratcliffe family, and Anoosheh Ashoori, Morad Tahbaz, who was born in Hammersmith Hospital, and Mehran Raoof are all British citizens. The Hague convention applies to them; they can get diplomatic protection. If the Minister would only look at the Hague convention, he would find that it takes other factors into account. More importantly, why do we not harness the spirit of Lewis Hamilton at the Brazilian grand prix, and realise that there is not a single obstacle that is going to stop us bringing home our Nazanin, Anoosheh, Morad and Mehran?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

I absolutely agree. I will ask the Minister a series of questions, and then I know that there are lots of hon. Members who want to speak.

Why will the Government not acknowledge that Nazanin is a hostage, and challenge Iran’s hostage-taking with sanctions or legal action? Will the Minister set out exactly what practical and legal issues he believes stand in the way of resolving the International Military Services debt, so that these can be properly scrutinised? The Government have long accepted that they owe the debt as a matter of international law. Do the Government think that they are entitled to ignore their legal obligations and the rule of law? Have the Government made a specific offer to Iran to discharge the debt through humanitarian assistance, such as the provision of medicine? Have the Government sought or received assurance from the US, in the form of a comfort letter, that no bank will be sanctioned or fined for facilitating the payment of the debt? Finally, a Foreign Office Minister, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, said in the Lords yesterday that,

“were the Government to pay hundreds of millions of pounds to the Iranian Government, that would undoubtedly be seen as payment for a hostage situation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 November 2021; Vol. 816, c. 18.]

Is that the view of the Government?

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Colleagues, many of you are not going to get called. I will give those I do call three minutes, but if you speak for less, more people will get in. Please stop taking photographs; you know that you are not meant to take photographs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for bringing the debate. Amid this talk of international diplomacy, sanctions and payments, when my constituents write to me about this case, they want to express their huge sympathy for Richard and particularly his daughter. Gabriella was just 22 months old when her mother was imprisoned. When I had the pleasure of speaking to Richard recently, he told me that now she is in the UK she is doing really well at her school, but my heart goes out to them. I want to express, on behalf of my constituents, how for them this is really about reuniting a mother with her daughter.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I will not give another speaker another minute. You get one injury-time minute; I will not give any more time if you give way again. That goes for all colleagues.

[Layla Moran]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) says, the reason this has touched the hearts of so many people is that they can imagine being in this position.

The Government need to acknowledge that they are state hostages—they have been taken hostage by the Iranian state—and the problem is that there is no way to tackle this internationally. Will the Minister update us on any progress on the Foreign Affairs Committee recommendation to work with the United Nations to create an internationally recognised definition for state hostage-taking, so that this does not happen to other families in future?

It is clear that the Government have got themselves into a bit of a twist over what they think of the debt. Either it is linked or it is not. In my view, it is not linked. We owe the debt; we should pay the debt. It is now increasingly clear that there are ways in which that could happen. I would say, call their bluff. If the Iranian Government say that there is a debt, remove the barrier. If they still do not release the hostages, we show the Iranian Government for the wicked regime that it is. I do not see a downside to doing that.

In closing, I simply want to express my wholehearted support for anything the Government can do, so that this is the last debate on this matter. A standing-room-only debate in Westminster Hall shows that this Parliament cares. I know the Minister cares. I would like to think that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister care, but I do know that the whole country cares. We just want Nazanin home.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on securing this debate. I know that she has been a great source of support for the Ratcliffe family with her campaigning.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is being held as a political hostage in Iran. Her life is being used as a bargaining chip in a diplomatic game between Britain and Iran. In September, in order to mark Nazanin’s 2,000th day in detention, Richard Ratcliffe and their daughter Gabriella stood on a large snakes and ladders board in Parliament Square that represented the ups and down, twists and turns and false dawns that this family have endured. Gabriella has been separated from her mother for most of her young life; Richard has been separated from his wife. Nazanin has endured terrible mistreatment, and Amnesty International rightly describes her as a victim of torture.

As so many colleagues have done, I want to pay tribute to Richard Ratcliffe and his unwavering determination to keep Nazanin’s case at the top of the agenda. I have met him during both his first and second hunger strikes to show him solidarity and support. The strength, determination and dignity that he continues to show is heroic. The Government’s response to the escalation of Nazanin’s ordeal in Iran has rightly been described as pitiful. In May this year, the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), said that Iran’s treatment of Nazanin “amounts to torture” and that she is being

“held unlawfully…as a matter of international law.”

The strengthening of the language being used by Ministers is welcome, but it is just words—the Government have to act. We need to know why the Government are not acting to bring British hostages home.

In her eighth urgent question on Nazanin’s case recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn asked the Minister to acknowledge that Nazanin is a hostage, to resolve the £400 million debt issue—I am pleased that so many Members have raised that today—and to work to secure an end to hostage taking. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), rightly called for a fundamental rethink of the Government’s approach to Nazanin. It is long past time for an urgent intervention from the Prime Minister, and for a new strategy to bring Nazanin home. The strength of support in this standing-room only Westminster Hall debate shows how much support there is in this House for that urgent action.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I am going to annoy colleagues by dropping the speaking time to two minutes, and none of you is going to get injury time for interventions—I want to get you all in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I will be brief because I very much want to hear what the Minister has to say in response. The whole House owes a debt to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for the way she has pursued this case for so long—I remember having a conversation with her when Nazanin was first taken prisoner. We should all also admire Richard for the way he has campaigned so effectively despite his suffering. As a result of that, this is the largest Westminster Hall turnout I can remember.

Obviously, the debt is owed and must be paid. If this country wants respect for behaving in the proper manner, the debt should be paid. It is not a negotiation; it is saying “This money is owed. Let’s pay it.” I believe that would help to unlock a lot of things, and help to open up a serious human rights dialogue with Iran in the future, which is necessary. While we are here today, concentrating on Nazanin’s release—which I completely support—I would put on record that we should also be calling for the release of Anoosheh Ashoori, Mehran Raoof and Morad Tahbaz, who are in a similar situation. I hope that, in the context of a changed and renewed relationship with Iran, they would be released.

I want to see decent human rights everywhere around the world, and that obviously includes Iran. The people of Iran deserve that. We should do everything we can to ensure that happens. I hope the Minister can unlock this—maybe not completely today but I hope it can be unlocked—and that he will have got the message of the strength of feeling, from everybody across our House, for her release.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Thank you, colleagues; we finish with 45 seconds to spare before going to Front Bench wind-ups.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. Like other Members, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on securing this debate and on all her incredible work on behalf of her constituents. Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has been held in Iran for five and a half years. Like many here, I visited Richard, her husband, on two occasions outside the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and I want to pay tribute to him for his determination and incredible resolve.

Many MPs and members of the public visited Richard during his hunger strike. In his final speech outside the FCDO, looking back at his time on hunger strike, he said that it had always been important to him that everyone who visited him had been united against injustice. We all pay tribute to Richard and, as others have said, the fight will go on.

Last week, there were talks between the Government and the Iranian deputy Foreign Minister. Unfortunately, yet again, there was no progress. Nor has there been progress on the cases of other dual nationals, including Anoosheh Ashoori and Morad Tahbaz. Both men are not in good health and, like Nazanin, are being arbitrarily detained on spurious fabricated charges. Anoosheh Ashoori has not been granted diplomatic protection by the UK Government and has not been allowed out of prison. Morad Tahbaz was one of eight conservationists held by the Iranian authorities. Amnesty International has said that there was evidence that those eight had been tortured to obtain false confessions.

Everyone here is united in believing that those detentions are wrong and totally unjust. Surely, all this has gone on long enough. For more than five years, British Governments have tried and failed to secure the release of Nazanin and the other dual nationals. If there has been a Government strategy during this time, it has clearly failed.

A number of Members have mentioned the debt of £400 million which Britain owes Iran. The money was paid to the United Kingdom by Iran over 40 years ago for 1,500 Chieftain tanks which were never delivered. The Government have said that bank transfer transactions are not possible because of restrictions but, as we all know, if the Government had the will to settle the debt, one way or another the payment would be made.

I am not suggesting that any sort of ransom is paid by our Government, but if the money is owed and there is no question but that that is the case, the debt should be settled. In fact, when the Prime Minister was Foreign Secretary, he made a promise to Richard Ratcliffe that the debt would be paid. Significantly, in 2014, the current Defence Secretary described the unpaid debt as “a sorry story”. He said the whole issue had been,

“marred by double dealing and obfuscation”.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 11 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 103WH.]

More recently, a number of distinguished former Foreign Secretaries, Conservative and Labour, have said that the debt should be paid. That is also the view of many international and legal commentators, and it is our view as well. As the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), who is a former Foreign Secretary, has said, this is not about paying a ransom. It is about the UK’s credibility and doing what is right.

On numerous occasions, we have been told by the Government that they are doing their best and that it would be unwise to rock the boat, but it has to be said that the Government’s approach has failed abysmally. Now is surely the time to take off the kid gloves and to be vigorous and determined. Nazanin, Anoosheh Ashoori, Morad Tahbaz and all the dual nationals need to be brought back home. The time for discreet pressure and cautious words is long past. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what plan of action the Government now have for bringing our people home.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Minister, please leave about 90 seconds at the end, to allow Ms Siddiq to wind up.

Human Rights: Xinjiang

Charles Walker Excerpts

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that Uyghurs and other ethnic and religious minorities in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region are suffering Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide; and calls on the Government to act to fulfil its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide and all relevant instruments of international law to bring it to an end.

It is a privilege to open this important debate on an historic motion. I want to put on record my thanks to the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, and in particular Luke de Pulford, for co-ordinating MPs around the world, keeping the Uyghurs high on the agenda of national Parliaments.

Today’s historic debate would not have been possible without a key ally to the Uyghurs, and the one sponsor of the debate who would have been so proud of us all here today for doing the right thing—I hope—at 5 o’ clock. That is my mentor and dear friend, the late Dame Cheryl Gillan. Dame Cheryl was a phenomenal woman—a woman who kept men in this place in their place, and I wish the record to note that this debate is in her honour. I hope that today this House will do her proud.

I am one of the five MPs sanctioned by the Chinese Communist party. Those sanctions were an attempt to silence and intimidate us, to prevent us from raising the growing evidence of the abuse faced by the Uyghurs.

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that when a national Government sanctions one Member of Parliament in this place, that national Government is actually sanctioning all Members of Parliament in this place, and that it is incumbent on us all—all 650 of us—to stand as one at this moment?

[Ms Ghani]

My hon. Friend could not have put it more perfectly. I believe that sanctioning five MPs for raising human rights abuses was sanctioning this House and asking it to stop raising human rights abuses in Xinjiang. The whole House needs to act as one.

The fact that we are here today, having this debate, shows that the sanctions simply have not worked. I can only assume that my sanctions followed my campaigning on the genocide amendment to the Trade Bill, and my Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee report, which exposed that Xinjiang is a Uyghur slave state, and recommends that we blacklist UK firms putting slave-made products on our shelves. As we all know, basic checks and transparency standards cannot be guaranteed in Xinjiang, so businesses find it difficult to guarantee that they are slave labour-free. Let us just cut to the chase and blacklist firms who are linked to Xinjiang unless they are, uniquely, able to offer adequate proof that they are slave labour-free. The British customer does not want to be duped into putting money in the pocket of firms profiting from slave labour. I hope the Minister can wholeheartedly support the rest of the recommendations in the Select Committee report.

I also want to put on record my thanks and offer solidarity to Dr Jo Smith Finley, a senior academic who was also sanctioned for sharing what she witnessed in Xinjiang, along with a legal firm and research group. When the CCP tries to control UK groups and individuals speaking freely about their research and legal opinions, it is our responsibility and duty to speak truth to power in this place, where we are afforded protection that others may not have. The sanctions are not only an attack on us as individuals but an attempt to stifle the free and open debate that is at heart of our hard-won parliamentary democracy. If the CCP is still in doubt about what our leadership thinks of the sanctions, let me quote our very own Prime Minister, who said:

“Freedom to speak out in opposition to abuse is fundamental and I stand firmly with them.”.

Today, I am asking the House to consider whether the grounds for genocide are met. I know that colleagues are reluctant to use the word “genocide”. For many, the word will be forever associated with the horrors of Nazi concentration camps. I agree with colleagues that we should never diminish the unique meaning and power of the term by applying it incorrectly, but there is a misunderstanding that genocide is just one act—mass killing. That is false. Article 2 of the United Nations genocide convention says that genocide is

“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”.

There are three points that I want colleagues to note. First, genocide is measured against intent. Secondly, intent to commit any one of the five acts of genocide is sufficient. Thirdly, and fundamentally, all five acts of genocide are evidenced as taking place in Xinjiang. Therefore, while we must never misuse the term “genocide”, we must not fail to use it when it is warranted.

I will shortly return to the horrific examples to support my motion, but let me first remind the House why we are stuck in the trenches and why I am asking us today to help dig us out and free the Uyghur people. The Government state that genocide can be determined only a competent court. Every route to a court is blocked by China. That means that, despite the Foreign Secretary stating that

“the human rights violations being perpetrated in Xinjiang against the Uyghur Muslims is…far-reaching. It paints a…harrowing picture”—[Official Report, 12 January 2021; Vol. 687, c. 160.]

our Government are handcuffed, paralysed by the UN. We need to take back control. Our route to declaring genocide cannot be controlled by China.

Let me briefly present the evidence to support my motion: the five acts of genocide. Act 1 is:

“Killing members of the group”.

As Dr Smith Finley notes, in the massacre of 2014, up to 3,000 Uyghurs

“were allegedly killed by security forces”,

according to exiles. Separately, as Essex Court Chambers noted in its landmark 100-page legal case, there were reports that an unknown number of detainees died in the camps due to

“poor living conditions and a lack of medical treatment.”

Following the publishing of that opinion, the CCP sanctioned the chambers.

Act 2 is:

“Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group”.

Fifty legal experts in international law have determined that every marker of genocide is met. The Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy found:

“Uyghurs are suffering serious bodily and mental harm from systematic torture and cruel treatment, including rape, sexual abuse, exploitation, and public humiliation, at the hands of camp officials and Han cadres assigned to Uyghur homes under Government-mandated programs. Internment camps contain designated ‘interrogation rooms,’ where Uyghur detainees are subjected to consistent and brutal torture methods, including beatings with metal prods, electric shocks, and whips. The mass internment and related Government programs are designed to indoctrinate and ‘wash clean’ brains.”

That is from 50 global experts.

Act 3 of genocide is:

“Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”.

President Xi has said so many words, including about showing “absolutely no mercy”. How is he doing that? Credible reports indicate that up to 2 million people are extrajudicially detained in prison factories and re-education centres, and I dread to think of the impact of a lack of proper medical care during a pandemic.

Act 4 is imposing measures intended to prevent births within a group. Unless the Minister can provide evidence to the contrary, I do not believe there is any other place on earth where women are being violated on this scale. “The Handmaid’s Tale” is a fairytale compared with the reproductive rights of Uyghur women. That abuse is evidenced by the Chinese Government’s own data. In 2014, more than 200,000 birth control devices were inserted in women in Xinjiang, and by 2018 the number had increased by 60%. Despite the region accounting for just 1.8% of China’s population, 80% of all birth control device insertions in China were performed in the Uyghur region. That explains why, in one of the region, birth rates are down 84%. Even more chillingly, China no longer shares the data by ethnicity, as it tries to scrub away the evidence. Time is running out for the Uyghur, especially the women.

Finally, act 5: forcibly transferring the children of the group to another group. This unique barbarism of the CCP is a slow-motion genocide. It is hard to believe that it is doing that as a final act of horror. The New York Times reported, from public CCP data, that nearly half a million children have been separated from their families. That is key, as it shows the CCP’s intent to strip children from their parents, basically disrupting intergenerational linguistic, cultural and faith transmission. Let me quote the CCP again:

“Break their lineage, break their roots”.

I do not expect the Minister to have any arguments to dispute any of the evidence that I have put forward today. I do expect to hear from the Dispatch Box, considering the crimes, how the Foreign Office will fully co-operate with the independent Uyghur tribunal of Sirusb Geoffrey Nice, QC.

We are not alone. Countries around the world are declaring genocide, and Parliaments in Europe are watching us today and will take our lead. At a previous genocide debate, when we were shamefully denied a vote, I quoted the late Rabbi Sacks. When he was asked where was God during the holocaust, he responded that the question is not: where was God? The question is: where was man? Men and women in this House—the mother of all Parliaments—will do all we can to ensure that atrocities like the holocaust can never again take place.

Palestinian School Curriculum: Radicalisation

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[John Howell]

Shalom.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

We did have one more speaker, but he is obviously detained in his office or somewhere else, so I will go straight to the Front Bencher from the Scottish National party, who has 10 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

Absolutely. I am sure the staff of UNRWA do not want to be in classrooms teaching such things either. We have common cause here—we need to look at the evidence, because what we need to do will flow from that.

It is important that we look at the wider context. We are answering a fundamental question: why are young Palestinians being radicalised? We have picked one element of the issue—a very important element of it—but I also saw military courts where children were offered arbitrary sentences that were shorter than the period of time they would have been detained to have a full trial. We heard first-hand stories of inconsistent access to life-saving medical treatments. We visited suburbs that had been developed around and heard from children about their lack of hope for their community. Everyone will have seen the physical checkpoints and walls that those children have no prospect of ever passing through. Their lives are lived under the constant threat of demolition. We heard from Israel defence force soldiers, who said it was a part of their operating procedure to inconvenience and to disturb Palestinians, especially young men.

That is the broader context. We serve nobody if we choose only a little bit of context to try to answer the whole question. I know today we have focused on a very important issue—the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North is right to raise it—and we should find solutions, because it gets to the very core of why we use aid spending in this country. However, we will serve no one in the pursuit of a two-state solution if we look like we are picking sides.

As I stood up to speak, I thought about my friends who often have contrasting views on these issues, and I thought, “I hope that when I sit down, I will at least have disappointed them equally.” That is the territory that we are in here and that is the spirit in which we need to continue these conversations. Hopefully, we can revisit it after we have seen the report.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I would just point out to him that if he stops speaking at 4.25 pm, that will give the mover of the motion two minutes to wind up. I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

I apologise for not being here at the start of the debate; I too was at a Select Committee hearing. Given that this has been an issue for 19 years, what faith does the Minister genuinely have that the Palestinian Authority will investigate the matter properly?

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Minister, you have a minute and a half left.

[James Cleverly]

Thank you, Sir Charles.

The simple truth is that we have to work with the Palestinian Authority. We have to encourage and support them to do the right thing, but ultimately a sustainable two-state solution will have to be negotiated between the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority. Although there may be concerns about the ability or willingness of the Palestinian Authority to engage in this, they are the organisation through which we have to work in order to have a credible and sustainable two-state solution, so we will be patient. We will be persistent, we will be principled and we will be balanced, but we will keep pushing this agenda.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Mr Gullis, you have until no later than 4.27 pm to wrap up.

Climate Justice

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Nadia Whittome]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I thank her for that, and for her many years of work in Westminster on climate justice.

In the light of all this, it comes as little surprise that on BBC Radio 4 this morning, Claire O’Neill, the former president of the UN climate summit in Glasgow, said that the Prime Minister has admitted to her that he does not even understand climate change. Will the Minister lay out what major changes—not promises, consultations or strategies, but tangible changes—have taken place or been set in motion since the House passed Labour’s climate and environment emergency last May?

Does the Minister agree that it is imperative that the UK gets our own house in order, and is seen to be making substantial progress on decarbonisation, climate change, adaption and habitat restoration, ahead of hosting COP26? Will he outline investments and actions in the pipeline between now and November—specifically, investments in infrastructure to create the green, clean jobs of the future? Will he clarify whether the Prime Minister is indeed entirely ignorant about climate change, as claimed by his former colleague? Lastly, is there a reason why the climate sub-committee has not met since it was first announced, and on what dates is it scheduled to meet?

There is a huge opportunity in Glasgow later this year, but decisions must be made and acted upon that keep fossil fuels in the ground, transform our food systems, decarbonise our production and consumption, restore ecosystems, and completely change our economies at a scale that matches the enormity of the crisis at hand.

Many Members will be alarmed by reports from the former president of the UN climate summit that the Government are

“miles off track”

in setting a positive agenda for COP26, and that promises of action

“are not close to being met”.

What does the Minister have to say in response to assertions that preparations for COP26 are

“mired in chaos and confusion”?—[Official Report, 3 February 2020; Vol. 671, c. 34.]

In the light of those significant concerns, will the Minister agree to provide the House next month with a substantive briefing update on preparations for COP26?

The question of how to support the countries most affected by the impacts of climate change has been a long-running debate at COPs over the years and is an important factor in achieving climate justice. After a year that has seen the likes of Hurricane Dorian and Cyclone Idai inflict extreme losses on disadvantaged communities across the developing world, addressing the issue of climate finance can no longer be delayed. Will the Minister outline for us the UK’s position on climate finance for poorer nations? How does he propose to involve disadvantaged groups in the planning and policy-making process, so that those individuals have a say in their own future?

It is imperative that developing countries receive the support they need to adapt to the impacts of climate change and reduce their own emissions. Developing countries should not be forced to choose between schools and medicine and coping with climate breakdown. Will the Government commit to working with others at COP26 to develop new sources of climate finance, such as a polluters’ tax, so as to not rely on the overseas aid budget alone?

With the addition of paragraph 51 to the COP21 decision accompanying the Paris agreement, developing nations reluctantly agreed that loss and damage could not be used to claim compensation from richer nations. Will the Minister outline the Government’s position on paragraph 51 and say whether he supports calls by the US to further exclude countries not signed up to the Paris agreement from any liability for the impacts of climate change?

Action to tackle climate change is increasingly being viewed through the lens of human rights, internationally and legally. As has been seen in some key strategic cases, the human rights basis for litigation on climate change has increasingly resonated with judges. New lawsuits have been able to draw on advancements in attribution science to establish a critical causal link between a particular source of emissions and climate-related damage, so the message to the world’s biggest polluters is clear: “Your time is up.” The communities most impacted by the reckless and short-termist actions of Governments and major polluters are, with increasing frequency, having their day in court. Will the Government take a human rights-based approach to climate change ahead of COP26, supporting those most impacted by, and most vulnerable to, the impacts of climate breakdown?

People of my generation are here to claim our right to a stable planet. We are here to shake decision makers out of their comfort zones, because the kind of action needed to address the urgency and scale of the climate and ecological crisis can take place only outside of those comfort zones. If the Government are sincere about the scale and urgency of the problem, we will not continue to hear about endless plans, pledges and consultations, but will see concrete actions in the here and now. COP26 is a historic opportunity that simply cannot be botched, yet sadly everything we have seen and heard points to this whole process being recklessly mismanaged under the stewardship of this Prime Minister. I will end with some advice from the outgoing president of the UN climate summit:

“My advice to anybody to whom Boris is making promises—whether it is voters, world leaders, ministers, employees or indeed, to family members—is to get it in writing, get a lawyer to look at it and make sure the money is in the bank.”

That is what all of us in this room must resolve to do.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

If everybody sticks to about six minutes, we should get all Back Benchers in. If you do not stick to six minutes, I will introduce a time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) on securing this debate and on giving us an opportunity to discuss the climate crisis. It is the greatest existential threat of our time and climate justice is becoming increasingly urgent. It is timely that this debate has been called ahead of Parliament’s voting on the Government’s Environment Bill. As colleagues know, much has been made of the Government’s ambitious target to decarbonise by 2050, but it is simply a headline. At the moment, it is a plan.

When we talk about climate change, we speak about the climate emergency. The summer saw swathes of the Amazon burn, and Australia is currently fighting the wildfires that have gripped areas the size of our own counties, so we are right to speak in terms of an emergency. However, I fear there is no recognition of that emergency in the Government’s response to the crisis so far beyond declaring one. There is no sense of urgency. There is more CO₂ in our atmosphere now than at any point in human history, so before we pat ourselves on the back for small reductions in production—as has been mentioned, the offshoring of our share hides the truth on consumption—we must remember that we need to up our game and set out a radical course of action. We cannot let COP26 be a cop-out. It is our last chance to correct the path to climate disaster.

Locally, Sheffield City Council has declared a climate emergency and has set out a carbon budget with the Tyndall Centre, which shows the city would use its entire budget for the next 20 years in less than six. Rightly, it has set a course to try to get to net zero by 2030. Before Christmas, again, communities across South Yorkshire experienced flooding. The impact of an international crisis played out locally. If the UK was serious about preventing climate breakdown, we would not be seeing more investment going into drilling in new oilfields or building more pipelines. Instead we see UK-headquartered banks and the Government bankrolling fossil fuel extraction and directing more and more finance to fossil fuel companies, rather than solutions to the crisis. If we were serious about climate justice, the Government would regulate and penalise private banks for providing billions for fossil fuel extraction at home and abroad.

Between 2016 and 2018, HSBC gave $57 billion to the fossil fuel industry. Barclays, the biggest funder of fossil fuel infrastructure in Europe, gave almost $25 billion to fossil fuel companies in 2018 alone. The Government offered only £100 million of private investment for renewable energy investment in sub-Saharan Africa in 2018, which shows the difference in scale. Through their campaigns, organisations such as People & Planet and Greenpeace have brought to light the fact that our banks have been acting like fossil fuel companies with the amount of extraction they are financing, showing a determination to see the industry continue. It needs to stop. Without further regulations and legislation for our financial system there will be almost free rein to continue to make our worlds toxic and to continue to push us over the cliff we are balanced on, with temperatures potentially soaring by three degrees, which we know will be catastrophic.

Average wildlife populations have already dropped by 60% in 40 years, so we must act now and take our responsibilities seriously or risk further loss of species and populations. The Government are not exempt, either. In June, the Environmental Audit Committee exposed how UK Export Finance had been using British capital to finance fossil fuel extraction in the global south, undermining the effect of the UK’s carbon emissions cuts and any commitment to climate justice.

The climate crisis is a threat to us all, but we do not all face it equally. In fact, we must remember those who have already tragically lost their lives, swept up in the climate disaster, trying to protect communities and fight for the frontline of public services across the world. The Government need to end their support for climate colonialism and penalise banks that are accelerating climate breakdown at the frontlines. Climate justice absolutely requires recognising and mitigating the worst effects of the crisis and facilitating environmental migration in response to disaster displacement, which is unavoidable at this point. Fundamentally, we need to take a radical approach. Let us take as our starting point the root cause of the issue—where our Government are accelerating and exacerbating climate breakdown. Climate justice means acting now to stem the worst effects of the crisis, and for that we need to take aim at the banks that are choking our future. Our inaction is also choking our future. We continually raise the issue not to try to be a thorn in anyone’s side, but to be the roots that can lead to a shoot of hope for future generations.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Thanks to the discipline of colleagues, the Front-Bench speakers have approximately 12 minutes each, leaving two minutes at the end for the Member who moved the debate to sum up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Charles. When I saw this debate on the list of upcoming Westminster Hall debates, I was keen to participate not only because it is such an important topic, but because it is being led by my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome). It is a real privilege to respond for the Opposition.

My hon. Friend is quickly making her mark on the House, and I know she will be a strong voice for our community in Nottingham and for communities around the world who need people to stand up for them. I have known her for a number of years, and she has shared her voice, her power and her platform—be it for a popular or an unpopular cause—with people who are in need and who are without a voice or power. I know she will bring great credit to herself and our city in her time as an MP. We in Nottingham are proud that we will be the first city in this country to be carbon neutral, which was born out of community activism and campaigning. People took to the streets of Nottingham and pestered their elected leadership by being clear about what they wanted on this issue. Local leaders then reflected that by making it into policy, which is exactly how things should be.

Members of different parties have made a number of excellent contributions to the debate. I took double pleasure in the contribution from the hon. Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke), who has such a strong record from her professional experience. I know she will be a strong advocate for an independent, well-resourced DFID. My previous winding-up speech for the Opposition was in the dying embers of the last Parliament, and sitting about three chairs down from where she is sitting was her predecessor, Jeremy Lefroy, who is remembered fondly in this place for his contributions on a variety of issues, but especially on international development—there is clearly something in the water in Stafford. I take her point on the importance of the congruence of ODA policy and the Paris goals, and Britain’s climate obligations. I will return to that later, because we are at a point where they are starting to diverge.

I turn to the contribution from the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who made an important point about our neighbours. Everyone is our neighbour. We talk about constituency neighbours, but our fates are so intrinsically linked these days. We are on the same planet currently hurtling headlong towards the same dreadful fate, so we have a real job of solidarity and responsibility to each other. I was very pleased to hear her talk about the importance of citizens’ assemblies, as other Members did. I will make a shameless plug as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for deliberative democracy—all allies are welcome. For the climate emergency and many more issues, our democracies would be strengthened by bringing people in and having proper, evidence-based conversations on thorny topics.

The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) mentioned an extraordinary fact about the impact of gender and of all girls around the world getting 12 good years of education. My heart leapt when she brought gender into the discussion, as we ought to be feeding it into every debate in this place. Meeting only a basic decent standard would help us tackle climate inequalities and all sorts of inequalities around the world. She talked about enormous scales of improvements and carbon reductions, but they do not even factor in that, if we had a basic level of education for women and girls around the world and the freedoms that go with it, we would also have better leadership. The scope for making much greater inroads into other knotty climate challenges—in fact, into all our global challenges—would be enormous, too.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) made a critical point that came up in the election when we talked to people on the doorstep, and to which we have to keep returning at all times: climate change is not a theoretical exercise, but is happening now. That not only behoves us to take immediate action, but reminds us that our actions are late. As such, they need to come with the scale and ambition that mean we are catching up. In that vein, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) reminds us of our historic obligations—the duality of having both a historical legacy but also the greatest capacity for change.

We in Britain have a real responsibility to take global leadership. I suspect the Minister will start with that, because most, if not all, Government Ministers do so. We are in danger of believing our own hype that we are doing enough with our current emissions reductions. It is great to see the reductions, but they are not enough. We must take a real global lead by using our assets. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) said, that is inconsistent with the decisions being taken on drilling, oil deals and fossil fuels, to which I will return shortly.

I will make a couple more points. We had the COP26 announcements today, but I want to talk about an announcement from two weeks ago, not least because I raised this issue at departmental questions last Wednesday and the Minister accused me of not having read the announcement. I thought it slightly unkind, not least because I was quoting verbatim from a written answer from the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison).

Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister stood at a podium—he was probably waving his hands around—at the UK-Africa investment summit and made his flagship announcement on the climate emergency. He told 16 heads of state and the world’s media that the UK would stop investment and development assistance for coal mining and coal-fired power stations overseas. Garlands flowed from virtually all our newspapers, and there was a real sense that it was a seismic and totemic moment for such a promise to come from the Prime Minister. Looking at the announcement and what it really means, the reality is that UK aid funds have not been used to support coal since 2012, nor had UK Export Finance supported coal overseas since 2002. It was a re-announcement of something that had happened many years ago.

There is nothing new in spin—I confess that I have used a bit in the past—but this is too important an issue on which to equivocate. Although the Government were briefing one thing on climate and saying what wonderful progress was being made, they were actually very busy doing quite the opposite at the summit. The Government helped strike £2 billion-worth of energy deals, 90% of which were for fossil fuels, primarily oil and gas. The five fossil fuel deals include an investment of £26 million in gas assets in Tunisia by Anglo Tunisian Oil and Gas, and an investment of £1.2 billion in oil production in Kenya by Tullow.

The Government might well make a case for why they should support and broker investment in fossil fuels, and they ought to, clearly and honestly. The Minister has a platform, and I call on him to make it clear what was done at the summit and why it is important. It should be debated publicly—that is how it should work. The public ought to be able to make their own assessment of whether their leaders understand the greatest challenge of our time, and whether our actions match up with the rhetoric. When we stand at a podium and say we are doing one thing, and then quietly do another in the backrooms, it serves nobody. It certainly does not serve debate and will not tackle the existential challenge that we collectively face. As we go into COP26, I hope we can use the announcements, including today’s, to have proper and honest conversations about climate justice and the climate emergency.

I will make a point on climate justice and ask the Minister a few questions. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East for raising this issue—we talk a lot about the climate emergency, and we ought to do so. It is the question of our time and leads to a technical question: what can we do to tackle the issue? What should we do to reduce carbon, and how can we save our planet for future generations? In answering that, we miss the challenge of fairness and justice, because it is seen as a lesser emergency. However, there is no true solution to the climate emergency unless it is just.

I will put on record five ways that the UK could adopt a full climate justice approach at COP26, and I would be interested in the Minister’s reflections on them. First, we need to provide climate finance for adaptation, resilience and mitigation, which should be targeted at the people who are worst affected. Will the Minister consider embedding the principles and standards of the ODA in climate finance spending, to ensure that it explicitly reaches those who are most marginalised?

Secondly, it is long overdue that the UK ends its investment, finance and aid funding for oil, gas and fossil fuels overseas. Will the Government immediately switch their support for energy overseas to renewable energies? In the light of what outgoing COP chair Claire O’Neill said, did the Prime Minister understand the other elements of his announcement on coal? Will the Minister make it clear how the announcement of divestment from coal, which has previously happened, is compatible with the deals that were struck?

Thirdly, as the demand for renewable energy expands, we cannot simply replicate previous injustices by allowing large corporations to extract raw materials for products such as solar panels on the back of cheap labour and conflict. Can the Minister assure us that people in the global south will not be exploited anew in the quest for new resources? What will we do differently to ensure that outcomes are more just in the future?

Fourthly, those affected will not get justice until the international community and the UK start to find ways to make amends for our role in historical emissions—that relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion. The UK can start by recognising the need for financing for loss and damage, so will the Government consider doing so ahead of COP? Will the Minister ensure that the tab is picked up by the world’s worst polluters, and that it is not subsidised solely by British taxpayers, the vast majority of whom have not benefited and, indeed, are living with the impacts themselves—another hidden local injustice?

Fifthly, we urge the Government to take immediate action to cut the UK’s carbon emissions in the coming months before the conference so that we set an example for other wealthy nations. We should be pleased with the progress that has been made—I know what the Minister will say about our record in recent years—but we should have an honest conversation with people, because this is about not just our raw top-line emissions figures but our consumption figures, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said. Let us have an honest, in-the-round conversation, and be really clear about what we are doing and the improvements we are making so that we can be global leaders.

It is time for us to step up as global leaders, not just on tackling the climate emergency so that future generations have a planet, but on ensuring that the outcomes are just and that we do not make the same unequal errors that we made in the past. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s views. I once again express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East for securing and leading this important debate.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Minister, would you leave two minutes at the end, for the mover to wind up?

Ukrainian Holodomor

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure and a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) for securing this important debate, in which, as has already been expressed, a huge amount of concern has been raised. She has helped to raise awareness of an issue that is generally under-discussed in this country, including in Parliament. I congratulate her on raising our awareness. She has also given us a timely reminder of why our commitment to helping to resolve the ongoing ethnic tensions in Ukraine remains important.

It is absolutely right that we recognise the famine of the 1930s for the humanitarian catastrophe that it so clearly was. As the writer Anne Applebaum documents in her recent book, “Red Famine”, roughly 13% of Ukraine’s entire population are likely to have been wiped out in the famine. Even today, the full extent of the death toll may never be known, in part because of the inevitable difficulties involved in determining whether deaths were caused directly by famine or by the widespread malnutrition and disease that inevitably came with it. Whether or not the famine came about because of the deliberate policies of the Stalin regime, it is surely undeniable that it was a man-made disaster that could and should have been avoided. As Anne Applebaum’s book reminds us, the highly emotive and sensitive question of whether the episode amounts to a genocide against the Ukrainian people remains unresolved.

The Opposition share the Government’s view that the definition of genocide is necessarily a matter of law. All three speakers in today’s debate have raised that issue with a great amount of passion, and the substance of the debate has recognised that. The matter must be tested in a court of law for us to be able to move forward and deal with it. Until that is done, it is difficult for Parliament to do anything, and whether the Government want to do that will be an issue for us in future. The question of whether the precise legal threshold for a classification of genocide has been met in any particular case must be left for the courts to decide.

That said, we must try to avoid becoming so preoccupied with the legal questions that we risk losing sight of the very real consequences of the tragedy for the Ukrainians of the time and of today. Entrenched divisions in the region, most predominantly but by no means exclusively between ethnic Russians and Ukrainians, continue to drive the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine and to hamper efforts to resolve it. We should remember that, in Ukraine, debates about whether the 1930s famine constitutes a genocide often play out as debates pitting the ethnic Ukrainian majority against the Russian-speaking minority, who have often felt marginalised by Kiev.

We should also remember that, more than any other factor, it is the Russian Government’s outrageously reckless and irresponsible efforts to fan the flames of grievances, particularly by continuing to provoke separatist sentiment in the Russian-speaking eastern regions, that continue to prolong a devastating conflict that has so far claimed more than 10,000 lives. As we remember the tragic events of Ukraine’s past, we must also redouble our efforts to help to resolve the challenges of the present. In this regard, we must first and foremost re-focus attention on the need for a peaceful resolution to the conflicts in eastern Ukraine and in Crimea under Russian occupation.

It is disappointing that, under this Government, the UK has largely been an observer of the diplomatic process led by France and Germany, rather than an active participant. Can the Minister therefore tell us what specific steps the Government are now taking to support that process? What plans does he have to secure more active participation by the UK in efforts aimed at resolving the crisis peacefully?

Secondly, as the Government’s Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill moves through Parliament, what guarantees can the Minister give that, when we leave the EU, there will be no attempt to revoke or otherwise water down the sanctions that we have in place against Russia with regard to its actions in Ukraine and, specifically, that those sanctions will remain in place until the Minsk agreements have been implemented in full?

Finally, given that we are leaving the EU, it is important to remember how valuable the ability to co-ordinate on foreign policy with our European partners has been both for the UK and for the rest of the EU. This is particularly the case with regard to Ukraine, from co-ordinating sanctions between 28 EU member states to providing trade and other incentives for the political reforms that the Government of Ukraine must continue to pursue. Securing a formal set of arrangements on continuing close co-operation when we leave should be one of the Government’s top priorities. As far as I can tell, no plans have been made and there has been no progress on this issue in the negotiations, either. If I am wrong, I would be very happy for the Minister to correct me.

We need more than just warm words from the Government. We need an actual plan—a detailed and credible one—for securing a framework for the foreign policy co-operation that is so vital to sustaining British influence in places such as Ukraine. Seventy-five years on from a devastating famine, the country once again finds itself in a crisis. Just as we must commemorate the events of the past and give them their due recognition, so we must also bring our renewed commitment to healing the divides that are still very much with us today. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to do that.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Mrs Latham will get two minutes once the Minister sits down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Latham]

I am disappointed, to say the least—I am sure that the Minister recognises this—that we will not recognise the holodomor as a genocide. We recognised the holocaust as a genocide retrospectively, so surely we should do the same for the holodomor, given the wealth of evidence out there. I hope that the Minister will refer my thoughts to the Minister for Europe and the Americas, who is unable to be with us today.

I am really very disappointed—I cannot express how disappointed I am—that although this is the second debate that I have initiated in the House on this subject, we have not moved anywhere. I am also slightly disappointed that the Minister did not answer my four questions. Perhaps he or his Department will write to me with guidance about how the Ukrainian people can progress this matter, and in which courts, and on the best route forward. I thank the hon. Members for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood), for participating in this debate. The more people who speak about this issue, the wider the awareness will be among people in this country, who will recognise it.

Finally, lots of books have been written about this genocide, but I recommend the latest one by Anne Applebaum, “Red Famine: Stalin’s war on Ukraine”. One has only to look at the photographs of the people in that book, or any photographs from that period, to recognise that those people starved to death. We must never forget that.

I thank the Minister for responding to the debate; I am delighted that he was able to, as I know it was a bit of a push. I also thank other Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who had to rush to catch a plane home. I thank Members for participating; we must not forget this issue.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I thank the Minister for indicating to the Chair that he will be writing to the hon. Lady.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Ukrainian Holodomor.

President Trump: State Visit

Charles Walker Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

This is a very over-subscribed debate. If all hon. Members stick to five minutes and do not take too many, if any, interventions, everybody should get in.

I remind those in the Public Gallery that this is a Chamber of the House of Commons. By all means listen and observe, but if there is any off-stage noise, I will suspend the sitting and clear the Public Gallery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman says that the Queen has been put in a difficult position. I know what a great fan of the monarch he is—indeed, he probably has weekly chats with her. What did she actually say to him to lead him to believe that she found the situation difficult?

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Order. We are not dragging the monarch into this debate. All right, colleagues?

[Paul Flynn]

I am well aware of the Standing Orders on this matter, but I speak as someone with enormous regard for the Queen. She is my inspiration; she is my example. She is working at an age that is eight years beyond my age, and I will certainly not be so wimpish as to stand down while she continues with her heroic work at her age.

Our main concern is that we are in this position of surrealism, of an Orwellian world that is unfolding before us, where the theme that has been put forward by Trump is that lies are the truth, good is bad, war is peace and fantasy is fact. We see that with the figure of the Trump Big Brother, who is there, ever-present seven days a week and 24 hours a day, preaching from his one source of news—the only voice of truth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

On a point of order, Mr Walker. I do not think it is in order to refer to pimping out our sovereign, even if someone is quoting a journalist, however distinguished.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I am sure that is not what the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) meant. What he did mean, when he talked to me a few moments ago, was that he would speak for only 15 minutes. Can we get to the wind-up please, Mr Flynn?

[Paul Flynn]

Yes, fine, Mr Walker. The wind-up is a simple one. This is a great chance to be here and to start off this debate, but I know there are many people who also have contributions to make on the subject.

We are in a position unlike any faced by any previous Parliament, whereby a person of a unique personality is running the United States. There are great dangers in attempting to give him the best accolade we can offer anyone—a state visit—which, as I have said, has been offered only twice before. That would be terribly wrong, because it would make it appear that the British Parliament, the British nation and the British sovereign approve of the acts of Donald J. Trump.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Nigel Evans. There is a five-minute time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Salmond]

I have actually met Donald Trump more than once, which gives me an advantage over, I think, every other Member in the Chamber. I have also negotiated with Donald Trump, which perhaps gives me an additional advantage, to instruct the hon. Gentleman. We should remember that President Trump is not a stupid man. The belief that he has forgotten what the Prime Minister or her supporting staff said about him when he was a candidate is nonsensical, and the Foreign Secretary said he would not go to New York in case he was confused with him. To believe that Donald Trump has forgotten those things is to seriously underrate the man’s intelligence. To paraphrase P. G. Wodehouse, it is not difficult to tell the difference between a ray of sunshine and Donald Trump with a grievance. I know about that from my experience of the American President, which brings me to the act of stupidity involved in the invitation.

Even when people are in a weak negotiating position, as the UK is at the moment thanks to the nonsensical decision to invoke article 50 without having at least some idea of where the negotiations will end up—I see Brexiteers shaking their heads, but I was quoting almost exactly from the Vote Leave website, which said that doing that would be like putting a gun to our own head. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the Government have chosen to do. To put ourselves in a weak negotiating position and then advertise it so blatantly to President Trump, as the Prime Minister managed to do, is a recipe for total and utter disaster. From my experience of negotiating with Donald Trump, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we should never, ever do it from a weak position, because the result will be total disaster.

Like the Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau is relatively new to his office, yet he has demonstrated how to pursue a business relationship while keeping Canada’s integrity intact. The Prime Minister should take note and rescind the state visit before any more embarrassment and division is caused in this country.

To allow this process to be the pretext for another assault on Mr Speaker—this has already been mentioned in the debate, Mr Walker—is beyond madness. This new gunpowder plot will fizzle out as surely as the last one did. What we should demand from Mr Speaker is fairness to all parts of the House, the ability for all people to be heard—

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Salmond, we are not having a debate about Mr Speaker, and that goes for all Members. You have made your point. Please return to the substance of the debate, which is Mr Trump’s visit.

[Alex Salmond]

Mr Walker, I was replying to a point that you allowed to be made in the debate earlier. I will simply state my opinion that parties in this House will not allow Mr Speaker to be removed on this issue. I think that is perfectly in order, sir.

On the point about debasing the shared values that we are meant to have with the United States of America—the point was well made by the hon. the Member for Newport West that in 30 days the President has managed to achieve a record low in the Gallup ratings—the United States of America has not been invited on a state visit. The state visit invitation is to President Trump the individual. To confuse the two is a serious mistake by hon. Members and others who support the offer. I speak from my experience of negotiating with the man in saying that to do so from a position of weakness will not result in a face-saving, life-saving augmented trade deal. It will be a route to and a recipe for total disaster for this country. The state visit invitation should be rescinded before any further damage is caused.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Order. A number of colleagues have intervened who have already spoken. I know that this is a debate, but if they desist from intervening, we may get everyone from their own parties in.