Ceasefire in Gaza

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I have said twice already that Mr Speaker set out this morning in detail why he had made his decision, and he will be in his place tomorrow.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

No, you will listen to the points of order and listen politely. It looks so bad, on such an important issue—[Interruption.] There is no point in shouting me down now. It looks so bad to our constituents if they see Members who are raising perfectly reasonable points of order just being shouted down. It is not good. I call Sir Chris Bryant.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are perfectly legitimate views, on different sides, as to the propriety of today’s proceedings. However, I just say gently to some Conservative Members who have said that we cannot possibly have an Opposition day motion being amended by another Opposition party that some of the Members who are shouting the loudest—[Interruption.] I just remind some of those who have been shouting the loudest on the Conservative Benches that they personally voted on 13 May 1999 for a Conservative Opposition motion amending a Liberal Democrat motion on an Opposition day.

Far more importantly, surely, is the fact that the behaviour of many hon. Members in the Chamber today will have made a lot of people in this country very nervous about the way we conduct our business when dealing with some of the most important matters of state. Most significantly, it has been the tradition of British parliamentary democracy that if a Government lose control of their foreign policy, they have lost the confidence of the House, by definition, and consequently there is an immediate general election.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

Our new Iran sanctions regime will be laid imminently, giving us new and enhanced powers to counter Iran’s hostile activities in the UK and around the world, and its oppressive practices at home. We have already sanctioned more than 350 Iranian individuals and entities, including the IRGC in its entirety.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I agree with the comments made by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), but should we not also be wondering about what Iran is doing within its own borders? Four hundred and nineteen people were executed in Iran between January and July, and 127 have been executed since 7 October. Iran has been using what is happening in Israel as a cover for much faster executions, including those of 17-year-old Hamidreza Azari—a child—and Milad Zohrevand, who is the eighth “Woman, Life, Freedom” protester to have been executed by this horrible regime. Is it not time that we really took the case to Iran about its own human rights record?

[David Rutley]

The hon. Member makes a very important point. We call out the brutal repression of the protests that have taken place, and we continue to hold Iran to account for its human rights record, including the repression of women, girls and children, as he highlights. We will, as I said, bring to bear a new sanctions regime to assist in those efforts.

British Nationals Detained Overseas

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Ms Ali. I had not expected to be called so quickly.

I warmly commend my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for securing this debate, not least because I think all the members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs have been making arguments about some of the issues for some considerable time.

In particular, there was the situation of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. The former Prime Minister managed to make things more difficult when, as Foreign Secretary, he suggested to the Foreign Affairs Committee that she was engaged in other activities. That possibly led to her being kept in an Iranian jail for much longer than was necessary. In addition, as the current Chancellor admitted when he was Foreign Secretary, sometimes we have not devoted enough energy to making sure that British citizens get a fair trial and are treated properly in prison, or that, if possible, their sentence can be served in the UK.

I will very briefly explain one of the things that I did when I was a Foreign Office Minister for five minutes. There was a British woman who was arrested in Laos. I will not name her, but she was pregnant, and she was arrested for an offence that would have been an offence in the United Kingdom. Laos is a very closed country, politically—a communist country and very difficult. At the time, we did not have an embassy in Laos and we were being helped by the Australians. I said, “Well, I’m sorry, but she’s pregnant; I don’t want a British child to be born in a Laos prison, in filthy conditions, and likely to have a miserable life, if a life of any kind at all. I want that child to be born in a British prison.” All the officials said, “No, that is nonsense, Minister. It is nothing to do with you. It will simply make life difficult.” But I went and I had a difficult but good, thorough meeting with my counterpart in Vientiane. We had a wonderful lunch afterwards, and it thawed the relationship. I said, “I’m going to ring you every Monday morning.” That is what I did, and after three months we got her out and she came back to a British prison. She has no idea; I am absolutely sure of that.

Ministers may be doing that all the time and we do not know about it—I have never told that story before—but I gently say to them that that is kind of what a Minister is for. There will be times when officials will go, “Oh, Minister, that is very brave, very courageous,” but I think there are times when Ministers need to do exactly that.

Another case that is very prominent for me is that of Jagtar Singh Johal, who is still in prison in India. As I understand it, our Prime Minister is going to visit India soon. I do not know why the Prime Minister is not saying clearly and categorically that he should be released. Every single independent assessment that has been done shows that this man is innocent of the crimes that he has been fitted up for, but, as I understand it, the Foreign Secretary has actually written to the families concerned to say that he will not raise this matter because it

“could impact the co-operation we depend on from the relevant authorities to conduct consular visits, resolve welfare cases and attend court proceedings”

I think that is to presume that the Indian Government will react negatively, but I think that every single time we do that, particularly with Governments who have a tendency towards autocracy—not so much perhaps in India but certainly in other countries—all we end up doing is inviting them to adopt a yet more hard-line attitude.

That takes me to the situation in China. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston is absolutely right about the situation facing Jimmy Lai. I understand that the British Government regular position is, “Well, we don’t want to push too far”. I am sorry, but I do not understand why a British Foreign Secretary would not say before going to China that some of the people in this Chamber should not be on a sanctions list. That is incomprehensible, because it is as if we are saying, “I’m sorry; our democracy doesn’t really matter. We don’t really mind what you’re doing.”

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I am very much enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech. Three Sundays ago, we joined the fastest-growing, biggest trading bloc in the world—the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-pacific partnership in the far east. Does he agree that we ought to use our position in the CPTPP to restrict Chinese entry to the bloc as long as it continues to behave in this manner?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Yes, and not only because of the sanctioning of the right hon. and hon. Members present but because of the complete reneging on our agreement with China on Hong Kong. When I talk to Hongkongers who have left Hong Kong, who now nearly all leave with nothing, leaving everything behind them, they talk of genuine fear for their family back at home, if they have stayed.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Of course, although I was going to end my speech.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will get there eventually. I fear that the reasons for the non-intervention and non-comment in respect of Jimmy Lai’s case are explicable—they are not worthy but they are explicable—but this is a moment that really matters for Jimmy Lai, because he now has a trial date set for December, and an intervention at this critical stage in the criminal proceedings against him could make a material difference to the outcome. Does that in itself not merit a more robust intervention from our Foreign Secretary?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I think it does, and I was going to make that point myself. This is a very opportune point at which to make an intervention.

I have another, broader point to make, which is that when people around the world are asked to name the UK’s unique special achievement in foreign affairs, most say it is the rule of law. It is the fact that our word is our bond. It is the fact that a case can be prosecuted properly in a legal court in our country, and that we stand for democracy, the freedom of the individual and equality under the law. That has to be just as much part of our foreign policy as our mercantilist desire to do better trade with other parts of the world. My experience of working on issues in Russia and countries in central Asia is that if we do not tie the two together, we make a terrible mistake, because British businesses simply cannot flourish because they have to pay bribes and deal with an autocratic regime.

To conclude, I very much hope that the UK Government will adopt a more robust, more coherent and more determined approach in their relationship with a series of different countries: China, Russia and India.

Sanctions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)]

I beg to move,

That the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2023 (SI, 2023, No. 713), dated 27 June, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29 June, be approved.

The regulations amend the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The instrument was laid on 29 June 2023 under powers in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. The measures in the instrument, which entered into force on 30 June 2023, have been co-ordinated with our international partners, while refining the approach to accommodate the particular circumstances of the UK’s legal sector. By restricting access to additional services from the UK, they will contribute to increasing the pressure on Putin for waging his illegal and brutal war against Ukraine. The measures place further constraints on the Russian economy, and therefore Putin’s war machine. They add force to the largest, most substantial package of economic sanctions that Russia has ever faced.

The instrument delivers on the commitment made by the UK Government to ban legal advisory services on specified commercial activities. That will further hamper the ability of Russian businesses to operate internationally. The legislation will make it illegal for any person working in the UK, as well as all British nationals working abroad, to advise on or facilitate certain commercial activities that would be sanctioned by the UK Government if they involved a British national or entity, or were taking place in the UK. In practice, that will make it harder for Russia to benefit from the UK’s world-class legal expertise. That goes beyond prohibitions already in place, which cover a range of professional services, including accountancy, architecture and management consultancy. This latest measure demonstrates our determination to ratchet up pressure on Putin for continuing his illegal war.

Although the legislation will close down opportunities for Putin’s associates and supporters to benefit commercially from the UK’s legal expertise, it is important that we ensure that legal services can continue to be provided where they contribute to upholding the rule of law and compliance with our sanctions framework. By protecting the fundamental right to legal representation, we distinguish ourselves from Putin’s oppressive regime. By ensuring that legal advice can continue to be provided for the purposes of compliance with our sanctions framework, we enhance the effectiveness of our regulations and intensify the pressure on Putin.

Legal professionals are under a strict obligation to ensure that their services support their clients to be sanctions-compliant, and do not stray into enabling them to circumvent restrictions. It has become apparent, however, that the legislation can be interpreted as having the unintended consequence of prohibiting persons in the UK and British nationals abroad from providing legal advice to clients seeking to comply with the sanctions regimes of our international partners. It is not the intent of these regulations to prohibit that type of legal service. UK lawyers should be able to support their clients to be sanctions-compliant beyond UK law as we work closely with our allies to tighten the net on Russia’s economy.

We have looked at this issue thoroughly and, as an immediate response, we are working across Government and alongside representatives of the legal sector to implement a general licence that will make it clear that that type of activity can continue.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Minister is addressing a point that the Law Society has made to quite a few of us, and I guess quite a few of us will be referring to it later in the debate. If this had been primary legislation, we would have tabled an amendment. Is it not normally better for us to do all the scrutiny of this kind of work on primary rather than secondary legislation? Then we can always help the Government to get it right first time.

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

The hon. Gentleman is generous as ever in offering to assist us to make progress. I hope that, as we bring in the secondary legislation, it will be another step towards tightening the pressure on those who would wish to use legal representation for the wrong things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a joy to follow the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell). Since we have been in valedictory mood today, with the Secretary of State for Defence earlier, it is a sadness that the hon. Gentleman will not be with us in the next Parliament. Obviously, I want Labour to take every seat in the land, so I would not want to go too far in that. None the less, the hon. Gentleman has been admirable in his work in the Council of Europe in this regard and on human rights generally across the continent. Our membership of the Council of Europe is an important part of the structure of human rights across Europe. It is one of the reasons I support our remaining in the European convention on human rights and adhering to the European Court of Human Rights, which I understand to be a necessary aspect of our membership.

[John Howell]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I hope to stay in the role for another year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Long may he persist.

I support the measure before us today. The Minister knows that I and other Members have campaigned for as robust a set of sanctions as possible. I have been critical sometimes of the processes we have used to get there. Oliver Bullough wrote a splendid book that lays out why it is important to deal not only with financial instruments but with some of the people who have effectively enabled others to bypass sanctions regimes and hide their money from prying eyes in the UK.

It was a joy to hear the extremely learned hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), not least because he referred to “every decent lawyer”. I detected a characteristic wink at that point, because not every lawyer is decent, m’lud. I gently suggest—

[Sir Robert Neill]

rose—

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Now look what I have done.

[Sir Robert Neill]

I have prosecuted some less than decent lawyers over the years, so I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. But he knows just how good the English legal system is collectively, and I know he will want to recognise that.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I have great admiration for lawyers, especially those who advise me, as is occasionally necessary—[Laughter.] It is a serious point: if the UK stands for anything in the world, it is the rule of law. The hon. Gentleman and I have often had to join cause on occasions when we have worried that the Front Benches have not quite seen things in exactly the same way as we do.

I will not rehearse all the arguments, which were laid out so beautifully for the hon. Gentleman and others in the Law Society’s note. He understood it better than I did. The important point is that all British businesses should be withdrawing from Russia. It is extraordinary that any British businesses are still doing significant business in Russia. I do not wish to make any partisan points, but I think it is still true that Infosys has a substantial presence and has not managed to wind down its presence in Russia. That is worrying. Mantrac is certainly still operating in Russia, and some of the money it has earned there will have made its way into its recent £5 million donation to the Conservative party. We should be doing more due diligence about these matters.

I do not understand how Unilever can still claim that it is only selling Magnum ice creams in Russia because they are an essential item. They might be an essential item for somebody who is going to watch the “Barbie” movie later this year—that sort of fits—but in all seriousness, I honestly do not think that Unilever should still have a significant presence, or any presence, in the Russian Federation. Its remaining there is a problem. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the point about British companies being able to advise on how to disinvest as fast as possible. If the regulations were to make that more difficult, that would be a bit of an own goal on our part.

I have some other, very minor, points to make. One is that the sanctions regime is now getting very complex. These are No. 3, the third regulations in this Session. I know that this Session of Parliament has gone on a bit—one could argue that the whole of this Parliament has gone on a bit, maybe a bit too long—but we are relying on lots of statutory instruments and secondary legislation. The amount of such legislation has grown enormously over the past 20 years, not just since 2010 but before then, and there is a danger that it is very difficult for lawyers to keep up with what the law is. Of course, there is no excuse for lawyers to say that they do not know what the law is, but none the less, these regulations came into force on 30 June—they are already in force. That is the problem with the way in which we are legislating these days. When there is a Labour Government, I hope that we will use secondary legislation much less frequently, because we need to be able to amend legislation on the Floor of the House or in Committee to make sure that Governments do not make silly mistakes.

I note the subtle difference in the exemption that exists for advice. Of course, advice can cover a multitude of sins and is sometimes designed to do so, but I note the subtle difference between the exemptions granted in the UK, those granted in the US and those granted in the EU. If I heard the Minister correctly, she attributed those to the different legal systems that exist in those jurisdictions. That may be true, but I would like her to expand on that and explain why it is necessary for us to make distinctions in that way. Otherwise, the point made by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is absolutely right: an international law firm could just say, “All right, I’m popping over to Paris, Madrid, Berlin or wherever for the weekend, and we will do it from there.” That would be a mistake. I also think that sanctions need to be a stiletto blade, not a blunderbuss, if they are to be truly effective in peeling away support from Vladimir Putin within the Russian Federation.

In a previous debate on sanctions, I referred to the former leader of UKIP. Let me be absolutely clear: I have had no correspondence of any kind—electronic, in writing, or digital—with Coutts bank about him, or for that matter about anybody else, because I do not have many constituents who bank with Coutts. I have no idea why Coutts has closed his bank account, but I should have been more careful with the words that I used a year ago. The figure I gave was for his total income. I think he himself has stated that he was paid for his appearances on Russia Today, which is of course a part of the Russian state, and he has made clear his respect for Vladimir Putin as a nationalist. However, I do not think that the figure I gave was anywhere near the accurate figure, so I apologise if I have inadvertently misled the House. I had no intention of doing so, and I hope that puts the record straight. I had hoped that this afternoon’s debate was going to include a debate on the Procedure Committee’s report into allowing all Members of the House to correct the record, rather than just Ministers, but that option is not yet available to us. As such, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have rather stretched your generosity in making these comments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

Obviously, the hon. Member would not expect me to discuss the detail of matters that are live and ongoing. However, we work as a team and across Government: while it is the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office that holds the pen, and it is me at the Dispatch Box today, the legislation, work, management and enforcement issues are covered across Whitehall. We all work together very closely on those issues, and as I say, it is a live and continually changing environment as we keep track of what we are trying to achieve. One part of that, of course, is ensuring that enforcement can be monitored. The commitment of £50 million following the integrated review refresh was an important part of that and it will help us build even stronger enforcement tools to ensure we make the most effective use of the sanctions we bring in.

This, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the latest edition of our package of sanctions. We will continue to use sanctions to keep up the pressure until Putin ends his horrific, senseless war and Ukraine is allowed its territories back to live peacefully once again.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Will the Minister allow me to intervene before she sits down?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

Yes, I will.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I would just like to put on the record how much we respect and admire the team of roughly 150 people who work in the sanctions group. It is not easy work—it is tough to get it right—and they are magnificent. Is that in order?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

That is in order.

Repurposing Russian Assets to Rebuild Ukraine

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 27th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am, again, grateful to my right hon. Friend—first for raising the issue of transparency, and secondly for raising the issue of Lord Agnew’s amendment and endorsing the point that has already been made. I hope the Minister will tell us whether the Government might give that amendment some support, so that we can benefit from the satisfaction we should gain from this debate. I recognise that it is an Opposition day debate, and we are using our time as an Opposition to bring these issues to the forefront because it has been many months since the Government said that they wanted to act, but the debate is being held in a spirit of the national interest, and I hope everyone can recognise that.

The question, then, is “Who should pay for Ukraine’s recovery?” The Labour party’s view is that the answer is Russia, and one way of ensuring that this happens is repurposing Russian state assets that have been frozen in the United Kingdom. The Government have said at least since October 2022 that they are supportive of seizing Russian state assets to fund Ukraine’s reconstruction, but in the eight months since, no specific proposals have been forthcoming. From the very beginning of Putin’s invasion, Labour has worked with the Government to ensure that our sanctions framework is as effective as it can be, notwithstanding the issues that have been raised from both Back Benches today.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

If I am honest, Ministers have been a bit flip-floppy about this issue. The Foreign Secretary was remarkably snooty about it in the House only yesterday, when he said that I am apparently an idiot because I do not understand international law. Some of us have been arguing cross-party in favour of trying to seize Russian state assets and repurpose them for the rebuilding of Ukraine. I thought that that was the accepted, long-term destination of the Government, even if they had not quite managed to get there. I think that the objection the Foreign Secretary has is around the State Immunity Act 1978. We would need to amend it to be able to proceed, but that is perfectly available to us.

[Mr Lammy]

That is, of course, central to the work my hon. Friend has been doing in his Seizure of Russian State Assets and Support for Ukraine Bill. I think the House could come together to amend the State Immunity Act. I do not want to comment on the Foreign Secretary, except to say that, in my experience, if he has had an overnight flight, he can be a little prickly, but we will not hold it against him.

Since the beginning of the invasion, more than £25 billion of Russian state assets have been frozen in the United Kingdom, and more than $350 billion of Russian state assets have been frozen by our global allies, and those vital assets could be used to help fund Ukraine’s recovery. Since February last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and I have been pushing the Government on this issue relentlessly, and I pay tribute to the great work of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), who tabled his ten-minute rule Bill specifically to speed up the Government’s efforts in this area.

Each time, the Government’s response to Members of this House has been that the Government support repurposing Russian state assets but that it is complex. We fully accept that, but we do not accept—and I do not think, given its mood, that the House accepts—that this issue is insurmountably complex or that we should not try to meet this challenge.

We accept the concern that, on the whole, it is not good for any Government to seize another state’s assets and that the right to property is fundamental to the rule of law, but there are exceptions to that rule. For example, the law reserves the right to fine people and deprive them of ill-gotten gains. In the same vein, we recognise concerns that repurposing Russia’s central bank reserves could violate Russia’s sovereign immunity but, again, there are exceptions to that rule. We believe that Russia’s continued refusal to comply with international human rights law or to follow the orders of the International Court of Justice are good grounds for such an exception.

Simply put, we believe that Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine represents a wholly exceptional act, from which exceptional countermeasures can flow, and we are not alone in that belief. As the Minister will know, the Canadians have had legislation in place since December last year to repurpose frozen Russian assets, and it is a similar common law jurisdiction to ours. The European Union is working at pace to ensure that Russian central bank reserves can be repurposed by the summer. Last month, United States politicians laid a Bill that would allow for state assets to be repurposed. Finally, we must remember that the UN General Assembly has voted on this very issue, adopting a resolution that calls for Russia to pay war reparations to Ukraine and for states to transfer Russian state assets into a central bank account to be repurposed. This begs the question: why, then, are the Government lagging behind our international allies in this area? We believe we must rise to this challenge, and we must rise to it now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is right. President Zelensky committed to that at last week’s Ukraine recovery conference, and we need to support him. Democracy is forged in people-to-people contact. That was the case before the war—I remember meeting civil society in Ukraine and, frankly, they were very clear that there was work to be done—and it will most definitely be the case after the war.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

That prompts another thought in my little head. Quite a lot of people on social media have criticised the idea of doing any reconstruction of Ukraine now, saying that we should wait until the end of the war. I hope the shadow Foreign Secretary will agree that that is a preposterous suggestion. People need homes, schools, playgrounds and hospitals now and, actually, quite a lot of rebuilding is already ongoing. We need to give that a rocket booster to make sure it can happen at pace.

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is right, and it is why I wanted to mention in my speech that work is happening in Ukraine now, which is extraordinary. We should be behind that work, in defiance of Putin’s imperialism.

We will continue to work with the Government to ensure that Ukraine gets the support it needs to win this war. From the start of this invasion, we have been united on providing Ukraine with the military, economic, diplomatic and humanitarian support it needs. We commend the Government for the commitments they made to support Ukraine at the Ukraine recovery conference last week. We welcome the International Monetary Fund’s announcement of $15 billion to support Ukraine over four years, and we welcome the announcement of £250 million of extra funding from British International Investment. However, just as we pressed the Government to move further and faster on sanctions, in a constructive spirit, at the start of the full-scale invasion, today we are urging the Government to come forward with a legislative plan to repurpose Russian state assets for Ukraine’s recovery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leo Docherty]

That legislation, which is a statutory instrument made using the affirmative procedure, gives us options in the future to extend sanctions, up until the point where Russia has paid. It gives us tremendous leverage into the future and has great utility.

We have maximised the impact of our sanctions by co-ordinating with our key international partners, at huge economic cost to Putin’s war machine. Russia’s economy posted a deficit of nearly $50 billion in 2022, the second highest in the post-Soviet era, and with our partners we are choking off Putin’s access to the key technologies he needs on the battlefield.

As I have mentioned, we are the first member of the sanctions coalition to lay legislation, which we did on 19 June, explicitly enabling us to keep sanctions in place until Russia pays for the damage it has caused. That builds on the commitment made by the Prime Minister and G7 leaders that sovereign assets will remain immobilised until Russia pays up. It also goes further, giving us maximum flexibility to act as the situation requires.

Our commitment does not stop there. As criticism of the war grows within Russia, we are introducing a new route for those under sanction to request that their frozen funds be used for Ukrainian reconstruction. Let me clear: there is no negotiation, no quid pro quo and no access for those individuals to their assets while they remain under sanction. However, if they wish to do the right thing and use those funds to help right the wrongs caused by Putin’s invasion, there will be an approved route for them to do so.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

One sanctioned individuals who said, before he was sanctioned, that his assets could be given to the reconstruction of Ukraine was Roman Abramovich. The sale of Chelsea football club happened last May and I understand there is £2.3 billion sitting in a bank account. I am mystified as to why that money has not yet been handed over to the foundation. I have exchanged texts with the person who set it up. He said he is ready and he does not understand why he is not getting the money—he has not even been told why he is not getting the money.

[Leo Docherty]

That is a non-governmental body. There are ongoing discussions with regard to the focus and the use of those funds—whether it be in Ukraine or outside Ukraine to benefit Ukrainians—which has drawn out the process, but we are seeking to expedite the matter at pace.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again, but discussions between whom? If Government Ministers are party to those discussions, what is the concern that people still have?

[Leo Docherty]

It is not a Government discussion; it is a discussion within the new organisation that will disburse and utilise those funds. We will keep colleagues updated as and when that situation is resolved.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

As I understand it, the Minister is saying that the members of the foundation itself are rowing with each other about to how to proceed, but surely that would not prevent the money being handed over by the Government.

[Leo Docherty]

The hon. Member should not put words in my mouth. Details remain outstanding. A discussion is under way within the institution with regard to the focus and the utility of these funds. As and when that is clarified, I am sure that we will be able to keep colleagues updated. I remain grateful to him for his interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leo Docherty]

Our Canadian friends have legislated, but they have not yet found a legally watertight route to seizing those assets. The right hon. Lady speaks about other concepts that are of interest, and we will certainly consider them as we move forward.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Will the Minister give way again?

[Leo Docherty]

Well, it is a debate, so I am very happy to give way.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I am very grateful to the Minister. I am sorry, but what is the legal impediment, to his mind?

[Leo Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about international law, so he will know that ideas such as these will be tested internationally and that if they are not watertight, they have no utility. It is not legally straightforward; this is entirely new ground and therefore it requires a robust legal framework. I think he would probably admit that it is unclear that one exists as yet. However, as ideas come forward, we are interested in testing them.

We are steadfast in our commitment to ensuring Ukrainian economic stability. We have committed to providing approximately £4.2 billion of fiscal support to Ukraine and, along with our G7 partners, we are committed to helping it to emerge from the war with a modernised economy that should be entirely resilient to Russian threats.

Let me conclude by saying that the recovery conference last week, which I referred to at the start, marked a further milestone in support for Ukraine and in ensuring that Russia pays for its actions. With our partners, we will keep up the pressure, while standing by Ukraine’s side until it wins and rebuilds.

Situation in Russia

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 26th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. There is a quote—I will paraphrase it, because I do not have the precise words in front of me—that says, “If you trade freedom for security, you end up with neither.” I think the Russian people are now recognising that. With regards to what may happen in Russia, as I have said, we look at scenario planning to make sure we are able to respond to whatever happens.

On British nationals within Russia, my hon. Friend will know we do not force British nationals to register with the embassy and therefore it is not possible for us to give an accurate figure. The UK travel advice has for some years made it clear that we advise against all travel to any part of Russia and we make it clear that, unless someone’s presence in Russia is essential, they should consider leaving by commercial routes. The House should recognise that, because of the situation in Russia and the conflict, the UK’s ability to conduct an extraction operation as we did in Sudan would be severely limited, probably to the point of impossibility. I reiterate our travel advice: British nationals should consider leaving the country by commercial routes unless their presence is absolutely essential.

On my hon. Friend’s final point, the fractures and cracks we have seen running through the Russian system will of course have had an impact on the Russian troops and Wagner mercenaries on the frontline, who will now be looking over their shoulders as much as they will be looking forward out of their trenches. We will continue to support Ukraine in its steady and methodical recapturing of the ground stolen from it by the Russian forces.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It was always a phenomenal demonstration of weakness by Putin that he chose to subcontract part of his criminal invasion of Ukraine last year to a bunch of fascists, murderers, rapists and criminals who are mercenaries in the Wagner Group. Is it not time for us to press home the advantage? Should we not be saying “Get out now” to every British business that has any presence in Russia, including Unilever, Mantrac, Infosys and all the rest of them? Is it not time that we seized Russian state assets presently sitting in British banks to give them to the reconstruction of Ukraine? Can the Foreign Secretary explain to me why we have still not handed over the money taken from the sale of Abramovich’s Chelsea FC to the charity that has been set up to reconstruct Ukraine?

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman sadly displays a lack of knowledge about international law. Governments cannot simply seize the assets of individuals; to do so would be in complete violation of the normative standards of international law. We have passed legislation making it very clear that frozen assets will remain frozen until significant and appropriate reparations are made by those individuals and entities that have facilitated the conflict. With regard to the frozen Chelsea FC assets, I refer him to the answer that I gave him when he asked his factually incorrect question at the Foreign Affairs Committee session.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 13th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

The import of aluminium originating from Belarus and Russia attracts an additional duty already of 35 percentage points, which we brought in last year. The import of iron and steel products and of some articles of aluminium from Russia is prohibited. The import of iron and steel products from Belarus is also prohibited. Of course, we keep our sanctions under review, as the Foreign Secretary has said. Indeed, following feedback from my hon. Friend and others, on 20 April, we expanded the list of products covered by the import prohibitions on Russian iron and steel. I am happy to discuss with my hon. Friend and his business what more we can think about doing, working with our colleagues at the Department for Business and Trade.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Last year, the Russian Government introduced a new law that requires all businesses, including foreign businesses that have any footprint in the Russian Federation, to assist in the war in Ukraine. That means that any British businesses that are still doing business in Russia are complicit in the war crimes that Russia is perpetrating against the Ukrainian people. Will the Minister make it absolutely clear that all British businesses should completely and utterly desist from business in Russia immediately?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

One of the extraordinary things we saw only last year when the war broke out was the positive attitude of British businesses and their willingness to take financial pain immediately. They pulled themselves away, not only where we imposed sanctions and prohibitions but beyond that, from Russian markets and activity. We continue to work with businesses, but I take the hon. Gentleman’s point and we will continue enforcement using the tools that we have. We work closely with our business sector, as does the Department for Business and Trade on trading questions, to ensure that that is understood. However, I have always found British businesses to be incredibly positive in stepping beyond what is asked of them in support of Ukraine.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I can reassure him and the whole House that their importance to global security has been very much at the forefront of our minds throughout the negotiations and will remain so in whatever outcome the negotiations get to.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Chagossians were indeed treated terribly by the British Government in the 1970s, but in the negotiations that are coming up, will the Foreign Secretary do everything in his power to ensure that we protect the marine protected area that we have set up? There are 220 coral species, 855 species of fish and 355 species of mollusc, and this food chain is vital to protect food sources for the whole of the eastern side of Africa. Will he make sure that that is preserved, whatever situation we end up with in terms of sovereignty?

[James Cleverly]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as one of the leading voices in 30 by 30, we pay close attention to marine environments and habitats around the British Indian Ocean Territory, and more broadly we raise regularly the protection of maritime and marine environments when we speak to small island nations and those other countries around the world that have an influence in the oceans.

Sudan

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

My right hon. Friend is a distinguished former soldier and he understands the difficulties that we face on the ground. I can tell him that there is no reason to regard any of Sudan as safe. He will have seen what is happening, for example, in Darfur, where the RSF is a successor body to the Janjaweed who wrought such havoc in what President George Bush described at the time as a genocide. My right hon. Friend will therefore understand that, when speaking about safety, that is not an easy concept, but the option he mentioned—indeed, every option—is being carefully considered and we will resolve those options and move on them just as soon as we possibly can.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate our armed forces, which have done an amazing job so far, and commend the work of our diplomats. The Minister has said that there are 2,000 British citizens in Sudan, but does he think the number is more like 4,000, as has been cited elsewhere? What is the best figure he can put to the number of British citizens in Sudan?

My memory of the Afghanistan situation is that MPs’ communication with Ministers was a complete and utter shambles. Some of us, particularly on the Opposition side of the House, felt that we had a very difficult time trying to get proper advice for our constituents. Will the Minister make sure that the second letter, which is meant to be coming to all of us, has a clearly identifiable number that we can ring and an email address to which we can send things? Having to communicate with lots of Departments ends up being a complete and utter mess for everybody.

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The number of people who have replied to the Foreign Office’s request for information and registered themselves is of the order of 2,000. There is public speculation that there are about 4,000 British nationals and dual nationals—a person with a British passport is effectively in the same category.

I know the hon. Gentleman will expect me to say that lessons have, indeed, been learned from what happened in Afghanistan. The second “Dear colleague” letter, which I hope is in his inbox—if it is not, it will be shortly—sets out exactly how to get hold of the Foreign Office. We hope the word “shambles” will not be applied to our seamless work across Government to make sure we achieve the aims that are common on both sides of the House.

Vladimir Kara-Murza

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 17th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

As my right hon. Friend will know, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the British Government have been heavily involved in taking action through a variety of different means, including conferences to try to protect the rights of a free press and journalists around the world. On the case that he raised, I will write to him imminently to give him an up-to-date answer, and I will make the letter available to the House. On his overall point, we seek every way we can to stand up for a free press and open journalism, and to bear down on states that do not respect the important role that a free press play.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Let’s face it: Russia does not have a criminal justice system of any kind; it has a cruel and arbitrary punishment scheme for those who disagree with Vladimir Putin. As with Khodorkovsky and Alexei Navalny, it is probably Putin’s intention that Vladimir Kara-Murza dies in prison. We need to do everything in our power to ensure that that does not come to pass, including making sure that Putin does not win in Ukraine.

I worry about the Government’s reaction because, in November last year, the Europe Minister, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), said in a written parliamentary answer that the Government had already looked at the sanctions that Canada introduced in this respect, but they still have not done anything. Months have passed and only now does the Minister come to the Dispatch Box to say that he has told Ministers to start looking at it. That is not good enough. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), to whom he referred earlier, is the consular Minister—surely, every single Government Minister should know each and every one of these cases when they appear in public, as they are at the top of our list. Much as I like the Minister who is at the Dispatch Box, as he knows perfectly well, we all just want the Government to put some welly into this issue, and not always wait until the Russians make the first move.

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Gentleman slightly over-chides my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. What the hon. Gentleman said about the trial was absolutely correct—I set out in my first response the key points where natural justice was clearly totally denied. He is quite right about that. He asked about the danger that Kara-Murza will die in detention. Clearly, that is very real, which is why the ambassador was summoned on 6 April and is being summoned again today. At today’s meeting, the issue of his health will be specifically addressed.

On the issue of consular relations, let me make it clear to the House that under the Vienna convention on consular relations, there is no clear policy on dual nationals and on which takes precedence. There is a bilateral agreement from 1965 between the Soviet Union and the UK that talks about nationality being determined by the sending state. We are looking to see whether there is any extra leverage that we can gain through international law to pursue the point that the hon. Gentleman raised.