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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Falklands are British and that is the end of the story. Santiago Cafiero is undoubtedly engaging in a bit of electioneering during a general election, and we should just—[Interruption.] Exactly as the Foreign Secretary just indicated, we should not be surprised when these things are said.

Many of my constituents lost loved ones killed on the Sir Galahad in the defence of the Falklands many years ago and some of them are worried that some papers have not been published yet and will not be until 2065. They would like to see the full papers that were provided to the board of inquiry, so will the Minister investigate whether those can now be published?

[David Rutley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making those points in his original remarks. There are usual processes to go through, but I will take those points away and discuss them with the Minister for overseas territories.

Russian Assets: Seizure

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I would happily welcome that. It is a very good idea.

Ultimately, the war Putin initiated on Ukraine must now be punished in a variety of ways. It is unwarranted aggression against another country, and it therefore changes how international law should be applied. We should readjust and redefine international law to the new reality that Putin’s invasion has brought about. The old order is now broken, and we need to redefine it to make sure that the lesson for any other oligarch, future leader or demagogue is that they can never again hide behind these rules.

Although international law is always evolving, we need to recognise the exceptional nature of Russia’s aggression and conduct in Ukraine, as that is critical to what we do next. Russia’s aggression and invasion are breaches of the most fundamental principles of international law and order. Russia is aware of this breach but has not stopped its conduct, and it continues to threaten international security and peace. That unprecedented conduct creates a need for all Governments in the west to amend their laws together to deter other states. These amendments should use specific and limited criteria to preserve sovereign immunity in all cases. It is possible to do both without hiding behind the idea that sovereign immunity is an absolute that cannot be breached. Putin has breached it, and in future that should be the rule.

The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill could and should be strengthened to enable the seizure of undisclosed assets—that is the key. We already have a vehicle. It is wholly possible to make that difference, and to make it quite quickly. I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that I hope she will give that serious consideration, as it is really important.

As we know, sanctions evasion is already an offence. Embedding a new “disclosure or lose it” principle would go a long way to ensuring that sanctioned oligarchs are no longer able to conceal their dirty money here with impunity. That would help us to clean up what became a bad reputation for the City of London, whereby much of that ill-gotten money was hiding here, in one of the leading nations of the free world, and we did little or nothing to stop that.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I get a bit frustrated when I keep hearing the Government talking about how many people we are sanctioning. There is no point in sanctioning people unless we enforce those sanctions. I find it difficult to comprehend that so far we have fined only two firms in this country. I am sure that there are many more sanctions busters in the UK than have thus far been revealed. It is important that that is not allowed to proceed with impunity, is it not?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Of course, I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman on that. Interestingly, if we manage to criminalise the failure to disclose sanctioned assets, we are halfway there on his point, because they cannot then escape. If we prove that sanctions evasion is taking place, this can be the basis for asset recovery in due course; we would then have a reason why we should be doing this, not just because of the criminal purpose, but for the fact that we would actually be able to gain funds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a great delight to take part in this debate. I feel as if I spend more time than I ever thought I would with the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) these days, and I have friends who are bit disturbed by it. But he probably has friends who are a bit disturbed by it as well. The important point is that, if the Russian ambassador, or for that matter the Ukrainian ambassador, were to look at this debate, they might think that there are not that many people in this Chamber, but that is not because of a lack of resolution by the whole membership of this House, which is determined to ensure that we will do everything in our power—we will make sure that the Government of this country and the whole of this country will do everything in their power—to ensure that Putin does not win this illegal, criminal war that he is engaged in and has been engaged, to my mind, since 2014, not just since last year.

I am going to talk about three things: sanctions, seizing assets and who pays. On sanctions, it is often said by Ministers—I am going to be nice to Ministers because I like this Minister, and because I want them to do something and sometimes being rude about them does not work—that we are doing more sanctioning than we have ever done before. I just gently say that that is not true. We had a more comprehensive sanctions regime over Iran—not at the moment, but formerly—than we presently do over Russia. So we have to consider further sanctioning, which has to happen. It is true we did not sanction any individuals in relation to Iran and we are doing more individuals in relation to Russia, but it is the whole Russian economy that we need to debilitate so it cannot win the war.

The Minister knows that I worry we are not sanctioning enough individuals. Sometimes it feels as if the Government feel that job is done. It is not. As several hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), have said, there is an issue about sanctions busting. I am certain, although I do not have proof, that sanctions busting is going on in the UK every single day of every week and has been ever since we started this process. For a start, we gave plenty of warning. People have referred to Roman Abramovich. I recall the then Prime Minister saying at Prime Minister’s questions that he had been sanctioned, but it turned out that he had not. That was a pretty good signal that he was about to be sanctioned. A couple of weeks later, because of stuff I was able to reveal about what the Home Office had been saying about Abramovich for several years, he was then sanctioned. By that time, however, yet more money had been siphoned off to another part of the world. It is true that the proceeds of the £2.3 billion sale of Chelsea football club, which happened in May last year, will eventually go Ukraine, but it has taken a very long time to put that in place. I know Mr Penrose is engaged in that and is eager to make that happen as fast as possible—incidentally, it will dwarf the contribution the UK has already made— but that contribution was not forced on Abramovich by law. In the end, he decided to agree to it. So that does not really quite count.

Treasury licences have been referred to. They are giving carte blanche to many individuals to circumvent the sanctions regime. There are undoubtedly enablers in the City of London, the same enablers we have known for years, who have enabled the dirty money to swirl around in the UK economy. There are the lawyers, the very posh law firms with very thick carpets and very thick marble walls that are doubtless refurbished every two years on the back of money that was stolen from the Russian people by people who should have been sanctioned. There are estate agents, banks and countless individuals who, without any thought to the morality of the situation, are still happy to enable sanctions busting. My worry is that there is hardly anybody in Government tracking down whether that is happening or not. Has anybody turned up to any estate agent office in Mayfair and said, “Are you checking whether any of these individuals you are buying and selling from are sanctioned individuals?” Has anybody done any investigations? I very much doubt it.

[Liam Byrne]

As ever, my hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech. I was shocked to hear that suspicious activity reports are not triggering enforcement actions for sanctions busting either. Is that not an argument for broadening the suspicious activity report regime, so that it does include people like estate agents? Surely, we should be using that as evidence to trigger prosecutions.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Absolutely. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has ever tried to open a bank account in the last few years, but it is almost impossible for a British Member of Parliament. I suspect it is much easier for a Russian oligarch to do so than it would be for anybody else. I really hope the Minister will take away the view of the whole House that we have to get serious about cracking down on sanctions busting in the UK.

I like a Magnum when I go to the cinema. It still upsets me that Unilever thinks that Magnums are essential in Russia, which is why it is still doing business there. Unilever should be pulling out completely from Russia. The Russians should forgo their Magnums—or is it Magna? I do not know what the plural is. For that matter, Infosys should not be operating in Russia, either.

I worry that some of our allied countries are providing a very safe haven for sanctions busting, including the United Arab Emirates. In the last year, it has become a complete paradise for dirty Russian oligarch money. If countries such as the UAE want to remain allies with us, they need to think very carefully. They may say, “Oh, but it’s only money. We are only doing what you did for years.” I hope that we in the UK are now learning the lesson of what happens when we give out golden visas to people just because they have lots of money, and do not ask any questions. It ends up biting you on the backside.

On seizing assets, I am sick and tired of the pearl-clutchers. People say, “Oh, I know. It’s really, really important. We really have to do something, but you know, Mr Bryant, you don’t understand. It’s terribly, terribly hard.” I am sorry, but where there is a will, there is a way. People want to wave sovereign immunity around all over the place, but what about the sovereign immunity of Ukraine? That was guaranteed by Putin personally, and the UK and other countries when we all signed up to the Budapest accord. Several years later, it turned out that we did not mean it quite as categorically as we stated on that piece of paper. There must surely come a time when sovereign immunity has to be waived because otherwise there is complete impunity when one country invades another. In the end, that is simply inviting countries to invade other countries.

I understand that the seizure of oligarchs’ assets is not easy. Prigozhin’s mother has just managed to win an appeal, as I understand it. But it would be much easier if there were an amendment to the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, as several Members have mentioned already in this debate, to make it an offence for a sanctioned individual not to reveal all their assets. That would certainly make it easier for us to do that.

On state assets, I do not believe that sovereign immunity can be absolute. It is preposterous that we are sitting here, watching Canada and wondering how it will go there. When was it ever the British attitude to watch what is happening across the other side of the ocean? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill, said, it would be much easier for us to take legal action if, first, we had a United Nations resolution and, secondly, we set up a special war crimes tribunal to consider the matter of a war of aggression. Unfortunately, although the British delegation at the Nuremberg war trials said that a war of aggression was the ultimate war crime, that has not thus far been so determined. It would certainly assist us if we were able to get that. It would also assist us if we were to amend the State Immunity Act 1978.

I come to the fundamental point: everyone knows that Ukraine will have to be reconstructed. Cathedrals; schools; libraries; hospitals; people’s homes; hundreds and hundreds of apartment buildings have been completely destroyed; roads turned into craters; bridges destroyed—sometimes by the Ukrainians to prevent the Russians further invading; electricity pylons. The whole system is completely in need of reconstruction.

In the end, there are only three options for who will pay for that. The people of Ukraine cannot afford it, and it is immoral to say that they should pay. There are Ukraine’s allies, or rather their taxpayers around the world. I am absolutely certain that, as individuals, many people in the UK—including in my constituency—will want to make a personal contribution. The British taxpayer has already made contributions through the British Government. But in the end, we are talking about $1 trillion-worth of reconstruction costs already. To be honest, the £23 billion-worth of Russian state assets sitting in British banks at the moment will only touch the sides. However, if we add the €350 billion-worth sitting in European banks, along with the amounts in Canada, Australia, the USA and all the other countries in the world, we might just be able to make a dent.

Anybody from Ukraine who is watching this debate will know that we all stand four-square behind them. We want to do so not only in our words, but in our deeds. I beg, I implore the Government: you do not have to use my Bill. My Bill is completely irrelevant; it is just a way of teasing you along to do the right thing. I know you want to do the right thing—I mean the Government, not you, Mr Deputy Speaker, although you probably want to do the right thing as well. Whenever the Government are prepared to table the legislation, we all stand ready to vote it through as swiftly as we can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I will come back to that in a moment.

The right hon. Gentleman also set out, with his usual articulateness, a very clear pathway through which the UN and the international community might work together to seize Russian state assets. I hope I can reassure him that we will continue to work at the UN with all like-minded countries to address the asset seizure challenge.

The latest package of internationally co-ordinated sanctions and trade sanctions was introduced to mark the anniversary of the invasion on 24 February, and it includes export bans on every known item Russia has used on the battlefield. This combined package of sanctions has been carefully constructed with our allies to cripple Putin’s supply chains, to limit his ability to finance his war and to target those who are propping up his regime. It serves as a stark reminder to Russia and any other would-be hostile actors of the cost of flagrantly assaulting the democracy, sovereignty and territorial integrity of another nation.

As Members have highlighted in the debate, the reconstruction of Ukraine is absolutely at the top of the international agenda, while we continue to support Ukraine to defend its country. In September, the World Bank estimated a cost of $349 billion to rebuild Ukraine—a figure that has been rising every day since. Indeed, colleagues have highlighted recent assessments with figures of about $750 billion. Those are monumental sums to consider in respect of the reparations that will be needed.

The UK Government will continue to take a leading role in determining how to assist in this long-term reconstruction challenge. In June, we will be co-hosting the 2023 Ukraine recovery conference in London, alongside the Ukrainian Government. Together, we will mobilise public and private funds to ensure that Ukraine gets the reconstruction investment it needs.

We also remain committed to continuing our direct support for Ukraine. To date, we have helped more than 13 million Ukrainians affected by the war, providing them with £220 million of vital humanitarian assistance, delivered through the United Nations, the Red Cross and other non-governmental organisations. We will continue to work alongside our Ukrainian friends in support of their military defence for as long as they need us to do so.

The key issue of seizing Russian assets to fund Ukrainian reconstruction is one that the Government are extremely focused on, and we are in close discussions with friends and allies. The Government remain clear that Russia must be made to pay for the harm it has caused in its illegal war in Ukraine, in line with international law. The Prime Minister made that clear in the London declaration he signed with President Zelensky during his recent visit to the UK and in the G7 leaders’ statement on 24 February. We have been 100% clear: Putin must pay. We are working in the FCDO, in consultation with other Whitehall Departments and our G7 partners, to review all lawful options to make frozen Russian assets available for rebuilding Ukraine.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

We have a motion before us on the Order Paper, and I hope that the Government will not oppose it and that we will not have a Division at the end of the debate. The Government will therefore be agreeing the following:

“That this House calls on the Government to lay before Parliament proposals for the seizure of Russian state assets with the purpose of using such assets to provide support for Ukraine”.

So it is a legitimate question to ask: when will the Government be introducing the proposals that they are calling on themselves to introduce?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. If I may, I will continue with my speech before I run out of time. I hope to give him some assurance on his question.

We are continuing to engage with think-tanks, lawyers and Members of the House, and those they are working with, to ensure that we test every available option in detail. I reiterate that I am genuinely grateful to all colleagues for their interventions and proposals to help us work on these challenges, and we are meeting them regularly.

I want to be clear that the Government believe that we should develop the power for frozen assets to be used to rebuild Ukraine, to ensure that we can achieve that practically and lawfully. Given that Ukraine is fighting for its future and the principles of the UN charter and international law, it would be an own goal for Ukraine’s allies to risk being seen to act inconsistently with domestic and international law in their approach to seizing Russian assets.

Russia’s Grand Strategy

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I agree with nearly everything the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) has just said, but I am going to make a very different speech, not to disagree with him, but just to put a different tone to this. I have believed for a long time that it is essential to Russia’s grand strategy that it must expand: we knew that in 2008 and again in 2014, and, frankly, we should all have been thoroughly aware of it long before 24 February 2022 when the second invasion of Ukraine happened. I am absolutely clear that we must make sure that Putin and the Russian Federation loses.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to get more materiel to our friends and allies in Ukraine. I do not, however, think that is just a matter for the UK and I worry that sometimes the UK provides, let us say, 12 tanks and Spain provides two and France provides three and none of them work together. The time has come for us all to sit down as allies and ask how we are going to ramp up production of perhaps one or two brands of tank so we are deliberately and solely constructing them to get them to Ukraine as fast as possible. People have been arguing for that for at least a year now, so it is a shame we have not got on with it.

[Mr Francois]

The hon. Gentleman is right because logistically that would make it far easier for the Ukrainians. Leopard is the obvious choice because it is used by so many other allied countries, but German export law currently prevents that unless the Germans waive it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that they should do that to allow the Ukrainians the Leopards they need?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Yes. I do not do this very often but I was saying “Hear, hear” earlier in agreement with a point the right hon. Gentleman made. I am reluctant to be too down on the Germans, however, for the simple reason that they have had to make a very dramatic and sudden about-turn in their whole understanding of their defence policy, but they do have to get over this hurdle. Many other countries in Europe want them to and are eagerly pressing them to, and the time is long past for them to do so. Perhaps we need a European security treaty to deal with some of these issues and get that materiel to where it is most needed and in a way that it can be readily used.

I want to talk about something slightly different: how we can help Ukraine rebuild. So far, along with many other countries in Europe, we have frozen but not seized assets. On 9 September 2022 a joint statement by the World Bank, the European Commission and the Government of Ukraine estimated that the current cost of reconstruction and recovery in Ukraine was $349 billion. That is now a four-month-old estimate and the sum will grow exponentially as the war continues. We have all seen the pictures of what has happened in Dnipro; we know of the railways, roads and bridges that will have to be reconstructed, let alone the schools, the housing and the rest. Ukraine is going to need a very substantial amount of money.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly was in Washington in the first week of December, and at that time 42% of residential properties in the whole of Ukraine—not just on the frontline—were uninhabitable. That serves to put some flesh on the hon. Gentleman’s point.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

That is very helpful and when the Foreign Affairs Committee was in Ukraine last February, just before the second round of the invasion, we were visiting villages which were being reconstructed, and we were wondering whether that was a wise policy, but of course people need homes. So there is a very significant need: Ukraine estimates Russia has caused $1 trillion-worth of damage since the start of the full-scale invasion last February and that is not allowing for the costs in Crimea and parts of Donetsk and Luhansk.

Under international law Russia will owe Ukraine reparations at the end of this war—I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that—as was recognised by a United Nations General Assembly resolution passed on 14 November. About $350 billion-worth of Russian central bank reserves have been frozen by democratic countries around the world, and £26 billion of that is frozen in the United Kingdom. Those figures come from the central bank annual report. Based on the estimates of the World Bank, the European Commission and the Government of Ukraine, the amount that will be owed to Ukraine by Russia as reparations at the end of the war—we could argue it is already owed now—is likely to be several times greater than the central bank reserves theoretically belonging to the Russian state presently frozen worldwide. So it is safe to assume that the central bank reserves we have frozen in the UK are already owed to Ukraine under international law. I would argue that it is a question of when, not if, they will be spent on and in Ukraine. On 30 November 2022 the European Commission President confirmed plans to use €300 billion of frozen Russian central bank reserves as well as more than €19 billion of Russian oligarchs’ funds for the reconstruction of Ukraine, and I applaud that decision.

The UK has so far provided £3.8 billion in aid to Ukraine in the first eight months since the second invasion, but the central bank reserves we are holding in the UK are six times that amount. It is time that the UK Government passed legislation to repurpose frozen Russian state assets so they can be used to aid Ukraine during and after the war; if the Government do not do that, perhaps some Back-Bench MP will bring forward a ten-minute rule Bill on 7 February to do it.

On the whole I do not like Governments seizing other people’s assets; on the whole it is a bad idea, but there are situations in which we choose to do it, such as when the assets are clearly unexplained wealth that has almost certainly come from corruption. In essence, the UK can find money from three places to support Ukraine. It can come from taxpayers, but taxpayers have funded £3.8 billion already so there is not much spare cash in the bank so far as I can see. Secondly, it can come from frozen oligarch funds. There is a difficulty with that as those are the assets of private individuals and seizing them is likely to be a costly and drawn-out process. The legislation necessary to seize such private assets would necessarily involve a court supervision—because we believe in the rule of law—in order to protect the oligarchs’ rights to their property under the European convention on human rights, or for that matter under normal British law. I am sure these cases will also be defended by some of the richest, most legally savvy and deep-pocketed people on the planet, and the resources available to the Government agencies tasked with confiscating those assets would inevitably be very modest. So I think both those routes are pretty much exhausted at present.

On the other hand, seizing state assets of the Russian Federation will be quick. It is a political decision and there will be no lengthy lawsuits. Unlike oligarch assets, these are state assets, specifically the £26 billion of central bank reserves clearly belonging to Russia, a nation deemed an aggressor by the United Nations, that has been ordered by the UN General Assembly and separately by the International Court of Justice to withdraw its troops from Ukraine, and which has failed to do so and continues its aggression against Ukraine. These funds could be made immediately available to Ukraine should we adopt the legislation to do so. Canada already has similar legislation in place.

[Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman’s case would be considerably enhanced if international courts were to find the Russian military guilty of war crimes during their conduct of this so-called special military operation. Does he agree that that would provide even further justification for what he is arguing?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

It would undoubtedly add a fifth leg to a four-legged stool, but a four-legged stool is strong enough. I do not want to have to wait for that moment to be able to do this, because Ukraine needs the money now to be able to put food on the table and proceed.

There are two further issues that I ought to knock off in case the Minister says, “Oh, well, yes, this is a very good idea but it is terribly difficult to do, you know, and I can’t think that we can possibly get round to doing it”, which is what Ministers nearly always say. That was not meant to be an impersonation of the Minister currently on the Government Front Bench; it was an impersonation of any normal Minister when they get to the Dispatch Box and hear somebody proposing something difficult or courageous.

First, there is sovereign immunity. State assets are almost always protected from seizure by the concept of sovereign immunity. However, there have been exceptions, such as to satisfy damages awarded by international courts and arbitral tribunal. I would argue that Russia’s continuing refusal to comply with international human rights law—and this goes to the point just made—by attacking civilian housing and infrastructure, and its wilful refusal to follow orders of the International Court of Justice and the United Nations General Assembly are ample grounds for creating such an exemption.

There is also a point about retaliation. Some argue that if we seize their assets, they may seize ours. To be honest, I think it is pretty likely that the vast majority of British assets in the Russian Federation have already been lost, written off or expropriated by the Russian Government.

Finally, some say that countries may choose not to keep their reserves in the United Kingdom if they believe that they can be seized. However, if we severely restrict when reserves can be seized, that concern is minimised. Furthermore, if we acted in concert with our allies to seize the reserves, as we did when we froze them, we could create a powerful disincentive for states to engage in unlawful acts of aggression. I think we should do that. The reserves of an aggressor would never be safe, as there would be no country with a stable currency to protect them.

In the end, we want to ensure that a war of aggression, which has never been formally declared to be a war crime in itself, is seen to be a way in which an aggressor loses their assets. I urge the Government to consider that process carefully so that we can ensure that Russian state assets go to Ukraine as soon as possible.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on securing this debate, which has the same title as the debate last January. In preparing for today, I have read what he and other Members said then. I think it is very generous to talk about a Russian “grand strategy” because I regard Russia’s leadership in the Kremlin as an opportunist outfit. Russia loves the idea of a divided west and when it sees us divided it takes full advantage, especially when it can smell western weakness, a lack of will or disinterest.

I am not going to come up with any fine words on this subject—certainly none as fine as those of a predecessor MP for Tiverton, Lord Palmerston. In 1858, he wrote:

“The policy pursued by the Russian Government has always been to push forward its encroachments as fast and as far as the apathy or want of firmness of other Governments would allow it to go, but always to stop and retire when it was met with decided resistance, and then to wait till the next favourable opportunity”.

I would like to draw on a couple of examples from the past 125 years in which we have continued to see imperial Russia or the Soviet Union taking an expansionist approach, only to be pinned back by western democracies and others. I would also say that we should avoid throwing all caution to the wind, because the root of Russia’s approach, in my view, is injured pride—not just in the Kremlin, but among most Russian people. Finally, the House should think not only about a grand strategy for the UK, but about a strategy for NATO. We need to work collaboratively with our NATO allies to ensure that the alliance is working on a strategy.

We all know that Putin’s historical essays have been entirely discredited by historians, but they are useful to us. They are a useful guide to his intent: I think he models himself on some of his predecessors from the 17th and 18th centuries. At the end of the 18th century, Catherine the Great is supposed to have said of her enormous land empire:

“I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them.”

That certainly fits in with what went on during her reign: after she came to power, the country’s westernmost border moved from east of the River Dnipro to west of Kyiv, so we can see that Putin has some stand-out role models from the time of the Tsar and the years before that.

What we have been seeing in Russia in the past 15 years is a restoration of pride following a period of imperial collapse. Of course there is no direct comparison with the UK, but if we want a sense of how Russians feel, some Conservative Members may remember how they felt in the early 1980s when there was, perhaps, a restoration of British pride after having had to manage the economy in the 1970s with the aid of a loan from the International Monetary Fund. It is that feeling that your country has been put down and is coming back—the rising of a phoenix from the flames.

Yet in the Kremlin, Russia is intimidated by the lack of attractiveness of its centralised political tradition: its post-communist neighbours are attracted by western co-operative structures. Before last year, I thought that those in the Kremlin who are responsible for Russian grand strategy knew the difference between coercion and violence—coercion might involve the threat of violence, but would stop short of using force—but we have seen that that is not true.

This debate is so useful for thinking about grand strategy partly in terms of ends: if we think of grand strategy in terms of ends, ways and means, it is useful for us to think today about the Kremlin’s intent. There have tended to be reasons why Russia has on occasion seemed willing to permit Ukraine to be independent of it. In 1918, the first world war having ended, Lenin said:

“We need both hands free”,

and permitted Ukraine to become independent. In 1991, Yeltsin had his own motive for enabling Ukraine to become free: to sideline Gorbachev as President of the Soviet Union.

But that is history. I was so encouraged to hear the NATO Secretary-General, Jens Stoltenberg, saying in December 2021 that

“that’s the kind of world we don’t want to return to, where big powers had a say, or a kind of right, to put limitations on what sovereign, independent nations can do”.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Surely the key moment was the signing of the Budapest accord. Was there not something of a failing on the part of this country and others? It was an innocent failing, but we signed up to something that was so nebulous that it could never really be enforced, although in theory it looked as if we were guaranteeing the territorial integrity of Ukraine, in exchange for which it surrendered its nuclear weapons.

[Richard Foord]

I entirely agree. The Budapest memorandum was not worth the paper it was written on. It had no legal standing; even the word “guarantee” has different meanings in different languages, and the Ukrainians could certainly have interpreted it very differently from the British, Americans and others who drafted it.

During military conflicts in which the UK has been engaged over the last two or three decades, we have heard the claim that we have no quarrel with the people of “X”—insert Serbia or Iran—but only with its Government or, often, its dictator, but I do not think we can repeat that claim in this instance. When we look at opinion polling in Russia, it is pretty staggering to see how much popular support there is for the war in Ukraine. According to what has been said by Ukrainians I have talked to in the last couple of weeks, they regard the fact that we talk in the west about Putin or Putin’s war as successful propaganda on the part of Russia. They would much prefer us to talk about Russia in the round, and attribute responsibility much more broadly than to just one man in the Kremlin. I also think we need to avoid driving our competitors and our adversaries into Russia’s orbit; not least, we need to avoid knocking China into Russia’s open arms.

We need to think of the UK’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in terms of a NATO strategy, rather than the UK’s grand strategy alone. In that context, it is worth recalling a 19th-century musical hall song. You will be relieved to know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I shall not attempt to sing it. Members will have heard the lyrics before:

“the rugged Russian Bear

Full bent on blood and robbery, has crawled out of his lair…

We don’t want to fight but by jingo if we do,

We’ve got the ships, we’ve got the men, and got the money too!”

That is an anachronism today. The UK cannot boast the ships, or the money or, certainly, the men in the Army.

Let me end with another quotation, this time from Winston Churchill. We will all have heard his famous characterisation of Russia as

“a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma”,

but it is less well known that he went on to say:

“perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest. It cannot be in accordance with the interest or safety of Russia that Germany should plant itself upon the shores of the Black Sea”.

We need to bear in mind that Germany is cautious because it has good reason to be cautious, given its history. Instead of criticising our allies, we should come up with a strategy, with our allies, that sees Ukraine defend its borders and defeat Russia.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke]

We were having those debates, not least in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. There was a Rose-Roth seminar of the Parliamentary Assembly in Kyiv in June 2016. The Ukrainians could not have been clearer to the allies who were there about what the invasion of Crimea meant, and it was brushed aside because there were too many vested interests in the way energy policy was going at the time and, quite frankly, because there was disbelief that anything like this would happen.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

As I understand it, when Foreign Office officials made that point to the then Foreign Secretary, who subsequently became Prime Minister, he pooh-poohed the idea of arming Ukraine.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

We can find examples from across Government over that period of time. When the invasion happened just under a year ago, many conversations took place, and still take place to this day, along the lines of, “Well, Putin is terminally ill.” “Look at Putin’s face, he has a terminal disease.” “This is the act of a dying man.” People were trying to make excuses for him to understand why he did it. They should just accept that the man is a fascist dictator who is trying to expand the Russian empire. There is the answer; it is as simple as that. But still our natural instinct says that this is so far beyond what anybody would expect that there must be another reason behind it.

The hon. Member for Rhondda is correct that people, whoever they were—in this case, it was the then Foreign Secretary—simply did not believe that this would happen. That was true among many of our European allies, but given what we now know, we must be aware that it will go beyond Ukraine. There is no point in saying that Putin would not dare to move into NATO territory. If he wins in Ukraine, then, yes, he will. It is not just Putin, but the Russian set-up—the Russian leadership. There are people beneath Putin who will carry on this war if he were to go. This involves not just one person, but a regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan]

There’s your thanks for making a conciliatory point in a debate on a matter on which we agree almost entirely. I will not answer that remark other than to say that, far from an obsession, worrying about independence is literally a noble pursuit.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene?

[Dave Doogan]

No. I am going to make progress.

The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex touched on why we are sending only 12 tanks. The reason is that we have scarcely three times that amount that are serviceable to send. He wants to send 124. That would be great, and I hope that, by sending the 12, the Leopard 2s will come forth from other NATO allies within Europe.

I do not know how accurate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) knows he was when he said that the United Kingdom was missing a real trick by trying to replace Challenger 2 with Challenger 3. We should be replacing them with Leopards and getting them built on these islands, which would be a perfectly realistic opportunity and far preferable industrial strategy.

We need to have a long look at the intelligence—and more specifically, the analysis of that intelligence—gathered by the UK and the west before the conflict became a hot war. Our ally Germany steadfastly refused to see what was plainly under its nose until it became a kinetic affair, and the UK and the west made significant miscalculations about the strength of Russia’s conventional forces, instead favouring an obsession with their high-end capability without realising that they are very thin in mass and scale—they have not contributed a great deal to the outcomes of the conflict so far.

In his summing up, I hope the Minister might address the Russian military studies centre at Shrivenham, which, putting it diplomatically, has not benefited from the most robust investment over the years and should probably benefit from more.

Although we have proved Putin wrong in his analysis of the western allies’ ability to cohere and to resolve to put up with the privations of this situation, our support for Ukraine, while being the right thing to do, has to endure with all available pace to bring this conflict and its consequences, both in Ukraine and throughout the world, to an end as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for securing this important debate. I am also grateful for the other knowledgeable contributions from hon. and right hon. Members, and I will try to cover as many of their points as I can.

I would like to start, however, by offering my deepest condolences to the families of Ukraine’s Interior Minister, Denys Monastyrsky, and his team of civilians who were killed in the tragic helicopter crash in Ukraine yesterday. He was a true friend of the United Kingdom and a true patriot of Ukraine, and we are ready to support Ukraine in whatever way we can.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex put forward a strident case in outlining Putin’s grand strategy and, in his view, the lack of one on the UK’s side. He posed some interesting questions with regard to the integrated review refresh. He questioned the Indo-Pacific tilt and the validity of the AUKUS agreement, and he called for strong land forces, which is something I certainly agree with. He pointed out that we need to increase the tempo of our support to Ukraine; of course, we support that. He also pointed out that Putin’s calculation is one of time—his belief is that his ability to suffer will outlast the patience of western allies. I agree; that is, indeed, Putin’s calculation. My hon. Friend suggested that we were being too timid and too slow in our support. I refute that, because I think our actions over the last year, especially on the provision of lethal aid, have shown that we have led the way, and others have followed.

In terms of my hon. Friend’s central point, I acknowledge the fact that, while Putin has had a grand strategy, the last year has shown that it is, in simple terms, failing. Our response has shown that, when we put our mind to it, we can succeed. Our strategy over the last year is one of success. If we measure the success of strategy as whether or not we can deliver our policy, Putin’s failure to deliver his own policy in Ukraine has shown the failure of his strategy, and our success in supporting our Ukrainian friends has shown the success of our collective strategy.

Our response is built on four pillars. The first is a recognition that it is about hard power, and that is why we led the way in delivering the NLAW, which was a tactical weapon that took on strategic consequence. Just over a year later, that has led to us providing the Challenger 2 tanks, which hopefully will open the door for others. We recognise that it is about the provision of hard power.

We also recognise that alliance is hugely important in this. Russia has a very long border but is very short of friends. If we look at the collection of nations that are supporting our heroic Ukrainian friends, we see a determined, resolute and hugely capable group of countries that are providing an awesome amount of support. Collectively, in terms of their military power, GDP and so on, they represent a very important and powerful alliance.

The third pillar is resolve. I have mentioned that Putin will be testing our patience this year and thereafter, and we must be confident that our capacity to remain committed to our Ukrainian friends can outlast Putin’s judgment about his ability to force his people to suffer.

Fourthly, our strategy takes us into other domains. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex did not mention energy, but our collective response in the west and globally in fighting back against Putin’s weaponisation of energy supply has been immensely effective. No one would have thought several years ago that the Germans would have weaned themselves off Russian supply within a short space of months, at huge cost and inconvenience. It has been remarkable. The pan-European and global response to the weaponisation by Putin of his energy supply has been heartening and terrific. Of course, we must keep that effort up, but we should be very proud of our response, and that is because of the leadership of western nations. I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s remarks.

I turn to the comments of other Members. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) posed some good questions about our reconstruction effort. He will know that we are hosting a conference in June this year to focus nations on that and hopefully bring a flow of capital to Ukraine, to help its reconstruction. He asked some good questions about reparations. Of course, we are exploring all options. There is an army of lawyers looking at all this. We are seeking to be creative. He posed some interesting technical questions. All of this is under consideration, and we will update the House as and when we can.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Will the Minister give way?

[Leo Docherty]

If the hon. Gentleman is very snappy.

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I prefer an army of troops, rather than an army of lawyers.

[Leo Docherty]

We will keep the hon. Gentleman up to date.

The Chairman of the Defence Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), put this matter in a cogent, historical context, for which I was most grateful, but we should be confident that our resolve will outlast Putin’s determination to make his own people suffer. He pointed out that there is a global contest between authoritarian regimes, and those who value democracy and open economies, and that is particularly important in terms of the role of China. He made a powerful call for resolve. I think we are showing that but of course we must be ever vigilant. We can take nothing for granted.

The hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) made a powerful reflection on her visit to Kharkiv at the end of last year. She mentioned Putin’s desperation as illustrated by his barbaric assault on the critical national infrastructure of that country, and I was grateful for her remarks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) referred to his important work in the Council of Europe. We continue to be grateful for his work in that forum. He said we must keep our eyes open, and we certainly agree, because the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We will keep our eyes open and I commend his remarks.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) made an interesting reference to Palmerston’s approach in the 1850s. They knew a lot about UK-Russian relations in the 1850s. He also referred to Churchill’s famous reference to Russia, but there is no actual riddle these days: we know exactly what Putin is. He is a bloodstained tyrant bent on imperial conquest, so there is no mystery.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), the chair of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly delegation, urged us to guard against hubris, which I thought was an eloquent way of calling for ongoing resolve. He pointed out the importance of NATO’s cohesion and continued determination, for which I was grateful. He reflected interestingly on his meeting, while a Minister, with the Ukrainian forces. That ongoing training had its genesis in Operation Orbital. It has been running since 2015 and is something of which we are immensely proud. I am grateful to him for bringing that to the House’s attention.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) referred to his visit to Ukraine and the admirable work of Siobhan’s Trust and the magnificent David Fox-Pitt clad in his Ukrainian kilt. I hope to see my right hon. Friend modelling that at some stage. He used that example to give us a powerful insight into the horrendous civilian cost of Putin’s barbaric war. That is why we are proud to have given some £220 million-plus purely in humanitarian support and we will continue to do all that we can in the humanitarian sector. He said that the plea from those he met was, “Please don’t forget us.” I can assure him that the UK Government absolutely will not forget them. We will continue to do all we can, not just in the humanitarian sector but in long-term reconstruction. That is the point of June’s conference.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) pointed out Putin’s fading support globally, and the fact that some of the nations that have been aligned with him now question the validity or utility of being partnered with a failing nation and someone who is losing. I thought that was useful. She talked about his outrageous weaponisation of global food supply, which we are seeking to counter through the Black sea grain initiative. She also made an important reference to the malign role of the Wagner Group, which concerns us all. I am grateful for her comments.

Jagtar Singh Johal

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

I am posing questions for the Minister to answer because I genuinely want to hear what the view of the British Government is on these points. The key here is the actions of our high commission in representing not only the hon. Gentleman’s constituent but, importantly, a UK national.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I am sorry that I was not here for the first sentences of his speech. Is there not another area of concern here? As I understand it, having met Jagtar’s brother the other day, one of the reasons the Indian authorities seem to be particularly keen on keeping him as part of the conspiracy allegations is that, as he is the only person who is not Indian, that is the only way they can make specific allegations about the others being engaged in an international conspiracy.

[Bob Blackman]

The hon. Gentleman suggests that this might be the case. We know that India—and we will be talking about Republic Day next week—faces a number of terrorist atrocities and terrorist attacks. We therefore have to be very careful when we are looking at what the Indian Government, the Indian police and their crime agencies are doing to combat that terrorism.

The Execution of Alireza Akbari

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend raises incredibly important points. We will continue to work with our friends and allies to ensure that Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon. With regard to our further action, we do not limit ourselves to the announcements that we have just made. Part of the reason why I have temporarily recalled His Majesty’s ambassador to Tehran is so that we can discuss cross-Government what our further response might be.

[Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Mr Akbari’s judicial murder is particularly poignant for us because he was a dual national, but all the murders that have been committed by the Iranian Government over the last few days and weeks prove that they give a new meaning to the term “criminal justice system”—more criminal than justice. I worry, however, that the Secretary of State is always reluctant to talk about further sanctions. Government Ministers invented the rule that they are not allowed to talk about them at the Dispatch Box because it is a bit inconvenient for them, but is it not time that we had a proper parliamentary process for determining some sanctions? Frankly, if it was up to the Foreign Affairs Committee, or I suspect the House, we would have taken action six months ago and we would not still be hanging around.

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with great passion on this. I know that he takes a personal interest in the use of sanctions, and we have discussed this in my appearances before the Select Committee, but I think it is important that we maintain a clear distinction between the Executive functions and the scrutiny functions. Although I understand that there is a huge amount of embedded experience in the House, I think that the job of the Government is to govern and the job of this House is to scrutinise the Government, which is why that division of labour is important.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments on the Foreign Secretary’s speech yesterday, which I thought set out very clearly the patient diplomacy that we consider the Commonwealth to be at the heart of. These are long-standing relationships, where we work together to build, to help economies to grow and on mutual security issues. I was out in the Pacific recently, where six of our Commonwealth family are. Working together on maritime security, on climate and on helping them to support their populations for the future is at the heart of what we do.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

7. Whether he has made recent representations to his counterpart in Saudi Arabia on (a) the use of the death penalty and (b) potential human rights violations in that country.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)]

Saudi Arabia remains an FCDO human rights priority country, particularly because of the use of the death penalty and restrictions on freedom of expression. We strongly oppose the death penalty in all countries and circumstances. We regularly raise our concerns with the Saudi authorities and will continue to do so. The Minister for the Middle East raised the death penalty and freedom of expression with the Saudi ambassador on 24 November.

[Chris Bryant]

I am afraid that recently it feels as if the Government are frightened of saying boo to Saudi Arabia on human rights abuses. The Minister himself, only a few days ago, said that Hussein Abo al-Kheir had been abhorrently tortured by Saudi authorities. He withdrew the remark; as I understand it, the Saudi authorities asked the Foreign Office to withdraw that remark. The truth is that Hussein Abo al-Kheir has been tortured and he has been on death row since 2015. The Saudi Government executed 81 people on one day earlier this year and are intending to execute a large number more later this year. They have already reneged on all of their promises on ending the death penalty for non-violent crimes. Will the Minister please go back to Saudi Arabia and make it clear that this country abhors torture and the death penalty?

[David Rutley]

I corrected my answer to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) to clarify that those were allegations of torture, as I underline again today. That is consistent with the line I used in my opening remarks on this issue in the urgent question on 28 November. I also contacted the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that he was aware of the correction. Notwithstanding that, of course it is vital that we continue to raise these issues, as Lord Ahmad has done and will continue to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend rightly speaks with great passion about this as there has been terrible behaviour by members of the Wagner Group. She has been in my position so will recognise that we do not speculate on future proscription, but the actions of the Wagner Group are being watched by this Government and other Governments around the world.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

T7. Why did the UK Government withdraw at the very last minute, on 10 December last year, from sanctioning the torturous and barbarous members of the Bangladesh rapid action battalion and then invite them to be trained in the UK in surveillance technology?

[James Cleverly]

Understandably, the process by which sanctions are applied needs to be done discreetly. I am not able to discuss in detail how sanctions are processed, but I will ensure we get details to the hon. Gentleman on this issue.

International Human Rights Day

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Ferrier]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the intervention. We have to be strong when we speak out against human rights abuses; there is no doubt about it. The Government say that they speak privately with nations all over the world.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Before we move off this point, the worst of it is that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has now admitted that it made the ministerial correction because Saudi Arabia asked it to. We cannot have Saudi Arabia telling Parliament what to do about human rights, surely.

[Margaret Ferrier]

I could not have put it better. The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. We should not allow Governments other than the UK Government to say what the right response is. I thank him for the intervention.

Over 50% of those executed were convicted on the basis of their participation in pro-democracy demonstrations back in March. As executions are confirmed only once the death sentence has been carried out, we do not know how many people are on death row in Saudi Arabia. That is also the case in China, North Korea, Vietnam, Egypt and Iran. I will speak about the latter two shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a delight to take part in this debate, not least because my biggest anxiety about the world is that it is becoming more, not less, authoritarian. More Governments have given up on democracy and moved towards dictatorship than we thought possible. We always thought that progress would mean people enjoying greater freedoms as the world moved forward. Unfortunately, that is not the case for many people around the world.

I am struck by the number of countries that retain the death penalty. It is obviously shocking that so many states in the United States of America retain it. I am conscious that there are many countries in the world where people can be executed solely for their sexuality, including Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen. Many of those countries would say that they do not use the death penalty as there have been no executions. None the less, people are sentenced to death and then have to live in a sort of limbo land, thinking that they may be executed at any point.

On Saudi Arabia, I will simply say that it was quite shocking earlier in the year when the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) came to the Foreign Affairs Committee as Foreign Secretary. I asked her about when she had raised human rights concerns with Gulf states. There was just silence in the room. She tried to suggest that she had done it several times—or it had been done several times—but she could not come up with a single occasion on which the British Government had raised human rights abuses with Saudi Arabia.

I understand why the Government want to turn away from relying on gas and oil from authoritarian states such as Russia, but it is not much good if we then just simply turn to another set of authoritarian states in the middle east, and are not prepared to ask the questions that we now feel able to ask of Russia. For instance, it is truly shocking that the British Government have still not said that Jamal Khashoggi was murdered at the deliberate instigation of the Saudi Government, and dismembered on Saudi territory. That does not do anybody any favours. It is shocking that the British Government do not seem to have complained to Saudi Arabia about the 81 executions that happened on a single day earlier this year, or that there are now more than 100 people on death row, potentially awaiting execution at any point.

We have to continue to ask those questions. I do not think that anybody respects us when they know what we think, but we refuse to say it. It just means that we are weak, and people rely on our weakness. I find it shocking, too, that a country such as Indonesia has just introduced a new law that outlaws sexual activity of any kind outside marriage. I am not sure how that will aid the tourism trade in Indonesia. The country is only just getting back on its feet. Those kinds of repressive measures are simply backward, and do nobody any favours.

I worry about our Government for two reasons. First, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), we have not had an annual report on human rights since 8 July 2021. That is a long time ago. We have been doing it since 2003. It has become standard, and all the human rights organisations in the UK look to the process and love to feed into it. Other countries around the world look to the UK’s leadership in this space, and it feels as if the Government have simply surrendered that space.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

The hon. Member must also be aware that it seems to have been a consistent Foreign Office policy for about 10 years now to reduce the number of human rights advisers in our embassies around the world.

[Chris Bryant]

I was going to come to that point. The right hon. Gentleman has made it for me, which is great. Another point is that the European convention on human rights was written by a Conservative Member of Parliament. It was drafted, on the back of the second world war, to say that we did not want the human rights abuses that happened in Italy and Germany to happen on our continent again. Yes, there are all sorts of complications with the way that the Court operates, but if the British Government keep on rattling the cage about leaving the European Court of Human Rights and the European convention, we would automatically no longer be a member of the Council of Europe. We would join Belarus and Russia as the countries in Europe that no longer subscribe, which would be a terrible shame.

One of the things that we have got terribly wrong over the last 12 years in our foreign policy is that we have kept trying to appease authoritarian dictatorships around the world rather than stand up for what we genuinely believe. Sometimes we have relied too much on the United States, which is sometimes a wonderful ally and sometimes not very reliable, depending on who the President is. Who knows what may happen in two or three years? If Donald Trump were in the White House now, what would we be saying in relation to Ukraine? Far too often we vacillate on China. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) was right to refer to the situation facing the Uyghurs in China. Our Government have flip-flopped endlessly on whether to be robust on that policy, which is a terrible shame.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) spoke about the Minister withdrawing his comment. He was not correcting the record; he was withdrawing his comment on Saudi Arabia and whether the gentleman concerned had been tortured, which all the evidence shows he was. All that points to a Government who are uncertain about whether human rights really matter in the way in which we define ourselves as a country around the world. That will pay poor dividends in the long term for the UK and the values we believe in.

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

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point on the supposed correction of the record. Surely if the Foreign Office now has evidence that shows that what the Minister said then is incorrect, there is a mechanism for him to come to the House and explain why the mistake was made. Surely that would be a more appropriate way to proceed.

[Chris Bryant]

If the Minister wanted to, he could publish a written ministerial statement that made the whole situation clearer, but I fear that basically the Government have been told off by the Saudi Government, and have decided that the Saudi Government have more say in the matter than we do. I guess the Saudis must be laughing their way to the end of the week.

In some countries, there are phenomenal people with bravery we do not even dream of in British politics, where we rely on the democratic system. I will talk first about Colombia, which I know my friends, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), know quite a lot about. It has one of the largest numbers of displaced people anywhere in the world, and the longest sustained internal warfare or civil war—however we want to determine it. Many of us have been desperate for the peace accord to be properly instituted, which would mean that people would have the land that was stolen from them restored.

Last year, there were another 52,880 forced displacements in Colombia. The war is still ongoing. Repeated Governments have failed to deal with it; let us hope that the new Government will be able to make advances. This year, 169 human rights defenders have been killed, often by paramilitaries and people acting on behalf of hard-right organisations, and there have been 92 massacres. Lots of children aged between 10 and 17 have been forcibly recruited to carry guns. That is just wrong, and I hope the British Government will do literally everything they can to help bring about a proper peace accord with the restitution of stolen land. There are six armed conflicts still ongoing in Colombia.

I want to refer to a few individuals I think are absolutely magnificent. Sasha Skochilenko, who is in Russia, fills her life with art and music. She plays all sorts of musical instruments. On 31 March, she peacefully protested against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by replacing price tags in a local supermarket in St Petersburg with small paper labels containing facts about the invasion. She was arrested and charged for her peaceful action, and has been held in detention ever since in appalling conditions. I have mentioned many others in Russia who have been arrested this year. It is absolutely shocking, and I feel that our refusal to deal robustly with the first annexation of Crimea in 2014 is part of what emboldened Putin. We must learn from that as we face the rest of the world.

Luis Manuel Otero Alcántara is a self-taught black Cuban artist. He loves to paint, dance and wear the colour pink—it doesn’t do any good for me. On 11 July 2021, he posted a video online saying he would be joining one of the largest demonstrations that Cuba has seen in decades. He was arrested and taken to Guanajay maximum security prison, where he remains to this day. His health is declining and he needs proper care. Would we have that courage in this country? Would anyone in this Parliament have that courage if we thought we would be arrested and sent to a foul, dirty prison with no proper healthcare, food and warmth?

Let me turn to the Magnitsky sanctions. As the Minister knows—I think she is wearing a jacket from my family clan, the MacLeods; I am not sure whether she has the right to wear it, but it is a human right that is extended now to all. [Interruption.] But not MacLeod.

[Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)]

Order. Stick to the subject.

[Chris Bryant]

I care passionately that one of the things that the Government have done that is good in the past few years is to introduce the Magnitsky sanctions, after a lot of brow-beating by some Conservative and Labour colleagues. The former leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), and I chair the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions. To date, the UK has made only 108 designations under the Magnitsky sanction regime, accounting for 14% of all Magnitsky sanctions imposed globally. Some 69% of sanctions imposed by our allies in the United States of America, the European Union and Canada have not been replicated by the UK, and I simply do not understand why there is such an enormous lacuna. Only 2% of UK sanctions target perpetrators in states considered to be allies of the UK, all of which relate to Pakistan. Is that just because we have decided that if a Government are an ally, we will not impose any sanctions, even on individuals who are manifestly abusing human rights? If so, that is a problem.

The potential consequences of the UK’s failure to co-ordinate with its allies has been exposed this week. Al-Jazeera has reported that, last Human Rights Day, the UK decided at the last minute not to join the US in imposing sanctions on the Rapid Action Battalion in Bangladesh, which is the security force responsible for thousands of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. It is often referred to as the death squad.

It has also been reported that last year, after the US had imposed sanctions, high-ranking members of the Rapid Action Battalion travelled to the UK to receive training on, among other things, mass surveillance technology. The UK should not be involved in that. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that this is categorically untrue, and that she looks to her notes to reply on that matter later. This case demonstrates the significant consequences of the UK failing to act in response to such egregious human rights abuses, and failing to co-ordinate or multilateralise its sanctions. It has not only undermined the potential effectiveness of the US sanctions, but led to the UK potentially being complicit in the human rights abuses taking place.

Finally, I pay phenomenal tribute to the women of Iran. There is no greater courage to be seen in the world today—and people have been killed today in Iran—than that which we have seen from the women there. Women lead where often men need to follow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) for securing such an important debate to mark Human Rights Day. I think we would all agree that we have had an excellent, thoughtful and illuminating debate. On 10 December, we will mark 74 years since the introduction of the universal declaration of human rights in the aftermath of the horror of the second world war. The international community came together to declare that rights belong to each and every human being equally throughout the world—a point well made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady)—but, 74 years on, human rights are under attack across the world.

As has been mentioned, parliamentary colleagues and I attended the Amnesty International UK drop-in on Tuesday, where we heard about four cases of individuals that highlighted human rights abuses. We heard about the case of Hong Kong human rights lawyer and activist Chow Hang-tung, who is serving 22 months in prison for daring to encourage people on social media to light candles to commemorate those who lost their lives in the Tiananmen crackdown in 1989. We heard about the case of Dorgelesse Nguessan, a hairdresser from Cameroon who was arrested on her first ever protest in September 2020 for voicing her concerns about the Cameroonian Government’s handling of the economy. Her peaceful protest resulted in her arrest and charges of insurrection, assembly, meetings and public demonstration, which resulted in a five-year sentence. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) highlighted the other two cases: that of the Russian artist Sasha Skochilenko, who was arrested and is being held without charge for protesting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and that of the Cuban artist Luis Manuel Otero Alcántara, who was arrested for posting that he wanted to attend a big demonstration in Cuba.

[Chris Bryant]

There are two other Russians we ought to acknowledge—these are high-profile cases, and have regularly been spoken about in the House, although they can sometimes get ignored. One is Vladimir Kara-Murza, who is in prison in Russia, and the other is Alexei Navalny, who seems to have been imprisoned for being poisoned by the Russian state. These are people of phenomenal courage, and we should not forget them.

[Bambos Charalambous]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight those cases, and he is right that we should never forget them.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) highlighted the case of Zarifa Yaqoubi and her four colleagues, who were arrested at the inauguration of the Afghan Women’s Movement for Equality by the Taliban, which is obviously trying to suppress women’s freedom in Afghanistan. We would very much support their instant release from detention for protesting for women’s rights in Afghanistan.

As the shadow Minister for the middle east and north Africa, I have raised numerous cases of concern about human rights abuses in the region, ranging from those of democracy advocates in Tunisia and Bahrain and those of people facing execution in Saudi Arabia, to those of Palestinians evicted from their homes in the occupied territories and facing attacks from settlers. I too attended the B’Tselem and Yachad event yesterday, where social media allowed us to witness what Palestinians facing settler violence experienced.

Today I want to focus particularly on Iran, where none of us can fail to be moved by the bravery of the protesters—women and girls who are fighting back against the repressive regime that seeks to limit their basic freedoms in every aspect of their lives. Serious human rights violations at the hands of the Iranian authorities have been documented time and again. Unlawful killings following the unwarranted use of lethal force, as well as mass arbitrary arrests and detentions, forced disappearances, torture and sexual violence, have all been documented. The protesters have been extraordinary. Their courage in facing a regime that is willing to use extreme violence against protesters and that has sentenced some protesters to death is truly inspiring, and I was horrified to learn today that the first protester condemned to death has been executed, which is deeply worrying. We cannot just pay tribute to their courage; we must stand with them by supporting access to free media. BBC Persian Radio, which is under threat, must be able to continue reporting. True solidarity means supporting Iranian civil society. The UK Government must do more to speak up for those who stand up for human rights in Iran.

Turning to Egypt, I have been privileged to meet the family of Alaa Abd el-Fattah. Alaa is a British-Egyptian human rights defender and an activist who has been in prison for his belief that all Egyptians deserve to have their human rights respected by their Government. Alaa is a prisoner of conscience and had until very recently been on hunger strike for over 200 days. His spirit and endless commitment to the values of freedom, human rights and democracy should inspire us all. Alaa needs our solidarity and the backing of our Government, yet his family have said that the UK Government have failed to act with sufficient urgency.

The UK must ensure that all UK nationals have a right to consular assistance when detained abroad. I am proud that that is a Labour policy, but it is also something that the Government can and should deliver. It should not be a party political issue. The Prime Minister raised Alaa’s case directly with President Sisi, yet there has been no progress since. Consular access to a British citizen is still being denied, and Alaa is no closer to being released. Will the Minister tell me what meaningful steps the Government are taking to gain access to Alaa and to help secure his release?

We live in a world where homosexuality is a criminal offence in 71 countries and is punishable by death in 11 of those, and where sex outside marriage and criticism of the king are criminal offences. We also live in a world where girls are banned from going to school in some countries. I wish to put on the record my support for the Education Cannot Wait campaign, which tries to get children in conflict zones into school, and it works incredibly hard to do that.

We live in a world where gender-based violence still occurs and where freedom of expression and freedom of religious belief are curtailed. We heard from the hon. Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about where that has resulted in genocide on occasions. Again, that is truly appalling and something we need to stand up against and challenge.

We have heard about how we live in a world where press freedom is curtailed and workers are exploited. Again, we need to stand up and speak up for the right to press freedom and workers’ rights, which are also part of the universal declaration of human rights.

The universal declaration of human rights remains a document that inspires activists and human rights defenders across the world. It is a shining example of what the international community can achieve when we come together with a clear aspiration for a fairer future. More than ever, the simple idea of inviolable rights that allow each of us to live in decency and dignity must be at the forefront of our democracy. Human rights are violated across the world, yet the courage of human rights defenders reminds us that the ideal of the fundamental dignity of all human beings is not lost. We must always defend it.

It is a shame that, even in the UK, there has been some curtailing of the long-standing fundamental right to protest. Protests can be inconvenient, but that is the point. We all have the right to freedom of expression and to freedom of assembly, and restricting those rights restricts citizens’ rights to express our discontent with the Government. The restriction of such fundamental liberties is of grave concern. The right hon. Member for Islington North said that we cannot lecture the world on human rights when the UK is watering down its own rights.

We must not forget article 14: everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. Seeking asylum is not a crime and must never be treated as such. We have a human duty to respect the fundamental human rights of asylum seekers, and all migrants, wherever they come from. Respect for human rights must be the fundamental starting point for any Government. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the UK Government’s report on human rights, which many right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned. We need to know when that report will be published, because it is long overdue.

We in the Labour party are clear in our commitments to respect human rights and international law. We should be proud of international institutions and NGOs that highlight the human rights abuses that still go on today. We need to ensure that the UK Government call out human rights abuses, wherever they occur, and that they hold to account those committing those abuses. The need to stand up for human rights is more important today than ever before.

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

I thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) for securing this important debate. The shared passion across this House for protecting and promoting human rights is clear, warranted and, of course, warmly welcomed. Where I am not able to answer the questions raised by colleagues, I commit to writing to them with more detail as soon as possible.

As the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) noted, this weekend we mark International Human Rights Day just as the United Nations launches a year-long campaign to promote the 75th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights. The UK has a long-standing commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights across the globe. My noble Friend Lord Ahmad, the Minister responsible for human rights at the FCDO, will host an event at the FCDO to shine a light on those issues. I pay tribute to him for his continuing commitment in this area.

As the Prime Minister set out recently, our approach is anchored by our enduring belief in freedom, openness and the rule of law. We are committed to being a force for good in the world, with human rights, open societies, democracy and the international rule of law acting as our guiding lights. We put human rights at the heart of what we do, which is why we established the UK’s global human rights sanctions regime; why we led efforts to refer the shocking activities against human rights in Ukraine to the International Criminal Court; why we lead on UN Human Rights Council resolutions, including on the situation in Syria and South Sudan; and why we have made a joint statement on Xinjiang.

We pursue three broad strands of work to promote and protect human rights globally. First, we work through multilateral bodies. Secondly, we work directly with states to encourage and support them in upholding their human rights obligations. Thirdly, we have concerted campaigns to drive forward action on issues of particular concern.

I will speak first about our multilateral work. The international rules-based system is critical to protecting and realising the human rights and freedoms of people all over the world. We work through the multilateral system to encourage all states to uphold their international human rights obligations, and to hold to account those who violate human rights.

In September, my noble Friend Lord Ahmad spoke at the United Nations and urged the international community to hold Iran accountable for systemically targeting members of minority communities; to press Afghanistan to protect minorities who are targeted for their beliefs; to challenge the discriminatory provisions in Myanmar’s citizenship laws; and to hold China to account for its egregious human rights violations in Xinjiang. In November, we supported a successful UN Human Rights Council resolution to establish a UN investigation of the Iranian regime’s appalling human rights violations during recent protests.

Turning to our bilateral work, we are strengthening our economic, diplomatic and security ties, and building a network of partnerships with countries united by the values of freedom, human rights and the rule of law. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) raised concerns about the FCDO Gulf strategy fund. I hope I can reassure him that projects in Bahrain focus on a variety of capacity-building programmes, including programmes supporting the implementation of juvenile justice law, and on human rights and diplomacy training.

The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West raised the issue of political representation in Bahrain. While challenges remain, there has been significant progress over a number of years. With UK support, recent elections saw some positive progress on female representation; eight out of 40 elected politicians are now female.

FCDO Ministers and officials continue to raise concerns with Governments who have a poor track record on upholding human rights. Many colleagues raised concerns about Saudi Arabia’s death penalty policy. My noble Friend Lord Ahmad regularly raises our concerns with Saudi authorities, and he raised specific cases just two weeks ago with the ambassador. We have been clear that the appalling murder of Jamal Khashoggi was a terrible crime, and we have imposed sanctions on 20 Saudis involved in it.

In Ukraine, harrowing reports of atrocities by Vladimir Putin’s forces continue to emerge. The Government will continue to stand with Ukraine in its fight for freedom, and will continue to hold Russia to account. We have committed £220 million of humanitarian support since February, which makes us the third largest bilateral donor. We have also created the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group, alongside our allies from the European Union and the United States.

[Chris Bryant]

Obviously, I agree with a lot of what the Minister is saying, but several Members have asked when the next Government human rights annual report will be produced, because we have not had one for nearly 18 months.

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates my speech. Shall I make him wait? I think I shall have to make him wait.

[Chris Bryant]

That’s not very nice.

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

It is character-building.

[Chris Bryant]

I was nice.

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I do not disagree.

In China, there are continuing reports of human rights violations against Uyghur Muslims and other minorities. There has also been increasing pressure on media freedom and growing assaults on Hong Kong’s autonomy and freedom. We raise our concerns at the highest levels with the Chinese Government. We have imposed sanctions, provided guidance to businesses, introduced enhanced export controls and announced penalties under the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I do not have the exact figures to hand, but we work closely with international groups such as the World Food Programme to find tools to address those incredibly urgent and difficult issues. I will ensure that the right hon. Gentleman gets the details, which I do not have to hand.

The challenge quite rightly set by many colleagues today is that it is difficult to have direct interventions with the Taliban at the moment. However, our UK officials, including the excellent chargé d’affaires of the UK mission to Afghanistan, regularly raise human rights concerns, alongside colleagues in the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, with the Taliban. That includes concerns about breaches of women’s rights, particularly regarding girls’ education, where there is an appalling gap for the whole country that will have such a long tail. We also regularly raise the issue of freedom of expression for members of minority groups. The Government have repeatedly condemned the Taliban’s decision to restrict the rights of women and girls, including through our public statements, through the UN Security Council, and through Human Rights Council resolutions —most recently on 19 October.

Let me respond to the question about Egypt and Alaa Abd El-Fattah raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous). The UK Government are providing consular support to Alaa Abd El-Fattah’s family, and the Foreign Secretary spoke to the family on 2 November. Lord Ahmad has met the family several times, most recently on 5 December. The embassy in Cairo and consular officials continue to engage regularly with the family, and we continue to urgently seek consular access to visit Mr El-Fattah. He is a British citizen. We are challenged by the Egyptians’ claim that their legal process for recognising dual nationality has not been completed, but we continue to press for consular access.

The Government continue to advance a range of wider human rights priority issues. Our annual human rights and democracy reports are an important part of that work, and colleagues will be pleased to know that we will publish the 2021 report imminently.

[Chris Bryant]

Well, that could be forever.

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

Would you be happy with next week?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I am sorry, Mr Paisley; it was just too tempting.

At the end of November, the Foreign Secretary hosted an international ministerial conference on the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative. We brought together survivors and representatives of civil society and countries to share learning and drive a stronger global response that will prevent and respond to sexual violence in conflict. We have also published a new three-year strategy, which is backed up by a £12.5 million funding pool.

In October, the UK co-led a landmark joint statement at the UN that commits to protecting and promoting sexual and reproductive health, rights and bodily autonomy, and 71 countries signed the statement.

[Chris Bryant]

Now that we have had one victory this afternoon, will the Minister explain why the UK has sanctioned some people who ran the Evin prison in Iran but not others, and why we have yet to sanction the Iranian revolutionary guard corps?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we do not discuss sanctions policy because it would risk reducing our ability to bring in the sanctions that we want, but his comments are noted. I am thankful to him for his continuing leadership on the issue across the House. He genuinely has been an important ally in helping us to move forwards.

Earlier in the year, we hosted an international ministerial conference on freedom of religion or belief. I put on record my—and I am sure all colleagues’—thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who speaks with such wisdom and care as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. The conference brought together over 800 faith and belief leaders with human rights experts and 100 Government delegations to agree action to promote and protect freedom of religion or belief. New funding has also been committed to provide legal expertise and support for defenders of freedom of religion or belief.

Mr Paisley, you were not here earlier—Dame Maria was in the Chair—but I know that you would agree with the incredibly generous comments of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), which were followed up by others, about the young women of Iran. They are standing up for a better future that is free of repression, and they deserve our unerring and loud support. On 14 November, we announced 24 new sanctions on leading political and security officials involved in the current crackdown. The bravery of the young women is genuinely humbling, and we will continue to do all that we can to support them. I take note of the hon. Member’s particular identification of the matter.

As a long-standing champion of human rights and freedoms, the United Kingdom Government have not only a duty but a deep commitment to continuing to promote and defend our values of equality, inclusion and respect both at home and abroad. The passionate commitment of all colleagues who spoke today is a critical part of the UK’s leadership and determination to defend and champion human rights across the world, working with friends and like-minded Governments and alongside campaign groups and individuals. The UK Government will continue to work will all those voices to advocate for human rights everywhere.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

The hon. Member is right to point out the amazing scale of the issue, with more than 140,000 Ukrainians having received visas and living in the UK, but I will take away his helpful suggestion and we will see whether that is in place.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Whatever Americans vote for today, I hope they stick with supporting Ukraine over the next few months. May I ask a question I have asked the Minister before—so I hope he knows the answer by now—about the Abramovich money? Chelsea was sold for £3.5 billion many months ago. Has that money yet got to Ukraine, and if not, why not?

[Leo Docherty]

I am very pleased to be able to provide an answer. The money is still frozen in a UK bank account. The administrative work is being done and a licence is being applied for, but we hope it is on the start of its journey to Ukraine to help the people where they need help.

Ukraine

Chris Bryant Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I put on record my thanks to my right hon. Friend for the work she did in her time at the FCDO and for the huge energy she brought to the role. She is absolutely right that we are witnessing the perverse situation where Vladimir Putin is trying to impose even greater hunger on people who are already suffering food insecurity and, in some instances, famine. It is absolutely wrong that he does so, and we call on Russia to resume the Black sea grain deal and to extend it. It is deeply, deeply wrong that the world’s poor are forced to suffer even more because Russia has been and is being unsuccessful on the battlefield. I assure her that we will continue to work with Turkey and others to get the deal back in place.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

One of the most depressing, upsetting things that I have seen in the past few days is Russian conscripts in floods of tears, saying, “I don’t want to be cannon fodder; I’m just going to be cannon fodder.” This is a crime against the Russian people as well. I want to ask about the sanctions regime in the UK, because it seems a bit of an own goal and counterproductive if significant people who are being sanctioned by the UK are allowed to have £60,000 a month and £1.5 million to spend on luxurious lifestyles here. And will the Foreign Secretary update us on what has happened to the £3.5 billion from Abramovich’s sale of Chelsea, which was meant to have gone to the reconstruction of Ukraine by now?

[James Cleverly]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to work with our international counterparts to make sure that our sanctions are as effective as they can be and to continue to put pressure on the people who are funding Russia’s illegal and unprovoked war in Ukraine. I will seek to get further details on the specific points that he raised on sanctions. He is absolutely right that, in addition to the terrible suffering that Ukrainians are experiencing because of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, Russians are also suffering. Mothers who thought that their sons were going to a training exercise have now found out that those soldiers have been killed on the battlefield. Putin has blood on his hands—Ukrainian blood, Russian blood. It is down to him and almost no one else.