Oral Answers to Questions

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

That is a good question. As I said in my original answer, the Foreign Office picks up the issue through bilateral relationships with the countries concerned, through the multilateral institutions and through the Foreign Secretary’s human rights advisory group. This is an issue that we will concentrate on over the period. The reaction that we have had across the House and from those with whom we have had contact indicates that this is a serious issue and it is one that we will take seriously.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

6. What steps he is taking to address human rights abuses in North Korea.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

The UN commission of inquiry report on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea documented appalling human rights violations. The UK played a leading role in ensuring a strong UN Human Rights Council resolution on the issue, which made it clear that there can be no impunity for those responsible.

[Mr Raab]

The report documented a totalitarian state on a par with Nazi Germany, systematically starving, torturing and murdering its own people, and in reply North Korea, backed by China, told the international community to mind its own business. How do we tilt the balance of China’s perception of its national interest so that it stops protecting the war criminals in Pyongyang?

[Mr Swire]

My hon. Friend is right. The Human Rights Council resolution talked about state-sanctioned horrific violations, which it described as

“without parallel in the contemporary world”.

At the UK-China strategic dialogue my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the commission of inquiry report with State Councillor Yang, and we continue to discuss human rights abuses in the DPRK with the Chinese and other parties.

Ukraine

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt).

Two years ago this month, the House called for a UK Magnitsky law, inspired by dissident Russian lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who was tortured to death and posthumously prosecuted on orders from the Kremlin for disclosing the biggest tax fraud in Russian history.

The Magnitsky law is relevant today because it would create a presumption of near automatic UK visa bans and asset freezes for individuals where there is concrete evidence that they had a role in torture or other gross human rights abuses. It should apply not just to Russia but more generally, and it could be used to impose sanctions on those involved in other egregious violations of international law, such as the unlawful use of force that Russia is bullying Ukraine with.

Why should we care about the violation of such basic rules of international life hundreds of miles away? Do we want to become a safe haven for international outlaws—the mafia bosses, the despots and their fixers? Do we want London to be the safety deposit box for their dirty money? The answer from this House must be no. We should ban those crooks and bullies as a matter of course, and prevent them from siphoning their illicit gains through London or British companies.

The Government already have power to impose visa bans and asset freezes, but that power is underused and, frankly, lacks transparency. If someone is deported or extradited from this country, there is a major public debate and huge transparency, yet there is a veil of secrecy over visa bans and the decision-making process concerning them. We still do not know whether any of those linked to the Magnitsky case had been to Britain either around that time or have been since. Likewise, the Serious Fraud Office and HMRC were passed evidence about the criminal money from the Magnitsky cases and links to Britain, but they did precious little.

The links between the Magnitsky case and the current crisis in Ukraine are palpable. There is evidence that three companies cited in documents recovered from Yanukovych’s presidential palace are registered in the UK: Navimax Ventures, Roadfield Capital LLP, and Fineroad Business LLP are holding some of those assets, and it is striking that all three share the same UK address, offshore shell companies, and directors as companies linked to the Magnitsky case. Further reports suggest that Yanukovych used British shell companies to finance the construction of various properties, including the presidential palace, which is part-owned by a UK-registered firm named Blythe (Europe) Ltd. Many of those siphoning their money through Britain are also directly connected to Putin himself, as others have said.

The wider point is that after Iraq and Afghanistan, this country has, in the words of US President John Quincy Adams, grown wary of going abroad

“in search of monsters to destroy”.

The public’s appetite for serving as the world’s policeman is unlikely to return, yet from the Arab spring, through Putin’s Russia to China, we are likely to face more and more cases of serious violations of international law, where the international response is divided, where there is no domestic appetite for military action, and where wholesale economic sanctions may be too blunt a tool. We need better tools for targeted financial sanctions that apply a direct cost to the worst violations of the cardinal rules of international law, whether torture in the Magnitsky case or military aggression in Crimea. The Magnitsky model offers that accountability, a way to deter those who bankroll the likes of Putin, and a pressure point to hit despots where it hurts.

We may not be the world’s policeman, but that does not mean we should let the henchmen of despots or dictators waltz into this country, buy up property, send their kids to school here and enjoy a very British veneer of respectability, as if their outrages back home had never happened.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

I will not give way: Members must forgive me, as I have only three minutes to respond to the debate.

The shadow Foreign Secretary asked about the G8. We have agreed to suspend further planning for a G8 summit in Sochi this summer. I can also tell the House that we have endorsed the United States’ proposal that the G7 will meet in the margins of the nuclear security summit in The Hague early next week and that the March European Council will take a decision on the EU-Russia summit later this week. It is, I think, clear that it cannot be business as usual between the EU and Russia.

The shadow Leader of the House asked about the contact group. Our main objective is to bring the Russian and Ukrainian Governments together to discuss finding a diplomatic solution to the current crisis and to de-escalate the situation. The UK and partners are happy to support and help facilitate such talks, but they must take place without prejudice to Crimea’s future status. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) rightly said that in that sense the Russian proposal is entirely disingenuous.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) talked of the interdependence of European countries with Russia. A number of Members rightly made the point that we are now in a position where, as we consider further economic and trade sanctions, there will be far-reaching costs and consequences for Russia, but there will also be a degree of sacrifice and pain to be taken on our part, and European countries must understand and accept that.

The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) made a persuasive speech. Many Members rightly thoroughly endorsed her view that while we do not have to subscribe precisely to historical analogies, we must not allow aggression to go unanswered, we must not go down the route of appeasement, and we must make sure that that kind of use of force in contravention of international law and the sovereignty of nations is not allowed to succeed.

The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the right hon. Member for Exeter and my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) asked about the Magnitsky case. The Government have long called for a full and transparent investigation into the tragic death of Sergei Magnitsky. We continue to raise the case with the Russian Government at all levels and make clear the importance of ensuring it is brought to a thorough and transparent conclusion. The UK does not intend to introduce a US-style Magnitsky list. We have a robust visa regime that enables us to deny entry to those who commit human rights abuses.

A number of Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), made it clear that the Russian objective is to destabilise and control, but we should understand—the shadow Foreign Secretary was right—that this is coming from a position of weakness on the part of the Russian Government, not from a position of strength. That is why we must take a strong position in response and stand up to bullying behaviour.

Time does not permit me to respond more to other Members, but what is clear from this debate is that there is a determination among Members of this House to uphold international law and to take robust measures in response to flagrant breaches of international norms and international law by the Russian Government.

[Mr Raab]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Speaker]

I think the Leader of the House has concluded his speech.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Ukraine.

Ukraine

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, there is. That is a very important point and it is one of the things we are pursuing at the OSCE. We hope the United Nations representatives will also discuss it in Ukraine. We will continue to pursue that point.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

Two years ago this week the House unanimously endorsed the principle of the Magnitsky sanctions, which are visa bans and asset freezes on those responsible for crimes against humanity in Russia but also beyond. In light of the situation in Ukraine, may I urge my right hon. Friend to look closely at the Magnitsky model of targeted sanctions for those responsible for ordering the military incursions into Ukraine, a clear violation of the cardinal rule of international law?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend has consistently pursued this matter over a long time and he has heard the previous answers of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe about it. We already have the power to refuse entry to the UK to people who we believe are guilty of serious human rights violations, but I say again that I am not excluding any options on what we might decide to do in this situation.

GCHQ

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I feel suitably earthed by my hon. Friend, and by many other Members. It is always worth reminding ourselves again of the indispensable nature of that relationship, although we cannot give many of the details about it. It is a fundamental part—a cornerstone, as one of our hon. Friends said earlier—of maintaining the security of this country.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

I welcome the reassurances given by the Foreign Secretary. I merely seek clarification of one point. If the UK is intercepting e-mails of British citizens, it requires a warrant from the Secretary of State, but that vital check is not in place when communications are received under Prism. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that Prism can be used quite legally to sidestep the level of safeguards that apply to UK-sourced intercept? How do we mitigate that risk?

[Mr Hague]

Again, I do not want anything that I say to be taken as a comment on information that has been leaked over the last few days, but the Intelligence and Security Committee will be able to study the issues raised by it, including the issues raised by my hon. Friend. That is the proper forum. I have already stressed the way in which ministerial and independent oversight applies to our relations with other intelligence agencies, including those in the United States, and my hon. Friend should therefore not jump to any conclusions about the absence of such oversight and authority.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Simmonds]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this important issue. I will travel tomorrow to the African Union summit in Addis Ababa, where one of my main priorities will be to encourage regional countries to sign the memorandum of understanding, which will go into some of the detail that she has mentioned. There are two elements: one is to resolve short-term issues that involve the M23—talks are taking place in Kampala—and the other is to put in place longer-term strategies that will enable the aid and assistance to get in for long-term sustainable solutions in that troubled area.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

Last March this House unanimously voted for a UK-equivalent to the US Sergei Magnitsky law. Ministers undertook to take that up if the US Bill became law. It now has, so when will the Government produce legislative proposals of their own so that we can ban those with blood on their hands from waltzing into Britain?

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

In this country we operate on the basis of making a judgment, not on speculation about applications, but on actual applications for visas. We have a presumption that someone against whom there is evidence of human rights abuses will not be admitted to the United Kingdom, and that is the policy that we intend to continue.

British Expatriates (Punjab)

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate this debate under your chairmanship and wise guidance, Mr Walker, and I wish to highlight an issue that has important implications for British citizens living and working in India. This debate was inspired by one of my constituents, Mrs Tejinder Soor-Hudson, who contacted me in the summer of 2010 to express her concerns about the death of her mother, Mrs Mohinder Kaur Soor, a British national who owned a house in Jalandhar in the Punjab region of India. Jalandhar is part of the so-called NRI—non-resident Indian—belt of the Doaba region. Many Britons of Indian origin own properties there, and it has become an affluent hub of investment.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

I am sorry to intervene at the beginning of the hon. Gentleman’s speech, but this debate concerns not only those who work or live in India, but visitors and people who live in Britain but travel to India, particularly to that region. I must declare an interest because I was originally a resident of Jalandhar, so I know the area well. People and visitors there are afraid for their properties, as well as for other business in the area, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will mention not only people who work there, but also visitors.

[Mr Raab]

As usual, I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments. I am not seeking to narrow the confines of this debate; this is clearly a serious and substantive issue that affects those who live in the area and those who travel to it.

My constituent’s mother, Mrs Soor, travelled to India in June 2009 with the intention of selling her home in Jalandhar. Instead, she was found dead later the same month. Mrs Soor-Hudson contacted me because she is convinced that her mother’s death was organised by a criminal gang in order to facilitate the theft of her property. Worse still, she believes that the Indian authorities were complicit in a cover-up of that appalling murder.

The objective evidence is striking. The resulting post-mortem, carried out on tissue samples from Mrs Soor’s body, concluded that she had been the victim of insecticide poisoning. That, however, was in stark contradiction to the official police report, which stated that no poison had been detected in Mrs Soor’s body, which was then cremated before the results of the post-mortem were made available. On top of that, the official police report did not give any indication about what—if any—investigation was carried out at the home where the body was discovered.

The most basic details that one might reasonably expect from the scene of a suspicious death, such as what time the police entered the premises, whether there was evidence of forced entry, and the condition in which the body was found, were not properly recorded. Subsequently, Mrs Soor-Hudson discovered that a key suspect in the case is related by marriage to an officer working under a deputy commissioner, who may well have the means and motivation to influence proceedings.

There is ample evidence to suggest corruption in this case. Mrs Soor-Hudson was told that if she wanted the suspect brought in for questioning, she had the option to pay an unidentified individual to make false statements about that suspect. That individual would then commit perjury if necessary. Unbelievably, that suggestion was even endorsed by my constituent’s then solicitor, although I hasten to add that Mrs Soor-Hudson, of course, rejected any notion of becoming involved in such improper or criminal behaviour. However, it is not difficult to see why she believes that such a dark shadow of suspicion lies across the local police investigation into her mother’s death.

I met Mrs Soor-Hudson at my constituency surgery at the beginning of the year in order to get an update on the case. She is resolute and passionately committed to uncovering the facts about what happened to her mother in June 2009, and after a number of years of bureaucratic frustration, we appear to be making some initial modest progress in the investigation. As the Minister will be aware, over the past 18 months I have written several times to Foreign Office Ministers on behalf of my constituent, and I wish to thank the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for its help and assistance in pursuing Mrs Soor-Hudson’s concerns in this distressing case, and for taking it to the Indian authorities via the high commission.

As I understand it, a fresh inquiry into the matter has now been ordered by the commissioner of police, who will report to the Indian high commission in due course. I am not aware of any progress beyond that initial statement of intent, but belated though that is, it is a welcome development even if it is a point of departure rather than of arrival. Will the Minister undertake to do everything within his power to press the Indian authorities to ensure that a proper, robust, rigorous and independent investigation is carried out into this tragic case?

While particularly distressing to the family, this case is all the more alarming because, as the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) pointed out, it is by no means an isolated incident. A number of other hon. Members have become involved in similar cases that have affected their own constituents, and there is every reason to believe that those cases are only the tip of the iceberg. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) will soon attest, there was also the horrific murder of Surjit Kaur, a 67-year-old mother of three from Chatham, who was kidnapped and beheaded in March last year while visiting the Punjab region. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his tenacity in raising that terrible case with the Prime Minister, and for his support in helping Mrs Kaur’s family get an independent investigation into that appalling crime, and a measure of justice.

Sadly, there are many other cases of similar nature. Mr Mohan Singh Biring, a Leicester businessman who had gone to India to oversee a property deal, was murdered—again in the Punjab—after a vicious and unprovoked attack in August 2005 by a gang wielding baseball bats and iron bars. Two men were jailed for life for his murder, but only after intervention from the local Member of Parliament, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), and I pay tribute to his efforts. Mr Charanjit Singh ran a business in Plumstead but was shot dead while visiting Jalandhar in 2009, the apparent victim of a financial dispute over a property purchase that had taken place in England.

Those are tragic cases in their own right, but they also tell a wider story and demonstrate a broader trend. A worrying number of murders and other serious crimes are being committed against British citizens of Indian origin, the so-called NRIs, and visitors to the area, particularly in the Punjab region. There are major concerns regarding the allegations of incompetence and—let’s face it—corruption within the Indian authorities, which seems to feature in so many of these cases. I commend the support that the Foreign Office has given to the victims and their families, but I feel that we must do more to protect British citizens, and others, who are travelling to or residing in the Punjab region.

What advice does the FCO offer to British non-resident Indians who are travelling to or living in the Punjab region but who may have real and objective grounds to fear for their safety? What is the FCO’s support mechanism for dealing with cases such as those I have described today? Does the Minister feel that that support mechanism is adequate, or is it time to review the current arrangements?

I am, of course, acutely aware that primary responsibility for investigating crimes committed overseas must rest with the police and the judicial authorities in that country. However, we can work with India on a bilateral basis to keep our citizens in that region safe from harm. What, if any, formal arrangements are currently in place with the Indian Government to facilitate such a co-operative approach? Is any or could any of our bilateral aid be focused on co-operation? How does the Minister think that we can work with the Indian authorities to ensure that we offer our citizens, and others travelling to the region, the same protection when they travel abroad that Indian nationals would rightly expect to receive in this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Browne]

Perhaps I should not be drawn on that specific case. All the cases that have been raised both inside and outside this debate suggest that the Indian justice system is failing to provide satisfactory justice to a number of citizens and that must surely give the Indian authorities cause for reflection.

[Mr Raab]

The Minister is treating this in a serious and methodical way. I understand his point about resources. We know that there was a dumbing down of bilateral relations under the previous Government and that this Government are trying to address that. May I just challenge his strict approach and focus on sovereignty and the idea that the investigation and the approach of the justice system must be left solely to the domestic authorities in India? Under the Vienna convention on consular relations and as a matter of India’s own human rights obligations on torture or fair trials guarantees and given the endemic corruption that he has rather lightly alluded to, we have every right and it is every bit the British Government’s business to raise these issues and to press the Indian authorities to behave properly.

[Mr Browne]

I am grateful for that intervention. I certainly accept that we have a legitimate role, which we exercise with vigour and enthusiasm, to press on countries around the world our desire to see them operate an effective and balanced justice system. Where we feel that improvements can be made, we make that point. However, it is worth pointing out that British police have no jurisdiction to investigate crimes overseas. If a bereaved family suspects that British nationals were involved in the planning or committing of a crime, I urge them to report their concerns to their local UK police force. There may be occasions when it is appropriate for that force to act, but it is not the decisive and final actor, because that responsibility rests with the host country. FCO officials have met their Indian counterparts to discuss the wider issues that we are discussing today, and we will certainly look for opportunities for future co-operation. As the Minister, I give that undertaking personally, but I also make it on behalf of our high commissioner and his team in Delhi and in other posts across India.

Consular officials in India and in London will continue to monitor Mrs Soor-Hudson’s case and will keep her informed as and when we receive updates from the Indian authorities. I am aware that Mrs Soor-Hudson is concerned about the financial implications of continuing to work on her case in India. Although I appreciate the pressure that that concern must bring, I am afraid that the FCO cannot provide her with financial assistance in that regard. It is not our policy and, as I pointed out to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) a few moments ago, given that there are literally tens of millions of overseas visits by British nationals each year, it is not financially viable for us to provide that service in all cases where it might be thought desirable.

The FCO’s role in such cases is to ensure that the family receive information about local police and legal procedures. Where there are concerns that the investigation is not being carried out in line with local procedures or there are justified complaints about discrimination against the person who has died or their family, the FCO can make appropriate representations to the local authorities.

To summarise, I am confident that consular officials are doing all that they can, within the remits of our consular assistance policy, to assist Mrs Soor-Hudson in her efforts to establish what happened to her mother. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton and all hon. Members are assured that we will continue to raise her case with the Indian authorities at the appropriate times.

The British Government take our consular responsibilities extremely seriously; consular responsibilities are one of our three foreign policy priorities. Although we have a long-standing and close relationship with India, based on a broad range of mutual interests, we will continue to push our consular interests in support of British citizens in India without fear, because we see this as an important area for the Indian authorities to focus on when British nationals and their MPs feel that a shortcoming needs to be addressed.

Question put and agreed to.

Sergei Magnitsky

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the passage of the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Bill through the United States Senate, the Bill to condemn corruption and impunity in Russia in the case and death of Sergei Magnitsky in the House of Commons in Canada, the approval of the resolution of the Dutch Parliament concerning Sergei Magnitsky dated 29 June 2011, and paragraphs I and 20 to 21 of the resolution of the European Parliament of 14 December 2011 on the EU-Russia Summit; and calls on the Government to bring forward equivalent legislative proposals providing for a presumption in favour of asset freezes and travel bans for officials of the Russian state and other countries, wherever the appropriate UK authorities have collected or received evidence that establishes that such officials:

(a) were involved in the detention, physical abuse or death of Sergei Magnitsky;

(b) participated in efforts to conceal the legal liability for the detention, abuse or death of Sergei Magnitsky;

(c) committed the frauds discovered by Sergei Magnitsky; or

(d) are responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture or other gross violations of human rights committed in Russia or any other country against any individual seeking to obtain, exercise, defend or promote basic and internationally recognised human rights, including those set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966.

I first thank the Backbench Business Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), for granting the debate, and the sponsors of the motion representing all three main parties, who include five former Foreign Ministers. I also commend the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who has consistently raised the matter.

The debate was inspired by the brutal death of Sergei Magnitsky, a young Russian lawyer. Between 2007 and 2008, while working for Hermitage Capital, he exposed the biggest tax fraud in Russian history, worth $230 million. His legal team was then subjected to varying forms of intimidation. While other lawyers left Russia, fearing for their lives, Magnitsky stayed on to make a stand for the rule of law in Russia and strike a blow against the breathtaking corruption there. That bravery cost him his life.

Magnitsky was arrested in 2008 on trumped-up charges of tax evasion. In Putin’s Kafkaesque Russian justice system, the very tax investigators that Magnitsky had exposed turned up to arrest him. He was dumped in a filthy, freezing and overcrowded cell for eight months and fed putrid meals such as porridge with insect larvae and rotten fish, if and when he was fed at all. In such squalid conditions, he suffered acutely painful bladder and pancreatic problems. Eventually, a year after his arrest, he was transferred to hospital for emergency surgery, but when he arrived he was not treated at all. Instead, he was handcuffed to a bed and beaten by riot police. Doctors found him an hour later, lying on the floor. He was dead.

The Russian authorities blocked all attempts to bring those responsible to justice. Sixty people have been implicated in the persecution of Sergei Magnitsky, his client or in the original tax fraud, and they have been named by the US Commission on Security and Co-operation in Europe. They include senior officials such as the former deputy Interior Minister and the deputy prosecutor-general. The Moscow Public Oversight Commission, a watchdog mandated under Russian law, concluded that Magnitsky was tortured to death, but all the suspects were cleared by Russian investigators, some have been promoted and some decorated. In fact, the only people on trial are Magnitsky’s employer and Magnitsky himself, who is now the subject of Russia’s first ever posthumous prosecution.

Sergei Magnitsky joins that noble Russian tradition of dissidents who stood up for the rule of law, democratic reform and free speech—the tradition of Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov through to Anna Politkovskaya—but like many others who have been silenced for defending just causes throughout the world, Magnitsky stood for more than just Russia. Such people include Chinese human rights lawyer, Gao Zhisheng, tortured for defending property rights and free speech and currently held incommunicado at an unknown location; photographer Zahra Kazemi, arrested for taking pictures of the families of missing protesters in Iran, who gathered outside Tehran’s notorious Evin prison—she was jailed, tortured and beaten to death; and Hamza al-Khateeb, who was arrested during the Syrian protests last year. A month later his mutilated body was returned to his family. He was just 13 years old.

This motion is about keeping the flame of freedom alive for those brave souls. It calls on the Government to produce legislative proposals similar to the Bill going through the United States Senate with bipartisan support. It targets Sergei Magnitsky’s tormentors, who left a documentary trail of their crimes, but it would apply wherever there was evidence that a state official anywhere was responsible for torture, extrajudicial killing or some other gross human rights abuse, or was complicit in covering up such activities.

The evidence would need to be independently assessed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, by the Attorney-General or by some other appropriate authority. The designated person would be named and shamed, a stain on any regime that left him or her in post and a spur for reformers at home; they would be banned from entering Britain; and their assets here would be frozen. Of course there would have to be due process to allow anyone to challenge their designation, and the Government could make exemptions on the grounds of national interest, but the Secretary of State would have to publicly justify exempting anyone—a safeguard against misuse.

We would in effect be creating a presumption that targeted sanctions be imposed on those responsible for the worst international crimes against those who defend the freedoms we take for granted in this House and in this country. We would be sending a clear message that those responsible for such atrocities should not be able to fly into Britain, buy up property in Knightsbridge or head off down the King’s road for a bit of light Christmas shopping, as if nothing had ever happened.

This motion is not anti-Russia. It is pro-Russia. It is an unequivocal affirmation of our solidarity with those Russians who are suffering for having had the temerity to question the mafia-ridden practices of Putin’s nasty regime.

[Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful case. Does he accept that one of the problems in Russia is that although those in positions of leadership can perpetrate crimes against individuals by using the full undercover agencies of the state with absolute impunity, the one thing they most value and would not want to lose is the freedom to travel and to use their money, often stolen from the Russian people, in a life of luxury outside Russia?

[Mr Raab]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that explanation of and rationale for what we are trying to achieve. It is precisely that. We are not seeking to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction by depriving anyone of their freedom; we are merely saying, “You cannot come into this country if you have that kind of blood on your hands.” So the motion is not anti-Russia, but pro-Russia.

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Raab]

I will not, because time is limited and many others want to speak.

The motion is an expression of solidarity not only with freedom fighters around the world, but with legislators in the United States, in Canada, in the Netherlands, in Sweden, and now in Italy, who are also scrutinising legislation or calling for Government action to hold to account those responsible for these terrible crimes.

Let me be clear about this. If we enacted this law, it would not end impunity overnight in Russia or anywhere else in the world, for that matter, but it would help to puncture it. It would express Britain’s disgust and our resolve not to turn a blind eye to such heinous crimes, and it would honour those such as Sergei Magnitsky, who died struggling to keep the flickering light of freedom in his country alive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Raab]

I rise for a second time to wind up this timely debate, in which we have heard 12 powerful speeches from right hon. and hon. Members both sides of the House. The shadow Europe Minister, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), raised the wider human rights situation in Russia. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) spoke of the state abuse of the Russian justice system. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) talked powerfully about the deep link between the Russian Government at the highest levels and organised crime. The right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) called for sharper diplomatic tools to address the situation and create some accountability. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) talked about the damage corruption is doing to Russia itself. We heard other powerful and eloquent speeches, for example from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), who talked about his recent experience of monitoring elections, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), and my hon. Friends the Members for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) and for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley).

I thank the Minister for his welcome update on the Sergei Magnitsky case and what the British Government are doing about it. I am delighted that they share the instincts that underpin the motion and are shared by so many of its sponsors. I understand that it might be tempting to wait and see what happens with the US Bill as it goes through the Senate, but I hope that the debate might spur the Government to take a lead. I hope that the Minister will heed the will of the House and consider the legislative proposals that have been talked about in the context of the forthcoming Queen’s Speech, so that we can take a stand against the henchmen of tyrants and despots and deny them the privilege of setting foot on British soil or buying up British property, as we would a terrorist or gangster. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes the passage of the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Bill through the United States Senate, the Bill to condemn corruption and impunity in Russia in the case and death of Sergei Magnitsky in the House of Commons in Canada, the approval of the resolution of the Dutch Parliament concerning Sergei Magnitsky dated 29 June 2011, and paragraphs I and 20 to 21 of the resolution of the European Parliament of 14 December 2011 on the EU-Russia Summit; and calls on the Government to bring forward equivalent legislative proposals providing for a presumption in favour of asset freezes and travel bans for officials of the Russian state and other countries, wherever the appropriate UK authorities have collected or received evidence that establishes that such officials:

(a) were involved in the detention, physical abuse or death of Sergei Magnitsky;

(b) participated in efforts to conceal the legal liability for the detention, abuse or death of Sergei Magnitsky;

(c) committed the frauds discovered by Sergei Magnitsky; or

(d) are responsible for extrajudicial killings, torture or other gross violations of human rights committed in Russia or any other country against any individual seeking to obtain, exercise, defend or promote basic and internationally recognised human rights, including those set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the debate you kindly answered a question about a communication from the Russian ambassador. If you feel that it would be suitable to invite the ambassador to a reception, many of us would like to come and listen to what he has to say about the matter we have just discussed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

By happenstance, I was at the village and saw the obstruction of access take place. It was an unannounced visit as far as the authorities were concerned. Effectively, an Armco barrier was built across the access road that leads to a major highway. It was not immediately clear where the alternative access could be, except via a hill with an extremely steep gradient behind the village. That very lunchtime, I was able to make representations to the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister, Danny Ayalon, about the circumstances. This is precisely the sort of thing that raises concerns among the international community and makes it difficult for the Bedouin in that area to feel secure.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

9. What steps he plans to take in response to recent reports of human rights abuses by the Government of Russia.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

We will continue to raise concerns about human rights with Russia at ministerial and official levels. We shall sponsor a number of observers at the forthcoming Russian presidential election that is due in March.

[Mr Raab]

I thank the Minister for that answer. With the US Senate due to approve the bipartisan Magnitsky Bill, which will impose mandatory visa bans and asset freezes on those responsible for gross human rights abuses, and with similar proposals in the Netherlands and Canada, will he look at the case for bringing forward an equivalent Bill in this House?

[Mr Lidington]

As the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) in Westminster Hall the other day, if the American Bill, which I understand is at committee stage in the Senate, eventually becomes law, we will look closely to see whether there are lessons on which we might draw. My hon. Friend will know that we have powers in this country to ban any person from coming to the United Kingdom if there are grounds for concern about their character, conduct or associations.

Sergei Magnitsky

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to initiate this debate under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. Today I want to deal with the tragedy of a lawyer who worked closely with and for a British company—and its British chairman who is present in Westminster Hall—and who was done to death under the most atrocious circumstances. If a British lawyer working for an overseas firm had been arrested and so mistreated in the UK, all hell would break loose. This tragedy, however, happened in today’s Russia, and my charge is that the British Government have been singularly lax in dealing with the case, and lacking in adequate and necessary measures, not only to obtain justice but to send a clear message that putting to death a lawyer who represents British interests is not cost free. I do not claim a new policy of “advocatus Britannicus sum”, but the idea of civilisation and the rule of law, as well as the clear rules in the European convention on human rights to which Russia is a signatory, provide a special place for lawyers to represent their clients without facing prosecution or persecution unto death.

The details of the tragic death of Sergei Magnitsky are somewhat well known. Mr Magnitsky was the Moscow lawyer of British businessman William Browder. Mr Browder was born American and is the grandson of Earl Browder who was leader of the Communist party in the United States during the 1930s until he fell out with Stalin in 1945. Earl Browder’s grandson decided that capitalism was a better bet than communism, and over a decade beginning in the 1990s he built up the largest investment fund in Russia with billions of dollars of assets. However, not all went well for young Browder when he started publicly complaining about endemic corruption in Russian state companies, and in 2006, President Putin expelled him from Russia as a “threat to national security”. I would like to recommend to the House the remarkable documentary by Ms Norma Percy on the early Putin years. It will be shown on BBC 2 next Thursday and it illustrates the interface between politics, state bureaucracy and business.

Once the Putin regime decides that it does not like a business leader, it does not operate in half measures, and when it decides to turn on someone, it does so in spectacular fashion. After Browder’s expulsion, Putin’s tax police raided his offices in Moscow, seized all his company stamps and seals and stole his investment holding companies. Browder hired a bright young Russian lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, to try to stop this continuing state-sanctioned crime. Magnitsky investigated all the police actions and discovered that Browder’s companies had not only been stolen but had subsequently been used by the tax police to fraudulently refund from Government coffers the $230 million in taxes that Browder’s firm had paid in the previous year.

Magnitsky did what any lawyer would do on behalf of his client: he filed criminal complaints and testified on the involvement of the tax police in that enormous theft. That was a big mistake. He was subsequently arrested by the same tax police officers against whom he had testified, and blamed for the fraud himself. The scams that the Putinocracy arranges are not just for a few high-up people—everyone gets a cut. To shut him up, Magnitsky was flung into one of the roughest prisons in Russia and essentially held a hostage. Because the Russian state could not get at Mr Browder, who, as a British citizen was now safe in London with his family, they went for his lawyer to send a signal to other firms operating in Russia saying that when the tax police—or anyone else demanding a cut—knock at the door, co-operation is wiser than insisting on the rule of law.

Sergei Magnitsky was brutally treated in prison. He was tortured for 358 days by sleep deprivation, freezing temperatures, the withholding of food and other torments left over from the Stalin era of torturing people whom the Kremlin did not like. After six months of such treatment he became extremely sick and was systematically denied any medical treatment. Eventually, Magnitsky’s beleaguered body began to give way and his condition became critical. Instead of sending him to the emergency room, his jailers put him in an isolation cell and allowed eight riot guards with rubber batons to beat him until he was dead. In November 2009, he was found lying in a pool of his own urine, dead on the cell floor at the age of 37.

Since then, the Russian Government have tried to cover up the cause of Magnitsky’s death, and a network of named officials in the tax, police, public prosecution and prison departments of the Russian state has been identified as part of that cover-up. Many of those involved have bought property abroad at prices that would be impossible on their declared salaries.

None of those facts are secret and they have been reported by journalists in Moscow, as have the details and names of those involved. The names have been listed by US Senators, Congressmen and Congresswomen, and by parliamentarians in some EU member states and in the European Parliament. The Magnitsky affair has also been the subject of a Council of Europe report. I, together with a number of right hon. and hon. Members, as well as Peers, have asked questions in Parliament and sought to highlight this assault on a respected British business, and show the terrible insight that the Magnitsky death gives us into how Russia operates. I had the luck to secure this debate, but that could have happened to any number of interested colleagues who support me on this affair, some of whom are present in the Chamber.

Vasily Aleksanyan was another young lawyer, and former general counsel to Yukos. In 2006, Mr Aleksanyan was arrested as part of the persecution of those involved in Yukos. He rapidly developed serious health conditions due to AIDS-related illnesses, but was denied antiretroviral treatment or chemotherapy in prison. In 2008, the European Court of Human Rights intervened and ordered Russian authorities to release Aleksanyan. The damage done to his body during his detention was too great, however, and he died last year as a direct result of the denial of treatment in jail.

That is the Magnitsky story. We must now turn to the Whitehall story and ask the Minister why the Foreign Office and Home Office have been so lax in taking up the Magnitsky case, and unwilling to take action against the named officials who were involved in theft via the tax system and the crime that Magnitsky sought to reveal. Will the Minister explain why some of the principals involved have been allowed to enter the UK without let or hindrance? Lieutenant Colonel Artem Kuznetsov from the Russian Interior Ministry was named in Magnitsky’s testimony as having orchestrated the theft of the Hermitage fund’s investment companies. Kuznetsov was also accused of perpetrating the $230 million tax fraud, as well as Magnitsky’s false arrest and persecution in detention. Public records—let me stress that—show that shortly after the $230 million was paid from the Russian Treasury, Kuznetsov’s family acquired $3 million worth of high-end apartments in Moscow, land plots outside the city and several luxury cars. Kuznetsov travelled to the UK twice in 2006.

Major Pavel Karpov, also from the Russian Interior Ministry, was named by Magnitsky as a close accomplice of Kuznetsov. Karpov initiated the criminal case against Mr Magnitsky that was used as a pretext for his false arrest. Public records in Russia—again, I stress that—show that Karpov’s family acquired $1.3 million in real estate assets and luxury cars following the completion of the fraud. Mr Karpov travelled to the UK four times between 2006 and 2007.

Dmitry Klyuev is the owner of Universal Savings bank through which the $230 million proceeds of the fraud were laundered. He was previously involved in a number of other tax-refund frauds, and in 2006 was convicted of a $1.6 billion fraud relating to the attempted theft of shares from Mikhailovsky GOK, a Russian iron ore company. Mr Klyuev also travelled to the United Kingdom at least five times in 2008. As I have said, all these names are on the record in Russia and on Capitol hill in Washington.

The following Government officials also played a role in the tax fraud that Magnitsky uncovered, his subsequent arrest and imprisonment, the persecution of Hermitage lawyers and executives, Magnitsky’s continued detention, the denial of medical care, torture, the denial of fair hearings, and finally his death in custody and the subsequent cover up: from the courts service, Judge Yelena Stashina, Judge Alexei Krivoruchko, Olga Egorova; from the Interior Ministry, Mr Oleg Silchenko, Oleg Urzhumtsev, Alexei Anichin, Oleg Logunov, Boris Kibis, General Major Tatiana Gerasimova; from the FSB—the Russian secret service and the successor to the KGB—Mr Viktor Voronin; from the tax offices, Olga Stepanova and Elena Khimina; from the prison services, Dmitri Komnov, Fikhet Tagiev and Yuri Kalinin; and from the General Prosecutor’s Office, Andrey Pechegin.

I ask the Minister to agree that those people should now be banned from entering the UK and their names circulated via Interpol and Europol. We need to sharpen up our diplomatic tools by declaring that the functionaries linked to Magnitsky’s death are unwelcome as visitors in Britain, thus copying what the US State Department has done under pressure from the US Congress.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacShane]

I think that I may just have hinted at that.

[Mr Raab]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Does he agree that in addition to highlighting the tragic case before us, it is time for a British equivalent of the US Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act, which would hold to account more generically foreign officials responsible for grotesque human rights abuses, through travel bans and asset freezes, and also that, as in the US, this a matter not just for the Executive, but for Members of this House and for Parliament?

[Mr MacShane]

I would support that. Perhaps some right hon. and hon. Members present might combine to ask the Backbench Business Committee for a longer debate, which might allow a slight pause for breath and more development of some of these themes. In particular, it would show the Russian authorities that this is a cross-party affair, with support from a considerable number of Members of both Houses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bellingham]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I agree with what she says, and we will ensure that that is taken up at the highest level.

In addition to the Magnitsky case, it is important that the Russian Government fully investigate the unresolved murders of journalists and human rights defenders. We remain concerned at the lack of progress in prosecuting those responsible for the 2009 murder of Natalya Estemirova. The murder of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya remains one of the most worrying cases of recent years. More than five years after her tragic death, the case still remains to be concluded. In October, Russian prosecutors announced new charges against suspects allegedly involved in organising her murder. The Prime Minister raised this case with President Medvedev during his recent visit to Moscow, calling on the Russian authorities to take further steps to bring all perpetrators to justice. There is a low success rate in investigating and prosecuting these crimes, thus perpetuating the perception of impunity, which undermines freedom of expression and human rights in Russia.

[Mr Raab]

I thank the Minister for giving way again. He is eloquently making the case for the kind of legislation that the US wants to enact. He mentioned the Bill that has gone through Congress. It looks likely to become law and is unlikely to be vetoed by the President. Given the evidence that he has adduced here before us today, would he be open to that kind of Bill being introduced in the House of Commons?

[Mr Bellingham]

If that Bill gets through Congress, we will certainly look at it very carefully. We will look at whether there are any appropriate lessons for this country, and we will consult parliamentary colleagues from all parts of the House. I cannot give any guarantees, but we need to watch very carefully to see whether the Bill becomes law in the US.

In conclusion, I hope that what I have covered today illustrates the Government’s concern and action, both on the wider issue of human rights in Russia and on the specific case of ensuring justice for Sergei Magnitsky. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said:

“Human rights are part of our national DNA and will be woven deeply into the decision-making processes of our foreign policy at every stage”.

That applies to our dealings with Russia as much as with any country. We will continue to engage Russia on human rights through bilateral contacts, including our annual human rights dialogue, which will take place in London this year—in the summer, we hope—as well as through multilateral channels, such as the EU, the UN and the Council of Europe.

I thank the right hon. Member for Rotherham for bringing Parliament’s attention to this issue and giving me the chance to explain the Government’s position. We will continue to push for the respect of human rights and the rule of law in Russia and achieving justice for Sergei Magnitsky.

Council of Europe (UK Chairmanship)

Dominic Raab Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way, because he has had one bite of the cherry and I want to make progress. I do not want to be sidetracked into a further debate about Cyprus, which I am sure the House will have an opportunity to discuss in the future.

We have a unique opportunity to secure improvements to the Court, to enhance its credibility, the rule of law and the protection of human rights and to ensure that the legitimate decisions and traditions of national courts and legal systems are properly respected.

Hon. Members will be only too aware of the domestic backdrop to the programme, about which there is great interest abroad. The House will know, too, that the Government have established an independent commission with a remit to investigate the creation of a UK Bill of Rights, which would incorporate and build on all our obligations under the convention. I hope that the commission’s work will assist in bringing clarity to an area of contentious debate, and indeed it has already advised the Government very usefully on Court reform, but to avoid any doubt let me reaffirm that in the Government’s mind there is no question of the UK leaving the European convention on human rights. The coalition’s programme for government makes very clear our commitment to the convention and to the values it embodies.

The Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), commented on this subject very eloquently on Monday just gone, saying:

“The United Kingdom signed the Convention on the first day it was open for signature...The United Kingdom was the first country to ratify the Convention the following year. The United Kingdom will not be the first country to leave the Convention.”

I have spoken at length about Court reform, but our goals for our chairmanship touch on other significant matters, and I would like to close by turning briefly to them.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for setting out the policy so clearly, and I have had an opportunity to look at the priorities and objectives of the chairmanship. He mentions the Bill of Rights commission’s interim advice, and it contains some good recommendations on Court reform, particularly those based on the model of the International Criminal Court, whereby Strasbourg ought to look at only the most serious violations or fundamental freedoms. Is that the mandate which the Government will look to achieve with their European partners?

[Mr Lidington]

We take all the independent commission’s advice very seriously, and we look forward to the fruits of its later discussions, but, certainly, strengthening the principle of subsidiarity in the Court’s work is central to the programme of action that we envisage during our chairmanship.

In addition to the issues that I have already covered, we will continue actively to support Secretary-General Jagland’s programme of reform of the Council of Europe as an organisation. He has made good progress, including a reduced and more focused set of programmes, and I spoke to him this week about priorities for the final stages of the reform programme.

In particular, I am pleased to say that the UK has succeeded in persuading the 46 other member states to keep the Council of Europe budget under strict control, with zero real growth for the next two years, subject to strict conditions on wider efficiency reforms and any inflation increase remaining below 2%. We will work with our partners in the Council of Europe to promote an open internet, not only on access and content, but on freedom of expression. That is also a key policy priority, and one of the issues to be addressed at the London conference on cyber-space, which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will host on 1 November. Our chairmanship is an ideal opportunity to advance our objectives through international co-operation, and to this end we will seek to ensure that the Council of Europe’s internet governance strategy is adopted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Raab]

I agree that we should not automatically, in a knee-jerk way, blame Strasbourg for everything. However, has the hon. Lady seen the comments by the Lord Chief Justice, which read:

“I would like to say that maybe Strasbourg shouldn’t win and doesn’t need to win”?

Does she accept, as the Lord Chief Justice does, that there is a legitimate debate about the expansion of human rights through judicial legislation?

[Emma Reynolds]

I do accept that, and I think it is a debate that we will have today.

Although modernisation and reform of the Council of Europe are needed, the values that underpinned its formation and membership are just as valid today as they were in 1950, and we should all be proud of those values.