Hong Kong

Debate between Dominic Raab and Chuka Umunna

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks; I know that he follows these issues closely. I am going to be a bit careful about commenting on what is really happening in relation to intelligence services from any other country, but one thing I would say is that it is becoming increasingly clear, in relation to some of the counter-protests, that there are criminal gangs involved, and it is not clear entirely what their links may or may not be with the various administrations. I think, for our part, we need to play this in a very straight way, which is to say that there are some legally binding obligations on the Hong Kong Government, and indeed on China, to respect peaceful protest. Frankly, wherever those incursions or erosions or impingements come, we will call them out.

[Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (LD)]

In response to a written question tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), Ministers have confirmed that UK law enforcement agencies provide training to the Hong Kong police. With that in mind, has that training been put through the overseas security and justice assistance risk management system? If so, what assessment, particularly in the light of recent events, has been made of the risk that that training may now be assisting in human rights violations in Hong Kong?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. Of course, one of the reasons that we might take a judgment in relation to Hong Kong, or anywhere in the world, to provide police training is precisely to make sure that policing is done in a proportionate way, and with some restraint where that is called for. So I would not quite accept the premise that he has argued from.

[Chuka Umunna]

An assessment.

[Dominic Raab]

We will constantly consider all assessments in relation to this kind of support. The hon. Gentleman will know that, as the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), stated during his remarks in the House of Commons on 25 June in relation to, for example, crowd control equipment, no further export licences will be granted for that kind of equipment unless we have got absolutely clear assurances that our concerns around human rights and fundamental freedoms are respected and addressed.

Iran

Debate between Dominic Raab and Chuka Umunna

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we need to avoid the suggestion that it is one or other western country taking the initiative and join forces, co-ordinate and send the most effective message back to Iran that if it continues down this road of non-compliance with the JCPOA, there will be significant consequences for the regime.

[Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (LD)]

Clearly there should be consequences short of military action for Iran for these violations; we cannot stand idly by while it disregards international law. But with a view to de-escalation and bringing to an end what is essentially a cold war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, it would be enormously helpful if the US returned to being a signatory to the JCPOA, particularly if we want a revised framework. What specific consequences does the Foreign Secretary envisage for Iran? What is he doing personally to persuade the US to return to being a signatory to the JCPOA, and does he acknowledge that the Saudis themselves must also comply with international law, not least in Yemen?

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman makes a number of good points. I agree with him in relation to Saudi Arabia. We monitor very carefully the situation in relation to international humanitarian law, and we raise those issues with the Saudi Government. We remain committed to the JCPOA, but I do not quite follow his logic, in the sense that we recognise the limits of the JCPOA at the same time. The approach is and should be, as set out by not only President Trump but President Macron, to go for a more ambitious deal which is more effective in relation to not only the nuclear concerns we have but all the other issues that, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises, concern the international community, whether it is dual nationals, freedom of navigation or its recent behaviour in terms of the Aramco attacks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dominic Raab and Chuka Umunna

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I talked to Ms Lam about our short-term concerns about violence and protecting internationally recognised human rights standards, which are of course, as the hon. Lady knows, reflected in the joint declaration. We also had an exchange of views about the fact that there are such widespread protests in Hong Kong that they cannot be put down to a small number who are engaged in violence. There needs to be meaningful political dialogue that touches on people’s deeper concerns about the autonomy of Hong Kong being respected.

[Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (LD)]

The demonstrators have acted largely peacefully, but everyone in the House will have seen the footage of the police acting in an unjustified and extremely violent manner. With that in mind, will the Foreign Secretary commit to ensuring that the UK is not exporting crowd control equipment—water cannons, tear gas and so on—until that independent inquiry has been carried out and adequate safeguards have been put in place, and will he encourage our international partners to do the same?

[Dominic Raab]

This is something we are now discussing more and more with our international partners in all parts of the world. It is not just a European issue; transatlantically there are concerns, too. We have raised the issue, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, of a disproportionate response. We also recognise that there has been violence. The answer and the solution is to reduce tensions and to respect the lawful and peaceful right of protest of the people of Hong Kong, but also to have moves and stepping stones towards the dialogue that will actually resolve the issue.

Brexit Negotiations and No Deal Contingency Planning

Debate between Dominic Raab and Chuka Umunna

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend has read the technical notice and will see that we are keen to make sure that we can provide continuity for Erasmus. In some aspects of the technical notice, in order to avert some of the more significant disruptions we need some good will, collaboration and co-operation from the other side. We will work through that with the EU and will be encouraging it to make sure that in the worst-case scenario there is enough good will, notwithstanding the failure of the negotiations, to make sure that we do the right thing by UK citizens and EU citizens—and that includes our students.

[Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Let us be clear: there is no majority in this House for crashing out of the European Union with no deal, given all the damage that will entail for communities in this country, but if no consensus can be reached in this House on how we leave the EU, how does the Secretary of State envisage resolving that issue if not by referring it back to the people? If he disagrees with me on that, does he at least accept that the Government may have to ask for an extension to the article 50 process so that a deal can be reached?

[Dominic Raab]

No, and I say to the hon. Gentleman, whom I hold in high regard and have debated this issue with during and since the referendum, that even bandying that around would almost invite the worst terms from our EU partners, which I know is not what he or I wish.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Dominic Raab and Chuka Umunna

Committee: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chuka Umunna]

May I ask the Minister two questions? First, in respect of the statement made by the Brexit Secretary this morning, can the Minister confirm that the withdrawal agreement Bill is not guaranteed to come before the House for a vote before exit day? All the statement says is that the Bill will be introduced before exit day.

Secondly, why do the Government find so objectionable the idea of activating, if necessary, the third part of article 50, which allows for the Government to ask for an extension if we run out of time as a result of the many unforeseen practical problems? Ministers are talking from the Dispatch Box as though that third part of article 50 did not exist. Why was it included, if not to allow for an extension if the time expires and we have not achieved what we want?

[Dominic Raab]

I have enjoyed having proper debates with the hon. Gentleman both during the referendum and since. I point out that, as the written ministerial statement makes clear,

“the substantive provisions will only take effect from the moment of exit.”

I know that he wants to drag me down into the territory of the no deal scenario and Parliament’s ability to send the Government back to renegotiate. As a former Foreign Office lawyer who spent six years in that Department and worked on EU matters, in practice I think it unlikely that that would be meaningful in any way, shape or form. The point has been made in the debate that if that looked likely, we would be positively incentivising the EU to give us, and we would end up with, worse terms. [Interruption.] It is not pure speculation; it is grounded on six years of working as a lawyer in the Foreign Office and conducting negotiations. [Interruption.]

Gender Balance on Corporate Boards

Debate between Dominic Raab and Chuka Umunna

Monday 7th January 2013 Commons Chamber

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

The draft directive is unprincipled and counter-productive. It needs to be understood in the context of the progress that has been made towards a more equal society in this country. We are sometimes churlish in acknowledging the strides that we have made, notwithstanding our desire to go further and faster. For example, the UK median full-time gender pay gap has almost halved since 1998. Women in their 20s now earn 3% more than men; women in their 30s earn almost the same. One of the key residual issues—in regard to the pay gap and, arguably, more broadly—appears to arise at the age of 40, when women with young families strive to strike the critical balance between child care and breadwinning.

Even at the top level, however, progress is being made. Figures from Cranfield university, some of which have already been cited, show that the number of female FTSE 100 directors more than doubled between 2000 and 2012. That demonstrates a high rate of change, albeit starting from a low base. Since March 2012, 44% of new FTSE 250 non-executive directors have been women. That is evidence in favour of the argument that the problem is to a large extent an historical hangover that will be corrected over time, although we can argue about how quickly that is likely to happen.

If we look across the piste at this issue, rather than just at what is happening in the boardrooms, we see that, for most modern couples, the juggling act between work and family is not just about women. It is about teamwork and about freeing couples to make their own choices. Let us also recognise that fathers are increasingly doing their bit, with a tenfold rise in stay-at-home dads in 10 years, supporting more and more women to pursue their professional ambitions. A 2011 study by Aviva found that 39% of cohabitating couples now share child care responsibilities equally, or have the father as the main child-carer. It is these grass-roots, bottom-up changes in social attitudes, and not regulatory diktat, that will deliver real change in this country.

In the light of that progress, it is anti-meritocratic in the extreme to suggest that women need quotas to succeed in modern Britain. I have lost count of the number of women who have told me how deeply insulting they find the idea. No one has mentioned this in the debate today. Boardroom appointments, like any other competitive recruitment, should be based on individual talent and hard work, not on positive discrimination. The entrepreneur and “dragon” from “Dragons’ Den”, Julie Meyer, powerfully argues that if someone is on a board because of a quota,

“your voice will be neutered and your advice won’t be heard”.

That is what this directive would achieve; that is what it is about. It would force top FTSE companies faced with equally qualified applicants to positively discriminate in favour of women, with fines and court-ordered annulment of appointments as the sanctions for non-compliance. Let us not kid ourselves, as those on the Opposition Front Bench are trying to do. This is a quota, not a target.

[Mr Umunna]

I have read the hon. Gentleman’s contributions on this topic, and I see that the headline to his recent piece in The Sunday Times was “Sorry, girls, a seat on the board must be earned”. I am sure that many women would find that quite insulting, although I am sure that he did not write it himself. I hear what he is saying about child care—I have said it myself—but does he not accept that there are certain cultural issues at play here? Lord Davies’s report indentified the fact that people seek to select people who are like them to positions on their boards, and that that operates as a barrier to women getting on to those boards.

[Mr Raab]

I note that the hon. Gentleman did not take issue with the substance of my article—[Interruption.] No, listen to my point. He talked about the headline, but, as a media-savvy politician, he well knows that I had no hand in writing it. He also mentioned group-think, and I think that there is a substantive point there, although it might not be the one that he wanted to make. If he will bear with me, I will come to that shortly.

I was about to make the point that the Commission’s notion of equally qualified candidates is an utter fallacy. As anyone in the real business world knows, a rigorous recruitment process will always identify the best, the brightest, the top person for the job, on merit. My wife works for Google, and she was interviewed 10 times, even after they had got rid of all the other candidates. That is a good example of a cutting-edge, high-tech firm testing and testing until it finds the very best candidate.

The directive is not just anti-meritocratic; it would also damage business competitiveness. No one has yet mentioned that. The Government estimate that it would cost listed companies £9 million between now and 2020, with additional ongoing monitoring costs. There is a far greater cost involved, too, but people are just too politically correct to mention it.