Exiting the European Union (Sanctions)

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Helen Goodman

Monday 29th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

We do not intend to divide the House on these statutory instruments, because we believe that in the event of a no-deal Brexit it would be right to roll over these sanctions in their current form, which is what we are providing for. However, the papers before us include some detailed descriptions of the sanctions and explanatory memorandums setting out their purpose—what the SIs are intended to do and why—so I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions. I will structure it in a slightly different way, because I think the order on the Order Paper is completely illogical, but I will begin by discussing chemical weapons.

The use of chemical weapons is prohibited, and the chemical weapons convention covering these sanctions is now 20 years old. In general, the convention has been a significant success, because 97% of the stockpiles of chemical weapons have been destroyed. However, we want to think about ways in which we can strengthen enforcement of the convention. Obviously, the sanctions are part of that enforcement mechanism. The current sanctions apply entirely to people from Syria or to Russians who have worked for the GRU—that is because of their involvement in the Salisbury incident. On the strengthening of enforcement, in addition to these and possible further sanctions, have the Government considered requesting challenge inspections, which are used if one country thinks another country has not been telling the truth about its stockpiles? It is possible to request such inspections through the UN Security Council. Given the fact that there is evidence of the use of chemical weapons in Syria, Malaysia, Indonesia—to which I shall come—and Great Britain, might the Government like to think about requesting challenge inspections?

I have a technical question for the Minister. According to Human Rights Watch, chemical weapons have been used 85 times in the Syria conflict. As I said, the sanctions relating to chemical weapons and Syria cover Russians and Syrians, but it is believed that Daesh has used some chemical weapons in Syria, and Daesh is currently not covered by the sanctions at all. Why is that, and what consideration have the Government given to the matter? Is it simply not necessary because Daesh is a proscribed terrorist group, or is there some other reason? Does the Minister anticipate changing the chemical weapons regime when we have an independent sanctions policy?

I am extremely concerned about allegations that white phosphorus was used in West Papua in December 2018. I have met a human rights defender who has a lot of detailed information about the allegation, which is extremely disappointing because the human rights situation in Indonesia has improved markedly over the past 20 years. The use of white phosphorus by the security services would obviously be a breach of the chemical weapons convention. If the Minister or his officials do not have the answer now, please could they write to me on the matter?

Let me turn to the statutory instrument on Syria. The current sanctions that the Minister proposes to roll over cover 277 individuals and 51 entities—he mentioned oil, luxury goods and so on. Will the Minister update the House on the effectiveness of the sanctions and on what other steps the Government are taking to reduce the terrible ongoing conflict in Syria? When and how does the Minister think a negotiated political solution with the consent of the Syrian people is going to be achieved?

I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to what seems to be a hole in the Syria sanctions. They are meant to cover members of President Assad’s close family and his close associates, but it has come to light that his niece has been living and studying in the UK for some time. She was able to gain entry to this country, to enrol on not just one but two university courses, and to fund her stay, all apparently without the authorities noticing. Many people will be extremely angry to hear about that. The immigration regulations in this country are now quite tight, and people often come to Members when they are about to be thrown out by the Border Agency, yet the niece of President Assad, one of the most serious serial human rights abusers, who has used chemical weapons against his own people, has been allowed to live peacefully and happily in this country and to secure her education here. That cannot be right. What does the Minister think about it and what is he going to do about it?

Let me turn to Belarus, as there are obviously connections between the sanctions against Russians and the Belarus sanctions. In respect of human rights in Europe, Belarus is currently in the deep freeze, but the sanctions are quite narrow, covering only four people. Does the Minister think the sanctions are proving to be effective in affecting the behaviour of the Belarus Government? As he said, evidence of human rights violations in Belarus continues to come in. In 2016, the EU decided to lift sanctions against 170 people, but the ongoing human rights situation in Belarus is extremely serious. The Minister said that the sanctions were related only to the disappearance of four individuals; why were those four particular episodes the ones on which the Government and the European Union alighted in respect of their sanctions policy? I am pleased that, being the Minister for Europe, the Minister knows a lot about Belarus and will be able to tell the House what is going on. Does he give any credibility at all to Moscow’s proposal for the unification of Russia and Belarus?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before the hon. Lady goes any further, she and the House will appreciate that the matter we are debating is very narrow, because it has to do with exactly what is on the Order Paper in respect of these sanctions. I am being fairly liberal—with a small l—because I appreciate that the Minister probably does have the information to which the hon. Lady refers, but my concern is to make sure that the debate that we have right now, as opposed to a wider debate at another time, relates to what is on the Order Paper.

[Helen Goodman]

I was about to move on to Zimbabwe, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I am sure I can satisfy you.

On Zimbabwe, we have only limited sanctions that relate only to President Mugabe and the defence industries. The purpose of the sanctions is to improve the human rights situation in Zimbabwe, but how can they possibly be effective, given that Zimbabwe has a new Government? How can sanctions on a previous regime conceivably affect the new regime? That new regime has been described by some Zimbabweans as a new driver in an old taxi. The situation does not quite make sense.

Point of Order

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Helen Goodman

Monday 16th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Whitworth Park School in my constituency is going through a period of considerable turmoil. The interim head, David Stone, and one of his deputies, Amy Aspland, have been pressurising teachers, pupils and parents not to contact their Member of Parliament and interrogating them about the content of the conversations if they have done so. Even prisoners are allowed to have confidential communications with their constituency MP. Furthermore, and misleadingly, people have been accused of “radicalisation”, which is the language the Government use in respect of preventing extremist terrorism. I would be very grateful for your guidance on what I can do to serve my constituents properly. Do you agree with me that at all times British citizens have the right to contact their Member of Parliament and, indeed, that that is essential for the health of our democracy?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I do agree with the hon. Lady—of course I do—and I am sure that every Member of this House will agree with her. I thank her for giving me notice that she wished to raise this matter. There is no doubt whatsoever that everyone who lives in all our constituencies should feel able to raise matters with their elected representatives in order that they can be brought up in Parliament, and that our constituents should be able to do so in every case, without fear of reprisal. It is clearly wrong of anyone, let alone public sector employees, to make any attempt to intimidate our constituents in order to prevent them from contacting us. If the hon. Lady believes, either now or at some future time, that an actual contempt or breach of privilege has been committed, her remedy is to write to Mr Speaker to set out the facts. I am quite sure that Mr Speaker will consider the matter with the gravity that it requires. Meanwhile, I am sure that the hon. Lady will use the range of parliamentary opportunities open to her, which she knows very well, to represent the views of her constituents with her customary vigour.

Economy and Jobs

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Helen Goodman

Thursday 29th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) wishes to raise a point of order.

[Helen Goodman]

I wonder whether I could give the Chancellor of the Exchequer an opportunity to correct a false statement that he just made. Turkey is not in the European Union, and it is in the customs union. The legal barriers that the Chancellor is creating simply do not exist.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I should say to the House, for the benefit of new Members, that there is a difference between an intervention in a debate and a point of order. The hon. Lady is being clever in using her wisdom about how the House works, but she knows that that was not a point of order, and that it is not something that I can answer. What she really wants to do is intervene on the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

For the benefit of new Members of the House, let me make it clear that a point of order should not be used to make an intervention that the Chancellor has not taken. The Chancellor is perfectly capable of choosing the interventions that he wishes to take. He has taken many, and I am sure that he will take many more.