Saudi Arabia: Mass Executions

Fabian Hamilton Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he has said. He speaks with the utmost authority in this House and was an excellent Minister for the Middle East; I have to say that, at a moment like this, I rather wish that he still was. I can say in all honesty that, despite always being polite, he never held back from telling his counterparts in Saudi Arabia where he thought they were making mistakes and where he thought their record on human rights fell short. It is by having access of that sort and having trusted Ministers on our side that we can best get that message over—and I hope, over time, make a difference.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

As we have heard, yesterday saw the largest mass execution in Saudi Arabia since January 2016, in which 37 people were killed. According to the official Saudi press agency, the men were executed:

“for adopting terrorist and extremist thinking and for forming terrorist cells to corrupt and destabilise security”.

They were arrested after four Islamic State gunmen attacked a Saudi security compound in Riyadh, but the Saudi authorities have still not made clear whether those arrested were linked to the attacks.

Publicly pinning one of the headless bodies to a pole as a warning is not only disturbingly barbaric and medieval in nature, but an abhorrent violation of human rights. According to the families of those executed, there was no prior notice that the executions would be carried out. That is a blatant flouting of international standards set out by even the most brutal of regimes that still use the death penalty. We know that some, if not all, of those executed were convicted in Saudi Arabia’s Specialised Criminal Court, which has been widely condemned by human rights groups as secretive, and which has in the past been used to try human rights activists, whom the state often wrongly regards as terrorists.

We also know that at least three of those executed were juveniles—a clear violation of international law, which the Saudi regime appears to care very little about. Abdulkarim al-Hawaj was charged with participating in demonstrations, incitement via social media and preparing banners with anti-state slogans. Reports from human rights watchdogs in the country claim that he was beaten and the so-called confessions extracted from him through various means of torture. Mujtaba al-Sweikat was a student about to begin his studies at Western Michigan University when he was arrested at King Fahd airport, beaten and so-called confessions extracted through torture. Salman Qureish was just 18 when he was executed, but he was convicted of crimes that allegedly took place when he was still a child. The UN has condemned his sentencing and the use of the death penalty against him after he was denied basic legal rights, such as access to a lawyer.

Saudi Arabia has executed more than 100 people already this year. If it continues, the number of executions this year alone will reach over 300. Human rights group Reprieve says that five of the prisoners it supported were executed yesterday. Many were forced to stand in stress positions for hours and deprived of sleep until a confession was extracted.

These executions have caused a breakdown in Saudi Arabia’s relations with Iran and have the potential to destabilise the region further, so what discussions has the Minister had with his Saudi counterpart since the executions took place? Will the Government condemn the use of the death penalty in Saudi Arabia today? Will the Government call for an immediate end to executions in Saudi Arabia? Finally, what plans do the Government have to tackle the use of violence against human rights activists in Saudi Arabia?

[Mr Speaker]

I yield to none in my affection and admiration for the hon. Gentleman, but he is fortunate that I am in a generous mood. I note in passing that he was due to speak for two minutes, spoke for a little over three, and the first of his four questions was posed after three minutes and one second. It was a volley of unsurpassable eloquence, but it was a tad too long.

LGBT Rights: Brunei

Fabian Hamilton Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) on bringing this debate to us today, and I thank my colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), for their excellent contributions.

Brunei is a country with a population of 420,000 people and is by some estimates the fourth richest country per capita in the world. It has been fully independent of the United Kingdom only since 1984. Its ruler, Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah, is an absolute monarch and rules absolutely; he is also the country’s Prime Minister. This year Brunei became the first east Asian country to adopt strict sharia law. As we have heard today, those laws violate international human rights including the right to life and freedom from torture. They violate certain conventions to which Brunei is a party, including the conventions on the rights of the child. Under international human rights law, corporal punishment in all its forms, such as stoning, amputation or whipping, constitutes torture or other

“cruel, inhuman or degrading…punishment”,

which is prohibited in all circumstances. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, stated recently:

“Any religion-based legislation must not violate human rights, including the rights of those belonging to the majority religion, as well as of religious minorities and non-believers”.

Brunei has not executed anyone since 1957, but it has now become one of only seven countries in the world that punish consensual homosexual acts with the death penalty. We know that these new laws target some of the most vulnerable people in Brunei society. They also place restrictions on Muslim women who want to escape violent marriages.

The UK and Brunei have historically long ties; in 1888 Brunei became a British protected state and it was the only Malay state that chose to remain so in 1963, only gaining independence in 1984. The British Army has maintained a Gurkha battalion—currently about 2,000 personnel—in Brunei since 1962, and as we know, Brunei is a member of the Commonwealth. Commonwealth Secretary-General Baroness Patricia Scotland stated recently that the new laws

“will potentially bring into effect cruel and inhuman punishments which contravene international human rights law and standards”.

The Government have stated that they have a good relationship with Brunei, which allows them to have “frank conversations”—a term often used in circumstances such as this—but has not called for Brunei to be suspended from the Commonwealth. The Government have said that

“threatening to kick countries out of the Commonwealth”

is not the “best way” to encourage Brunei to uphold its human rights obligations. I ask the Minister: why not? The scale and brutality of this attack on universal human rights by a friend and close ally of this country should not be without consequence. What action do the Government intend to take to persuade the Sultan of Brunei to rescind these laws, which are an attack on those who only wish to express their love for another human being? What can the Government do to ensure that half the population of that country, its women, do not have to put up with further suffering under the law simply because of their gender—especially those women who are trying to escape violent marriages?

Human rights are universal; Labour Members and, I am sure, every Member of the House of Commons and House of Lords believe that human rights are indivisible. We must ensure that, as a nation with an important and influential place in the world, we uphold those rights wherever they are challenged in today’s world. I hope the Minister can answer some of these questions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fabian Hamilton Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Africa (Harriett Baldwin)]

The UK was one of the funders of what is known as a parallel voter tabulation exercise, which is like an extensive BBC exit poll. It gave a result that was consistent with the officially declared results, and our Prime Minister called President Buhari to congratulate him on his re-election. However, we are aware of various reports from both our observers and others, and a strong stance against election-related violence was taken yesterday in my meetings with Nigerian opposition leaders, where I emphasised that concerns must be taken through the judicial process and that the independence of the judiciary in Nigeria is incredibly important.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) said in respect of Cameroon, if Brunei does not abandon its barbaric proposals to whip or stone LGBT+ individuals to death, will the Minister of State guarantee that the Government will ask their counterparts on the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group to consider Brunei’s immediate suspension?

[The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)]

I raised with the Bruneian Government my concerns over the introduction of the hudud punishment most recently in a letter to the deputy Foreign Minister on Friday 29 March, and I discussed the imminent introduction of the Sharia penal code when I was in Brunei last August. Our high commissioner Richard Lindsay in Bandar Seri Begawan has also received assurances that both common law and the sharia penal code will operate in parallel for all nationals and residents, including British citizens, and be the primary means of administering justice in Brunei. We will continue to lobby to ensure that any British citizens in Brunei will be subject to common law rather than the penal code.

Kurdistan Region in Iraq

Fabian Hamilton Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure and a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) on introducing the debate. My first contact with Iraqi Kurdistan was in 2010, when I received a telephone call from the then Chief Whip of my party, asking me whether I would be willing to fly via Vienna—no direct flights even then—to Irbil in order to speak to the Kurdistan regional Parliament about the importance of opposition parties. That was a good introduction to being in opposition in 2010, which was fairly new to us after 13 years in government. I had been to Iraq once before, in 1980, but I had never been to the north, to Irbil.

As the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke said, what a surprise it was to arrive in a region of a middle eastern Arab country that I had visited so long ago—it was quite progressive in 1980 and went downhill after that—and to see the progress being made. What a surprise to see how that Parliament was developing, and to see the Kurdish values that I already know from my constituency, where we have a small but substantial population of Kurdish refugees in the city of Leeds, who sadly are now increasing. I saw for myself what was going on, and it felt like a separate nation. It felt like a region that was going to secede from the Republic of Iraq any time soon, because the values seemed so different. We were told that a visa was needed to go from Baghdad to Irbil at that time.

I was fortunate to go back to Irbil and Slemani just a year later with the all-party parliamentary group, under the leadership of the hon. Gentleman’s predecessor, and with the secretary, Gary Kent, who knows the region and the country very well. During that visit we learnt more about the Anfal—the terrible slaughter of Kurds because they were Kurds under Saddam’s presidency. We learnt what the Halabja gas attack really meant for men, women and children. We heard more about that in a conference two or three years ago in London on the anniversary of the 1988 atrocity. The Labour, coalition and Conservative Governments have since learned—we have agreed—that was genocide.

There is no doubt that the violence by the then leadership of Iraq was aimed at the Kurds. The Kurds always seem to attract the wrath of the regimes in the region. Let us look at what is happening in Turkey—nothing like what happened in Iraq, but quite a lot of oppression—and in Syria and Iran. But it is in Iraq that there has been the only regional autonomy, until the referendum—as the hon. Gentleman so clearly stated, until the disgusting attack and oppression by the Iraqi army in Kurdistan. We were all shocked by that violence. I was in regular contact with Gary Kent at the time.

The Opposition believe in people’s right to self-determination, in whatever part of the world. I know the Minister will emphasise that too. If they have cultural integrity, linguistic individuality and cultural separateness, no matter the religion, they have the right to self-determination, to decide for themselves what their future as a nation should and could be.

In talking to the families of the victims of the Anfal in 2011, I was struck by the comparison they made to the holocaust of the Jewish people in the second world war. I come from a Jewish background—it meant a lot to me; it meant a lot to me. My family died in the holocaust and in the concentration camps. To hear people of the Muslim faith, who are Kurds, talk about their empathy with the Jewish people and the state of Israel was a revelation. One MP said to me, “You know, if Israel opens an embassy in Baghdad tomorrow”—unlikely, but perhaps more likely today than it was seven or eight years ago—“they will open one the next day in Irbil. We would welcome an Israeli presence here.” I had never heard anybody in the region say that before, and I was struck by it.

When we drove from Slemani on that road route back to Irbil, I took a number of photographs—we were delayed by a whole load of sheep crossing the road. I was struck by the similarity of the countryside to my native Yorkshire, which I have represented for 22 years. When I showed the photograph to my wife, she asked if it was Ilkley moor. I replied, “No, this is an area you won’t visit. This is Slemani to Irbil.” She was as shocked as everyone else.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising such an important issue. He said that the Kurds could no longer rely on Baghdad. He pointed to the army seizing Kirkuk after that referendum was crushed. He talked, most importantly of all, of the Kurdish peshmerga saving Iraq. The Opposition would certainly concur with that. They contained Daesh through their bravery and extraordinary organisation. Their army contains men and women—something unseen and unheard of in the region.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), who has considerable experience of Iraqi Kurdistan and Iraqi Kurdistan and the Kurdish cause, talked about the direct flights issue. Anyone who has been to Irbil knows what a struggle it is to have to change in Vienna, or whichever third country, but it is much more important than that. If they are going to develop tourism, as she said, there must be direct flights. The contrast with Chicago was a brilliant one, because I got that feeling too. I am sure every other right hon. and hon. Member who has been to Irbil, and had the pleasure of seeing school children in Slemani dancing the local dance and of listening to the music of the region, will know that it is a safer, more accommodating and more welcoming city than Chicago or many other American cities. They will have felt safer and not vulnerable, and that nobody was out to attack them. That is very important to the development of business and communities, and to economic development in general.

The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) talked about the need for humanitarian assistance. We should never forget how important that is; that need may well still be growing, as he indicated. Gender inequality and the risk of gender-based violence is something we need always to be aware of and to combat.

Between 1986 and 1989, about 180,000 people—the numbers are disputed—perished in the Anfal. The UK supported the creation of the Iraqi constitution after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Kurdistan Regional Government were formalised in the present constitution of Iraq in 2005. The UK has given military and financial assistance to the peshmerga, especially during the ISIS surge. I hate to quote him, but the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), stated that

“we owe a great debt to the Peshmerga for their bravery and sacrifice. What they are doing is on behalf of all of us.”

That is perhaps one of the few things I have agreed with him about over the years.

Governments of all colours have agreed that it is important to have a strong Kurdistan region of Iraq, within a strong, successful, unified Iraq. We know that would ensure stability in the country and the whole region, which is why we are so concerned about the destabilising effect of what happened a couple of years ago. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs stated in a report on the subject in 2018 that

“the FCO should support meaningful political participation and representation for Kurds, as well as cultural recognition, equal rights, and economic opportunities for them, underpinned by national constitutions and achieved through negotiation, as a means of fulfilling Kurdish aspirations. It is not in the UK’s interests for any state to deny Kurdish identity through law or force.”

I am sure that the Minister will refer to that.

The UK Government have played a diplomatic role in attempting to reduce tension between the Kurdish and the Iraqi federal Government. I pay tribute to the Foreign Office and to current Ministers for that. However, bafflingly, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside said, the Foreign Office still advises against all but essential travel to Iraqi Kurdistan, putting it in the same category as Baghdad and southern Iraq. That needs to change, and I hope we will hear more about that from the Minister.

In February 2019, one of the people I shadow, the Minister for the Middle East, announced £30 million in funding to help rebuild Iraq and to aid the economy. He visited the region in January 2019, and he gave particular support to policies preventing sexual violence in conflict areas in Iraq. As we know, since 2014 the Department for International Development has provided more than £250 million towards humanitarian assistance in Iraq, the vast majority of it in and around the Iraqi Kurdistan region. I hope that I have not stolen the Minister’s thunder—she is also a DFID Minister.

The United Kingdom gives indirect support through international bodies such as the United Nations Development Programme funding facility for stabilisation, which has focused on areas liberated from ISIS. The UK trained more than 9,000 peshmerga in infantry, counter-IED, engineering and medical skills, and provided—I believe it continues to provide them—arms and ammunition to the peshmerga.

As we know, there are still no direct flights from the UK to Irbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. As Members have said, there have been rumours that British Airways will commence flights next year. Let us hope that happens and that the Government can encourage that. As I mentioned, the authorities in Iraqi Kurdistan are particularly proud of the religious tolerance in the region. The Kurdish authorities launched a commission to investigate crimes by ISIS, particularly against the Yazidis, during the conflict. I think we all welcome that.

I again congratulate the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke on bringing this important issue before us. Let us hope that we can continue to work together to ensure that the people of Iraqi Kurdistan have a truly autonomous future, that they can govern themselves, and that we can look forward to Irbil, Slemani and the many other cities of Iraqi Kurdistan being tourist destinations for everybody from Europe.

Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty

Fabian Hamilton Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) (Urgent Question)]

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to make a statement on the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty.

[The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)]

As if to prove that lightning does sometimes strike twice, even in this unnatural world of politics, I am here to address this issue again, as I was on 25 October, deputising for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and the Americas, who is once more gallivanting globally. This time he is in Ottawa, where, I am delighted to inform the House, he is in the grip of an even colder spell than we are here—it is minus 7° centigrade, for the record, or so he assured me earlier today.

When I last had the opportunity to respond on this issue in the House last October, President Trump had just announced that it was the intention of the United States to end the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty unless Russia returned to full compliance. Let me once again set out the context. The INF treaty was a 1987 agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union that eliminated nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with a range of between 500 km and 5,500 km. For over three decades now, the INF treaty has played an important role in supporting Euro-Atlantic security, initially removing an entire class of US and Russian weapons, thus making a significant contribution to strategic stability.

While the UK is not a party to this bilateral treaty, we have always made it clear over the years that we ideally wish to see the treaty continue. However, for that to happen, the parties need to comply with its obligations. Sadly, this has not been the case. Despite numerous objections raised by a range of NATO allies going back over five years, Russia has developed new missiles, in direct contravention of the treaty. This includes the covert missile testing, producing and fielding of the 9M729 ground-launch cruise missile system. As NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has said:

“These…missiles are hard to detect. They are mobile. They are nuclear capable. They can reach European cities”.

The US, under both the Obama and Trump Administrations, has made extensive efforts to encourage Russia to return to full and verifiable compliance. It was indeed the Obama Administration who, in 2014, first strongly called out Russia’s non-compliance with this treaty. It is important to acknowledge that, while doing so, the US has continued to meet its obligations under the treaty. However, the US, with the full support of its NATO allies, has been very clear that a situation where the US fully abided by the treaty and Russia did not was not sustainable. On 4 December last year, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the US would suspend its participation in the INF treaty within 60 days—that is, by 2 February 2019— unless Russia returned to compliance.

This constituted an opportunity for Russia to address our shared concerns and to take steps to preserve the treaty. Allies took the opportunity to reiterate this point last month to the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, Sergei Ryabkov, during the NATO-Russia Council meeting. I have to inform the House that Russia has not taken that opportunity. It has offered no credible response, only obfuscation and contradictions designed to mislead. This of course fits a wider pattern of behaviour from Russia aimed at undermining our collective security. We and all NATO allies therefore support the US decision to suspend its participation in the treaty and to trigger the formal withdrawal process. NATO is unified on this process.

It is Russia’s fault alone that we have arrived at this point. President Putin’s statements in the last few days announcing that Russia, too, will suspend its obligations was unsurprising given the fact that it has violated the treaty over the years. Nevertheless, even at this late stage, we urge Russia to change course. The treaty’s six-month withdrawal process offers Russia a final opportunity to return to compliance through the full and verifiable destruction of all its 9M729 systems. That is the best—indeed, the only—way to preserve the treaty.

We remain committed, as do the US and other NATO allies, to preserving effective arms control agreements, but we are also clear that for arms control to be effective, all signatories must respect their obligations. In the meantime, we are working closely with all our NATO allies on the implications for European security. We remain committed to ensuring that NATO has a robust defence posture to deter all threats. As NATO allies said on 2 February:

“NATO continues to closely review the security implications of Russian intermediate-range missiles and will continue to take steps necessary to ensure the credibility and effectiveness of the Alliance’s overall deterrence and defence posture. We will continue to consult each other regularly with a view to ensuring our collective security.”

If this treaty falls, we and other NATO allies will hold Russia alone responsible. We urge Russia now to take a different course and to return to full and verifiable compliance.

[Fabian Hamilton]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Minister for his statement.

During the weekend, one of the main pillars of nuclear weapons treaties was suspended when first the United States and then Russia withdrew from the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty. As the Minister said, it was only in October last year that I stood here asking an urgent question on this matter. Back then, the United States was only expressing its initial intentions to withdraw from the INF treaty, citing Russian non-compliance. Regrettably, it has now fulfilled that action. Since then, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has decided to maintain its so-called doomsday clock at two minutes to midnight. In a statement after the US Administration’s decision, the Bulletin noted that we are living in

“a state as worrisome as the most dangerous times of the Cold War”—

a sentiment with which I sadly agree.

What we see in these actions by the United States and Russia is the erosion of the system of multilateralism and the rules-based international order which underpins global peace and security. Leaving the INF treaty is a dangerous unravelling of part of the architecture of trust and understanding that has prevented nuclear conflict—an architecture that was begun 50 years ago with the signing of the non-proliferation treaty, which I strongly support. Indeed, this comes only weeks before the 2019 NPT preparatory committee meeting in New York at the end of April.

Along with climate change, nuclear conflict and the devastating environmental impact that it could unleash are two of the most pressing threats to our lives and the future of every living creature on this planet. The suspension of the INF treaty is a sure sign of a dangerous breakdown of trust between the two nations with the vast majority of the world’s nuclear warheads. This has serious implications for future negotiations, including those on extending the new strategic arms reduction treaty, or New START, which is due to expire in 2021. What we see may be the beginning of a new arms race, even more dangerous and unpredictable than the one we saw during the cold war. We now live in a multipolar world in which the US and Russia no longer have a monopoly on the weapons proscribed in the INF treaty, even if they have the majority of warheads.

What assurances has the Minister received from our American allies that suspension of the INF treaty will not begin a new arms race between the United States and Russia involving weapons once again being based on European soil? What contact has he made with other countries that have developed INF-proscribed weapons, including China, so that a future multilateral framework may be developed that could supersede and replace the INF treaty?

[Mark Field]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I will touch on two aspects of what he said. The first is what losing the INF treaty means for extending New START, which is a bilateral treaty between the US and Russia that expires in 2021. We were pleased to see both sides meet the New START limits by the deadlines, by the end of last year. We believe that that treaty contributes to international stability. All allies support continued implementation and early and active dialogue on ways to improve strategic stability. It is, of course, for the US and Russia to take forward discussions about extending that treaty.

The hon. Gentleman also raised perfectly legitimate concerns, which I think we all share, about the broader range of challenges for the multilateral system. We will continue to work closely with the US across a wide range of multilateral organisations and issues. He touched on climate change, for which I have Foreign Office responsibility and on which we work closely—if not necessarily as closely as we would like with the federal Administration—with a number of important state governors and others.

May I just say that we, like the US, believe that a number of multinational institutions are in need of reform? On the matter at hand, a situation in which the US is respecting the INF treaty and Russia persistently and consistently is not is simply not sustainable. The UK and all other NATO allies have made clear our support for the US position.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fabian Hamilton Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

There seems to be a mixed view among Arab states about normalising relations with Syria, and that is certainly not the view of all states. Arab states are understandably worried about the influence of others in Syria, but there is a recognition—certainly by the United Kingdom, the EU and others—that there can be no normalisation of relationships and no return to embassies unless there is clear evidence that the regime in Syria has learned from the terrible costs it has inflicted on the Syrian people and there is a political settlement to demonstrate that.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

Given the huge shifts in policy on Syria emerging from the United States Administration, will the Minister provide some clarity on three related issues: when US troops will be withdrawn, what the preconditions are for that to happen and how America’s Kurdish allies will be protected after that withdrawal?

[Mr Speaker]

Cheeky—three questions, but there is not time for three answers.

Journalists: International Protection

Fabian Hamilton Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I congratulate my right hon. Friend, if I may call him that, the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) on securing and introducing this debate. This is a timely moment to have such a debate, and in many ways it is a shame that it could not be for three hours, not the one hour. I congratulate all hon. Members who have taken part on their excellent contributions. They were brief contributions, but powerful none the less.

I think that Labour Members strongly agree with the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman that there should be a new UN convention on the protection of journalists. We also heard contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (John Grogan), who in the past was, I believe, chair of the all-party parliamentary BBC group, my colleague and friend the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who always tells excellent and very relevant stories from his own experience, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel). I thank them all for their extremely good contributions.

The brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi last year was a frighteningly vivid reminder of the serious threats that journalists face globally today. It is the most dangerous time to be a journalist globally in more than a decade. As has been said this afternoon, the freedom of the press is one of the most powerful platforms for freedom of expression. It is a means of informing, of scrutinising and of disseminating information and is a fundamental pillar of democracy. Article 19 of the UN universal declaration of human rights states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

The protection of journalists and their sources is one of the basic conditions for press freedom, but in the last two years alone journalists have been murdered in Europe—in Bulgaria, Slovakia and Malta. Organisations such as Reporters Without Borders have called on Governments, including the British Government, to create a special rapporteur with the responsibility to protect journalists and press freedom. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about that in a few minutes.

I shall give some statistics to remind hon. Members here this afternoon. In 2018, 94 journalists were killed, an increase from 82 in the previous year—far too many. Afghanistan was the most dangerous country in which to be a journalist, with 16 journalists and reporters murdered. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, at least 251 journalists were jailed for their work in 2018. There are currently 126 journalists detained across member states of the Council of Europe, and almost 70 of those are in Turkey, as we heard. It is the case that 98% of jailed journalists are local people imprisoned by their own Governments, that 62% of journalists killed covered politics and political activity, and that 70% of jailed journalists imprisoned globally were arrested on anti-state charges, including terrorism.

Fewer than 10% of the killings of journalists end up with a prosecution. The impunity definitely exacerbates the cycle of violence against journalists. As we have heard, three countries—Turkey, China and Egypt—were responsible for more than half the journalists jailed globally. There has been an increase in politicians and other individuals labelling journalists as “enemies” and making false and damaging claims about the media.

Examples include Donald Trump—he has already been mentioned today—labelling media outlets such as the Washington Post and CNN as enemies of the people; media outlets run by close associates of Viktor Orbán in Hungary listing journalists and academics as “mercenaries” for George Soros; in Turkey, President Erdoğan forcing the closure of media outlets over allegedly “terrorist propaganda” and supporting the 2016 coup attempt; and BBC Persian staff in Iran, as we have heard, having their assets frozen. I am very grateful to Julia Harris from the BBC World Service for the information that she provided to me and all of us this afternoon. She does an excellent job for the World Service. Other examples are media outlets in Venezuela—this has not been mentioned—being forced to shut down by authorities alleging irregularities in their licences and, as we have heard today, authorities in Azerbaijan targeting the last independent news agency in the country, Turan, with claims of “financial irregularities”.

The results are that many media outlets are shut down and quite often the licences and assets of those organisations are given to close supporters of the Government or regime in those countries. Of course, that means reduced media pluralism and the creation of pliant media that will toe the Government line. We all stand against that, and we all need to do more to oppose it and to ensure that journalists have the freedom that keeps our society free and fair.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fabian Hamilton Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hunt]

Perhaps this simple fact: yesterday, 50 Houthi rebels were airlifted to Oman, which was the essential precondition for peace talks starting in Stockholm, and they may start tomorrow or on Friday.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

Last month, the United States imposed Magnitsky sanctions on 17 individuals accused of involvement in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Many of them now face the death penalty in Saudi Arabia. Of course I would not ask the Foreign Secretary to comment on any individual cases, but can he simply tell us how many of those 17 individuals accompanied Crown Prince Salman on his visit to the UK in April?

[Mr Hunt]

The Home Office is doing a lot of work on what happened with all those 17 individuals, and there have been media reports that some of them did accompany the Crown Prince when he came to the UK. We want justice in the case of Khashoggi. It is an appalling case, and the Prime Minister made that clear to the Crown Prince when she met him in Buenos Aires. We have made it clear in my private meetings, too.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fabian Hamilton Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

It is an often understated fact of the complex relationship between Israel and its neighbours that there is cross-border work, and that medical treatment takes place in Israel for those from both the west bank and Gaza—some of it is very high level and done in the most important circumstances. Save a Child’s Heart is not directly supported by the United Kingdom, but we certainly support all efforts to make sure there is even more contact between the Palestinians and the Israeli authorities, particularly in healthcare matters.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

The United Nations says that international funding to tackle the humanitarian crisis across the Palestinian territories is at an all-time low, with the shortfall to meet this year’s needs now standing at $380 million. Although we warmly welcome the £7 million increase in September from the UK Government, the Minister of State must know that it is a drop in the ocean. Will he instead do what we have been calling for since January, convene an urgent global funding conference and treat this as the pressing emergency it is?

[Alistair Burt]

The support we give to UNRWA continues to be considerable, and we have brought forward support that would have come in the next couple of years, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that, compared with the loss from the United States, it is only a small amount. We lobby other states directly on this, and there has been an increase in funding that will see us through a relatively short period of time. After that, it is essential that the issues surrounding UNRWA are dealt with and that funding is found for those who are in need. Ultimately, the issues that UNRWA deals with will only be resolved when we get the final agreement for which we are all searching. In the meantime, we do encourage, and we have seen a response from, other states following the United Kingdom’s generosity.

Nuclear Treaty: US Withdrawal

Fabian Hamilton Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the planned US withdrawal from the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty and its implications for UK and European security.

[The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to put up with the Minister of State this morning.

If I may, I will first set out some of the context. The intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty is an agreement signed 31 years ago, in 1987, between the United States and the Soviet Union. The treaty eliminated nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with intermediate ranges. For over three decades, the INF treaty has played a valuable role in supporting Euro-Atlantic security. By removing an entire class of US and Russian weapons, the treaty has contributed to strategic stability and reduced the risk of miscalculation leading to conflict.

Russia’s aggressive actions, including the threat and use of force to attain political goals, continue to undermine Euro-Atlantic security and the rules-based international order. Full compliance is essential for the treaty to be effective, yet a pattern of behaviour and information over many years has led to widespread doubts about Russia’s compliance. Of course, it was the Obama Administration in 2014 that first strongly called out Russia’s non-compliance with this treaty. It is important to remember that this has been a long-running concern for several US Administrations and, indeed, for their European allies.

Alongside NATO allies in July, we made clear that in the absence of any credible answer from Russia on the 9M729 missile, the most plausible assessment would be that Russia was now in violation of the INF treaty. Since then, we have received no credible answer and so judge that Russia is indeed in violation.

In the interests of preserving the treaty, to which we in the UK and I think all our allies in Europe remain fully committed, we urge Russia to address these concerns in a substantial and transparent way, and to come back into full compliance with the treaty. The situation in which only one side—the United States—adheres to the treaty and Russia remains in non-compliance is not sustainable, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree.

It is important to recognise that the US has not yet withdrawn from this treaty. While the treaty remains in force, we shall continue to support it, and in particular to press Russia to return to full and verifiable compliance. Indeed, it is worth noting media reports that Presidents Trump and Putin plan to meet in France next month—on Remembrance Sunday—to discuss this further. May I reassure the hon. Gentleman, and indeed the House at large, that dialogue is ongoing and that we shall remain in close contact with our US and NATO allies?

[Fabian Hamilton]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I thank the Minister for a very helpful reply.

As the Minister said, last week President Trump announced that the United States intends to leave the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty, which was signed by the US and Soviet Russia in 1987. At that time, the threat of nuclear war brought the two great powers together at the negotiation table. The result of those negotiations was the elimination of all short and intermediate-range nuclear missiles, many of which were placed in Europe. Worryingly, however, nuclear war seems more tangible and real today than at any time since Reagan and Gorbachev signed the INF. Yet instead of realising this very real threat and its implications for global peace and security, the United States has apparently decided unilaterally to pull out, offering no alternative proposal or replacement. That is why I very much welcome the Minister’s comments.

What we are seeing at the moment is the erosion of the rules-based international order that underpins global peace and security. I must point out that the US was at the forefront of painstakingly creating such a system over the past 70 years. Leaving the INF is a dangerous unravelling of part of the architecture of trust and understanding that has prevented nuclear conflict. That system began exactly 50 years ago with the signing of the non-proliferation treaty, and certainly Labour Members—and, I am sure, those on both sides of the House—strongly support it.

Many experts have concluded that we are now entering a new arms race that has the potential to be more unpredictable and dangerous than at any time during the cold war. Have the UK Government consulted the United States on the implications that an arms race might have for European and United Kingdom security? I ask because this has deep implications for European security. In 1987, Europe was at the epicentre of the cold war and the arms race between Russia and America. Today, events in places such as Ukraine, and even here at home in Salisbury, have shown that Europe is at the forefront of a new conflict between east and west.

Withdrawal from the INF brings back the spectre of Pershing missiles being stationed in Europe and here in the United Kingdom, which I remember vividly from the 1980s. If such a nuclear conflict was to happen between the two major nuclear powers, the UK and our European allies would probably be the first to be hit. Finally, have the Government been given assurances by the United States Administration that we will not see a return of the deployment of short and intermediate-range missiles in Europe?

[Mark Field]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I know that he and I agree—I hope the whole House would agree—that there is a great worry that there seems to be an erosion of the international rules-based order on which we have relied since the second world war. I think that we all recognise that that order perhaps needs to evolve and adapt to the world we are living in, and we need to engage with as many partners as possible to ensure that that comes to pass.

We have long-standing concerns about Russia’s development of a range of new capabilities that stand ready to undermine strategic stability. The US is a responsible nuclear power, with which we work closely. I have twice been to the UN Security Council in the past year for the debates that have taken place on non-proliferation. Interestingly, those debates were held at the behest of Kazakhstan and other nations that one would not necessarily think of as being immediately concerned about such matters. It is very much the policy to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. We shall continue to work with all partners across the international community to prevent proliferation and to make progress on multilateral nuclear disarmament.

I wish to touch on one other matter that the hon. Gentleman did not mention but is worth commenting on. As he is aware, there is also the bilateral new strategic arms reduction treaty. It was signed in 2011 by the US and Russia, and is designed to expire, under a 10-year process, in 2021. We are very pleased that both sides met limits by the deadline earlier this year, and we welcome the continued implementation of that treaty, which has an important impact on the broader proliferation of nuclear and other weaponry. New START contributes to international stability, and allies have expressed strong support for its continued implementation, and for early and active dialogue on ways to improve strategic stability.