Ukraine: Special Tribunal

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 9th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

I call Richard Foord; it is a happy coincidence that I am wearing this blue and yellow tie.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a special tribunal on Ukraine.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies.

It has become a cliché for politicians across the House to refer to “Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine”. Today we should unpick that phrase a little so that we can consider how states such as the UK might respond to the full-scale invasion, aside from our ongoing provision of materiel to Ukraine. I would like to spend a few minutes talking about the crime of aggression, and I intend to set out why accountability for that crime should be sought by way of a special tribunal.

Last September, along with a few other Members of the House, some of whom are here today, I attended the Yalta European Strategy conference in Kyiv; I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Yalta European Strategy conference brings together politicians, academics and others from across Europe to discuss Ukrainian and European security—we also remembered a time, back in 2013, when the same conference was held in Yalta, Crimea. But talk to historians about Yalta and they are more likely to think of the conference that took place between the UK, the US and the Soviet Union in February 1945, which President Roosevelt approached with an aide-mémoire on the punishment of Nazi war criminals. The Yalta memorandum urged the use of the judicial method against the Nazi leaders because

“Condemnation of these criminals after a trial…would command maximum public support in our own times and receive the respect of history.”

The first international military tribunal at Nuremberg opened in November 1945. Major-General Nikitchenko from the Soviet Union was the presiding judge. He came from a small village about 50 miles from the border between Russia and Luhansk, and was reported to have said in the days before the opening of the trial:

“If the judge is supposed to be impartial, it would only lead to unnecessary delays.”

Thankfully, other parties to the international military tribunal disagreed with him and due process was followed. The London charter of the international military tribunal set the laws and procedures for the conduct of the Nuremberg trials, and they defined three categories of crime: war crimes, crimes against humanity and—the closest to aggression—crimes against peace.

A special tribunal for alleged aggression against Ukraine would be the first aggression-focused tribunal since Nuremberg and Tokyo, which prosecuted the leaders of axis powers after world war two for crimes against peace. These days, there are courts and tribunals that have jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity and allegations of genocide, and they include the International Criminal Court. However, there is no international body before which individuals may be tried for the crime of aggression, because the ICC cannot exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression unless both the victim state and the aggressor state have ratified and accepted the ICC’s jurisdiction over aggression. That is not the case for Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. Russia is not a party to the ICC, and referrals to the ICC by the UN Security Council would be vetoed by Russia.

On 17 March 2023, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin for the war crime of illegal deportation of children from Ukraine to Russia. Although that was very welcome, it starts a process that can run in parallel with the initiative to create a special tribunal. It does not change the fact that there is currently no international body before which those responsible for the crime of aggression can be brought from Russia or Belarus. Various acts of aggression can be traced back to the February 2022 full-scale invasion. If proven in court, those acts of aggression could constitute what the Nuremberg trials termed the “supreme international crime”.

A crime of aggression consists of

“the planning, preparation, initiation or execution by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of an aggression.”

That can include manifestly illegal acts of aggression such as invasion, attack or occupation. It is the crime of aggression from which other international crimes flow, including war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

Bluntly, the videos circulating on social media in recent weeks of the apparent beheading, allegedly by Russians, of a Ukrainian soldier who was still alive show an atrocious act that was unlikely to have happened in the absence of the original aggression. A special tribunal would be the surest route by which to try the Russian leaders for international crimes. Trying senior leaders for war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide is difficult. It is difficult to link the crimes committed by soldiers on the ground, who might be ill disciplined, to senior military or political figures, who are often well aware of the risk of having crimes attributed to them. No, a special tribunal would focus on the single crime with respect to a narrow clique of perpetrators.

Russia’s use of force against a sovereign state constitutes an illegal act of aggression. It was not authorised by the UN Security Council. It was not an act of self-defence. Aggression is considered a leadership crime. Those exercising control over or directing political or military action with respect to the acts commit the crime of aggression.

Russia is not ignorant of the UN definition of aggression. At a meeting of the UN Security Council in March 1999, during the NATO bombardment of Yugoslavia, Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, quoted the 1974 UN General Assembly resolution that defined aggression. Mr Lavrov said:

“No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.”

The UK Government announced in January that they are joining a core group of partners to shape thinking on how to ensure criminal accountability for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Three primary models for a special tribunal have emerged, and I will outline those briefly. The first option is a tribunal that would be based on a multilateral treaty involving Ukraine and those states willing to support it; that is how the international military tribunal at Nuremberg was set up. It would be a strictly international tribunal—these days set up, perhaps, on the recommendation of the European Union or the Council of Europe through a treaty with Ukraine.

The second option is establishing a free-standing tribunal that would be based on an agreement between Ukraine and the UN. We could pursue endorsement through a resolution of the UN General Assembly. Precedents include tribunals established by agreements between the UN and Sierra Leone.

The third option is creating a special hybrid tribunal that would be based on Ukrainian domestic law, but which would incorporate international elements. The UK Government appear to have supported that third option. Yes, such a tribunal could be created without an international agreement and without statute, without applying strictly international law, and without using significant international prosecutors or judges. However, a tribunal based on Ukrainian domestic law would face various problems. It would be difficult to overcome immunities for key senior leaders in Russia and in Belarus. Ukrainians argue that establishing such a tribunal would not be possible given the domestic constitutional changes required of the Ukrainian Parliament. However, to my mind the main objection to a hybrid tribunal is that other states might feel emboldened to create their own hybrid tribunals in the future, which would have little or no significant international support. The hybrid model is too easy to replicate, unlike a strictly international tribunal.

We also know that Ukraine itself does not support the so-called hybrid model. Last week, President Zelensky called for the creation of a special tribunal in The Hague. Let me quote Zelensky’s Netherlands speech of 4 May:

“Not hybrid promises instead of human rights, but real freedom. Not hybrid impunity and symbolic formalities, but full-scale justice. Not hybrid peace and constant flashes of violence on the frontline, but reliable peace.”

The international nature of a special tribunal would serve to flag a degree of impartiality for the special tribunal. It would more easily overcome issues relating to immunity for serving Heads of State and Governments.

Setting up a special tribunal is alleged by some to risk sending a message that the west’s goal is regime change in Moscow. I do not accept that the call for a special tribunal is somehow tantamount to signalling an interest in regime change. At no point have Ukraine’s allies suggested that we are seeking regime change in Moscow. Kremlin propagandists are already depicting NATO as seeking to threaten Russia’s existence, to tie in with Russia’s victory day today, 9 May—the commemorations of the Soviet Union’s contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany. The Kremlin is already considering that its options are to win, or to lose power and then face prosecution. I do not accept that the model that the UK proposes for the special tribunal will affect Russia’s suggestion that we seek regime change. We do not.

How to go about creating a special tribunal? The Foreign Ministers of the G7 said in a statement in April, just a few weeks ago:

“We support exploring the creation of an internationalized tribunal based in Ukraine’s judicial system to prosecute the crime of aggression”.

Solidarity across the countries allied with Ukraine is absolutely crucial at this time. Just as the UK has firmed up opinion among Ukraine’s partners in relation to providing equipment to Ukraine, it would be good to see the UK championing the special tribunal cause, which should be as international in character as possible. A special tribunal would signal the disregard in which aggressor states are held. Support for the special tribunal could give aggressors pause for thought in the future.

The late Paddy Ashdown visited Slobodan Milošević several weeks before NATO military action against Belgrade in 1999. Ashdown commented that Milošević

“seemed more frightened by the threat of indictment by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, than … of NATO bombing”.

Writing in a more idealistic era, he wrote:

“these new courts and tribunals which the world has established in recent years…have the potential to become instruments not only for justice, but also for prevention, since they can represent a … warning to belligerent or tyrannical leaders.”

Thank you, Mr Davies.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that if they want to participate, they will need to bob.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to speak in the debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) for setting the scene so well. I was happy that he asked the Backbench Business Committee for the debate, and to support him in that, and it is good that we are having it today. What will be more important is if this debate leads to the action that the hon. Gentleman has referred to. I hope that it will.

I join all hon. Members in the Chamber in stating our ongoing and unwavering support for the Ukrainian people at this time. The attendance of Olena Zelenska at the coronation was a timely reminder that, while it was right and proper that we celebrate the passing of the Crown in this way, the problems of the world continue and so do our responsibilities to address them where we can. I believe that one of those responsibilities is to hold Russia to account for its aggression.

For too many years, Russia has pushed the boundaries and, in the desire for peace, little has been said or done to remind it that there is a line that should not be crossed. That line was crossed last March when Russia invaded Ukraine. It was crossed whenever Russia invaded Crimea. I am always reminded of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant)—he is not here today, but he was one of the outspoken Members at that time who highlighted the importance of what was happening in Ukraine. I agreed with him that we should have taken action to support Ukraine. We did not, but certainly the United Kingdom Government, NATO, the United States and everyone else has now come in and supported Ukraine, and that is really good news.

We continue to see the boundary being pushed further, as Russia’s media machine, ably assisted by its allies in North Korea, Belarus, Eritrea and Syria, seeks to spin the war as a noble endeavour and the rape and destruction of Ukraine as a simple casualty of war. It is more than that. That is not the truth at all. The truth is that this war is a violation of peace and should be internationally recognised as such; the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton set that point out very well. For that reason, and because each time I see on TV women and children standing by as their homes and future are decimated due to the greed of Russia, my resolve hardens. I was watching that on TV this morning. The hon. Gentleman referred to the missile attack on Kyiv and across all of Ukraine. It is obvious that Russia is, again, hitting civilian targets, and that really grieves me.

Another thing that grieves me greatly is the indiscriminate attacks by Russian soldiers on innocent civilians and the sexual abuse and rape of women and girls. The evidential base is there in some quantity, regarding girls as young as four and women as old as 83. How can that be the world that we live in, where there is no respect for women and young girls? That grieves me.

I would love to see Russia being made accountable in the courts, wherever that may be. The hon. Gentleman asks for that; I ask for that. As a Christian, I am also minded that, while the perpetrators might escape justice in this world, they certainly will not escape justice in the next. They will burn in the fires of hell. I would like to see that happening sooner than it is happening at the present time.

I was delighted to see our Government acknowledging that a special tribunal is a possibility; I would like to see it become more than a possibility. However, for it to become reality, the idea must be driven by all the nations, including ourselves, and not simply be bandied about as a matter of words.

I was very happy to see our UK Government announcing their membership of the core group of states seeking to achieve criminal accountability in this situation. However, that acknowledgement must be followed by action. The Minister is a good Minister, and he always responds in a very positive way; when he responds today, I am hoping he will reinforce our requests to have the words become action. That is certainly what I and others wish to see.

The crime of aggression is, first and foremost, a violation of international law’s prohibition of the use of force. Article 2 of the UN charter proscribes the use of force, subject to narrow exceptions. The UN General Assembly definition of aggression, in article 5, states:

“A war of aggression is a crime against international peace. Aggression gives rise to international responsibility.”

We all know that Russia has been guilty of a crime against international peace and against the innocent peoples of Ukraine. The UN General Assembly definition further states:

“No territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is or shall be recognised as lawful.”

It is very clear what the words say. If those words say that, our Government need to make sure that we have the law in place to make those people accountable, and to make Russia accountable.

The prohibition is given teeth by imposing criminal liability on individuals responsible for significant breaches of it. There have been many. It is very pleasing to see Ukraine, President Zelensky and others gathering evidence that will convict people when the opportunity arises. It is clear that the definition is absolutely applicable to the action taken by Russia against Ukraine.

Although I recognise the Government’s position that any new tribunal would also need sufficient international support and must not undermine existing accountability mechanisms, some available options do allow for that. I urge that we make our position clear and, further, that we begin the actions of making this a reality.

The United Kingdom cannot do this on our own—our Government cannot do this on their own. They can do it with the help of the EU states and the fellow members of NATO, of the United States of America and those countries from other parts of the world who have also lent their support to Ukraine. There is a united body that wants to see the accountability process in place. There is a body of countries who want to see a special tribunal for Ukraine in place for the actions of those in Russia who have carried out despicable crimes.

I gently say to the Minister that the upshot of today’s debate should not be simply another resounding message of support for Ukraine. It should be the taking of the action spoken about by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton and this crime of aggression being processed as such. The world must quickly recognise that these actions will not be ignored and that the perpetrators will be held accountable—that includes President Putin, the generals and every soldier who carried out the acts.

In conclusion, the support that we lend Ukraine through weapons and aid is essential. We do it well. I commend previous Prime Ministers, the present Prime Minister and our Government for what they have done in galvanising support across the world to help Ukraine. We need to stand up against evil actions in law, and today’s debate should be the first step. I very much support what the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton has said.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

I invite John Howell to speak next—my colleague at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which does so much on human rights and the rule of law. In fact, he is the leader of our delegation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Thank you so much, John Howell, in particular for the reference to the upcoming Reykjavík Council of Europe summit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Indeed, he tempts me further forward, but let me refer to some of the other international support. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania made a joint statement on October 16 last year. I have mentioned the European Union, and the President of the European Commission made a statement on 20 November 2022, as did France. Indeed, there has been a growing chorus of other Governments, academics, legal experts and those who have been involved in similar processes in the past.

We can look at other tribunals that have been created, such as the special tribunals that were created for the former Yugoslavia and for crimes in Sierra Leone and Liberia. There are distinct differences, but we can learn important lessons from them. Indeed, the House of Commons Library refers to the Dutch Government’s willingness to hold a special tribunal. Although that is distinct from the ICC and its position in The Hague, the seat of international justice, the Dutch Government have indicated their willingness.

We have heard about the different options during this debate. That includes, first, amending the ICC’s Rome statute, although there are serious workability issues around that; secondly, a so-called hybrid model, but, as we have heard, President Zelensky does not feel that that is the right way forward; and thirdly, an international court established by the UN General Assembly with the agreement of Ukraine. We could also have a treaty between interested states, creating a special tribunal, and we have heard of a fifth option, which is the model that the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) referred to in relation to the Council of Europe.

There are two critical issues that we would need to address in any model. First, there is the issue of immunities. There are questions in some of the options about whether immunity would come into play. Secondly, there is the question of selectivity, but I do not think that those need to necessarily stand in the way of the model. As has been said, a number of international legal experts and countries believe that those can be overcome by the special tribunal model.

Let me be clear that the brutality—the sheer wickedness—of what we have seen in Ukraine requires some very creative, robust and ambitious thinking. That is why Labour Members, and many hon. Members across the House, have supported the Ukrainian proposal for a special tribunal. These are some of the worst crimes that we have seen and the most incontrovertible case of aggression. Also, establishing a special tribunal and finding against Putin and Russia, as I very much hope it would, would lead us to a place where we can potentially take further action to give practical help to the people of Ukraine—for example, on the sequestration of Russian state assets. If we can establish and prosecute that original sin—that original crime of aggression—it could help to underpin the international legal basis for other actions that could lead to direct support for the Ukrainian people, as well as achieving the fundamental aim of justice for the country and its people for the crimes they have suffered.

I will end by quoting President Zelensky. In recent days, he said:

“But we know that the lasting peace after victory is achieved by nothing else but the strength of values. First of all, it’s the strength of freedom and of law, which must work to the full to ensure justice. Not hybrid promises instead of human rights, but real freedom. Not hybrid impunity and symbolic formalities, but full-scale justice. Not hybrid peace and constant flashes of violence on the frontline, but reliable peace. When one respects values—true freedom, true justice, true peace is respected”

and that is

“exactly what we need now.”

We should show the same ambition and the same passion for justice, the rule of law and a lasting settlement for the people of Ukraine, after the brutality that they have faced. I am very interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the processes leading towards setting up a special tribunal.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Last but not least, I call the Minister.

Yemen Peace Process

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2022 Westminster Hall

[John Spellar]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that there is considerable demand in southern Yemen for a degree of self-determination, if not independence, and that that is very much recognised by the south Yemeni diaspora here in the UK? This is not about us pressing for that as colonialists; it is very much a local demand.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Order. When someone intervenes, the speaker needs to accept the intervention before the other person starts speaking.

[Mrs Drummond]

Thank you, Mr Davies.

It is all very well for people in the UK to say that that is what should happen, but the country has been divided before. It came back together and started to have a Government who, unfortunately, were not run properly. Unifying the country could happen again, but if it is the will of the people of Yemen to divide again, we must accept that. It is up to the people of Yemen who are living there and those who are running the Government, who are beginning to run it with a lot of credibility. We have to wait for that to settle down.

The special envoy and other allies must also make clear that help and aid will come if the Government of Yemen take the opportunity to move on from their former position under President Hadi. Any weakness will be exploited by the Houthis and delay any future peace process. The UN special envoy has been tireless in his diplomatic efforts, and has been asking for a new six-month truce to allow time for negotiations for a formal ceasefire, the resumption of an inclusive political process, and talks on wider economic issues. We must help to make those things happen. On the humanitarian angle, Joyce Cleopa Msuya, the UN Assistant Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, has spent time in Yemen, helping the 4.3 million people who have been internally displaced since the start of the war in 2015. Her role can also help to encourage negotiations, showing that peace brings dividends. Mine clearance needs to be a priority, as mines are presently being washed into farm fields.

Before the civil war, 45% of the population of Yemen lived below the poverty line; that figure is now around 90%. Today, 24 million people are in danger of famine, of whom 14 million are at acute risk, and 2 million children are at risk of starvation. Huge parts of the population are being sustained by relief efforts. The UK has always been one of the leading donors supporting Yemen, providing more than £1 billion of aid during the conflict, and many British non-governmental organisations have been doing fantastic work. However, we must recognise that the Yemeni economy will need considerable help and support even after a return to peace.

Yemen is facing huge challenges from climate change, with near-constant drought and desertification of agricultural areas. Since the start of the war, the population of Yemen has doubled, but GDP per head has more than halved. There is a need to rebuild Yemeni society on an equal and fair basis, which includes the promotion of women’s rights. Lastly, there is the threat of an environmental disaster from the oil tanker FSO Safer, moored off the coast of Hodeidah. I have been raising awareness in Parliament about that potential catastrophe for many years. I am pleased that the UN has now raised enough money to start transferring the oil to a temporary vessel, but I have an immediate ask of the Government: that they work with our partners to make sure that transfer is completed as soon as possible, and to secure a safe disposal of the Safer. If that is not done, there is a risk of environmental damage to the whole of the Red sea for decades.

This war has gone on for too long, and too many people have died or been displaced. I urge the UK Government to work tirelessly with all parties and bring peace to a region that deserves it. The British Council is already working in the north and the south; there is a huge demand for English teaching and transferrable skills in Yemen. Our soft power influences can be a big help to Yemen in its post-war reconstruction and rehabilitation. That is important, because there is a compelling geopolitical reason why the west must help the people of Yemen: China or Russia, for example, could fill the vacuum, which could be disastrous for the region’s security. Our support for people in crisis in the world, helping them to build stable and fair regimes, is an investment in our own security as well as theirs. If we can achieve that, then perhaps I, the right hon. Member for Walsall South, and many Yemenis displaced around the world can one day safely return.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

I want to take the Front-Bench spokespeople at 3.58 pm, and by my arithmetic that leaves eight minutes each for the three remaining speakers.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, I believe for the first time. I welcome the Minister to his place, and I look forward to working with him on this and many other issues. I thank the hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) for securing this timely and important debate on the peace process in Yemen.

I believe the debate is important to raise awareness about the fragile political situation in Yemen and the ongoing humanitarian crisis. I welcome the opportunity to hear from the Government about what actions they are taking to help the people of Yemen. All of us, regardless of political party, are united in wanting to see a permanent ceasefire in Yemen and a political reconciliation between the warring factions. I and the Labour party believe that there is no military solution to the conflict and that inclusive political dialogue is the only route to a sustainable resolution.

The UK is the penholder on Yemen at the UN Security Council, which means the UK has the power to draft and table Security Council products on Yemen, including press statements, resolutions, presidential statements and more. Within the UN, the UK has the power to lead the way in efforts to forge a political, not military, solution to the conflict. It is important to consider that in our discussions about Yemen and about the actions the UK Government can take to help bring about a lasting peace. We need to focus on those efforts.

The relative calm brought about by the six-month truce has allowed some Yemenis to dream of a better future. It is therefore deeply disappointing that the truce came to an end last month, on 2 October, and that efforts to renew it have been unsuccessful so far. I will return to the truce and the prospects of its renewal in more depth, but first I want to outline the devastating impact of the war.

As hon. Member know, the conflict began in 2014 when the Iranian-aligned Houthis seized the capital, Sanaa, and much of northern Yemen, and later forced the Government into exile. In March 2015 a Saudi-led coalition, including the United Arab Emirates, began a military campaign, backing the internationally recognised Government. The toll of eight years of war on Yemen’s population has been extreme and the war has devastated the country. There have been thousands of civilian deaths, and the famine caused by the war has endangered millions of lives. Across Yemen, 16.2 million people—60% of the Yemeni population—continue to experience acute food insecurity. The UN has described the war in Yemen as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, and it is estimated that 377,000 people have been killed or have died as a result of the war and the associated crises in basic food and other necessities.

Against this dire backdrop, the recently ended truce offered a beacon of hope and brought some welcome developments. Despite claims of violations by both sides, the truce brought about a sharp drop in fighting. Save the Children has calculated that the truce led to a 34% drop in child casualties and a 60% drop in the displacement of people. According to al-Jazeera, residents in Sanaa reported that their daily lives dramatically improved during the truce, and that prices came down as more essential goods entered the city. Evani Debone, a communications co-ordinator at the Adventist Development and Relief Agency Yemen, told al-Jazeera that the truce had given Yemenis hope for peace. She said:

“Children who go to school are not afraid of airplanes any more. Having the next generation of Yemen not being afraid and not running from the war, as well as having the right to live their lives again is the most important thing when we think about the truce.”

The truce established a partial opening of the Houthi-controlled Sanaa International airport and the key Houthi-held Red sea port of Hodeidah. During the truce, flights restarted at Sanaa International airport for the first time since 2016 and, according to the UN, fuel imports into the port of Hodeidah are calculated to have quadrupled during the truce, allowing people to regain some level of normality in their lives. The truce also called for the lifting of the Houthi blockade on Taiz, the country’s third largest city, but little progress was made there after talks aimed at reopening local roads stalled. Another sticking point was the funding of public employees, many of whom have not received salaries for years.

For now, it appears that some of the main gains of the truce, such as the increase in fuel shipments to Hodeidah and the resumption of flights to Sanaa International airport, have thankfully held. The ability to move freely from Sanaa International airport is particularly important because it means that tens of thousands of Yemenis have been able to visit loved ones and receive vital medical treatment during the truce. It is estimated that the opening of the airport allowed almost 27,000 Yemenis to get medical treatment overseas, and to pursue educational or business opportunities abroad.

I am sure everyone here agrees that the protection of measures that so improve the lives of ordinary Yemenis must be a priority. Although it appears that there has been no immediate major uptick in violence since the truce expired, the fear is that it will begin again. Two weeks ago UN special envoy Hans Grundberg told the Security Council that a “new uncertainty” and a “heightened risk of war” now prevailed across Yemen. Meanwhile, all sides in the conflict are blaming each other for the failure of the truce, but it is the ordinary people of Yemen who will suffer most if the violence begins again. However, UN special envoy Hans Grundberg has signalled that there is still cause for hope, telling the UN Security Council:

“It is important to remember that the truce was never intended as an end in itself, but as a building block to enhance trust between the parties”.

A truce is necessary in order to establish the kind of environment in which a political solution to the conflict can be reached. I have therefore been heartened that the special envoy has stated that he believes there is still a possibility for the parties to come to an agreement. It is vital that the UK Government and the whole international community do everything in their power to try to facilitate that. Re-establishing the truce would be a first step towards a durable peace. There is no doubt that it will take compromises and leadership from all sides.

To conclude, what specific steps are the Government taking to make the most of the UK’s penholder role in the UN in relation to re-establishing the truce in Yemen? Will the Minister tell us what the UK Government are doing to support the ongoing UN-led process to establish peace, and to encourage the negotiation of an enduring political settlement? It is vital that the Government do all they can to help end this brutal conflict and stop the suffering of the Yemeni people. For the people of Yemen, the stakes could not be higher.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Now over to the Minister. Please leave two minutes at the end for Flick Drummond to sum up.

Ukraine

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

The UK and our international allies have provided Ukraine with both ground-to-air and air-to-air defence systems. We will continue to assess its defence needs and adjust our support accordingly.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

At the Council of Europe, of which I am a member, President Zelensky suggested that Ukraine had only about 10% of the air defences that it needed to respond to the current onslaught. Much of that onslaught comes from Iranian drones. Given that Iran is in a condition of social unrest, what efforts are the UK Government making to ensure that people in Iran know that the focus of their Government is to send weapons of mass destruction to be used against innocent people—rather than feeding them bread and giving them human rights—so that we can choke off, over time, the supply of these deadly weapons?

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. We will continue to take action to discourage the supply to Russia of weapons that might be used in Ukraine, and we will keep under constant review our sanctions packages to choke off the supply of weapons such as drones.

Council of Europe

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the work of the Council of Europe.

I am the leader of the British delegation to the Council of Europe, which I declare as an interest, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria.

It pains me to start on a slightly sour note, but we are having the debate here in Westminster Hall because successive Leaders of the House have said no to us being allowed Government time for a debate in the main Chamber. I believe that the number of Members who have put in to speak, and the many more who have shown interest in the debate, is an expression of the greatest interest in the subject. It is a shame that we will be unable to hear the full richness of contributions from members of the delegation and others due to time constraints. That is no criticism of Westminster Hall as a setting for the debate, but it is a request to the Minister to provide us with assistance in trying to raise the visibility and importance of the Council of Europe.

More people now understand what the Council of Europe is and what it does. As a delegation, we work hard to make our contribution in the plenary sessions of the Parliamentary Assembly, the committee meetings that take place between plenary sessions and more generally. After each plenary session, we publish, for example, a summary of what we have discussed and the character of the meeting. I brief lobby journalists before we go to the Council. We issue press releases on key subjects, such as the position of Russia and the fate of the British individuals sentenced to death. We have held seminars—well attended—with, for example, Vladimir Kara-Murza, a Russian dissident now imprisoned, and with Ahmet Yildiz on Turkey. Finally, after each meeting, I raise questions on the subjects of the debate we have had. This has dramatically increased the profile of the Council of Europe among parliamentarians, and perhaps more generally among members of the public. However, I appreciate that there is still a lot more to do to ensure that people do not confuse us with the European Union, an organisation with about half the number of member countries as the Council of Europe.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given that the Council of Europe represents 47 countries and that its mission is to empower and promote our fundamental values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and given that we are seeing those values breached both by Vladimir Putin with his invasion of Ukraine and in China and elsewhere, does the hon. Gentleman agree that this place should put paramount importance on those fundamental values and the Council of Europe, and on debate such as this?

[John Howell]

The Council of Europe is not responsible for China. It is responsible for what happens in Europe, and the three pillars of the Council of Europe—human rights, the rule of law and democracy—are crucial to its future. That is what we need to hold countries to.

The reason for making the remarks I made before taking an intervention is that the role of the Council of Europe has never been more important. For me, one of the proudest moments was when we expelled Russia from the Council. I am told that I was the first politician to ask for that to happen, in a letter to the Secretary-General, and I was pleased to see the support from the delegation for that action.

Thank heavens that the covid crisis has diminished substantially. The sort of diplomacy required simply cannot be carried out by Zoom or remotely. It is great for our effectiveness to be back in person, and I am pleased that newer members of the delegation can now see that what I said all along about understanding what the Council stood for being best achieved by their personal attendance was absolutely true. I am sure that other Members will want to comment on Russia during further consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I very much welcome this debate. I have been a member of the Council of Europe for many years, with a brief interlude. The bottom line is that the Council of Europe stands up for our fundamental values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, which we have seen under attack around the world and beyond the sphere of the Council of Europe; and obviously those values are under attack in Ukraine. I am proud to be the trade rapporteur of the Council of Europe, which involves instilling in trade agreements the values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, plus sustainable development in compliance with the Paris agreement and subsequent COP agreements.

It is important that Britain shines the light of our values around the Council of Europe and beyond. We also need to look at and question what we are doing here in terms of the rule of law. An obvious example is the breach of the Northern Ireland protocol that breaches international law, and will undermine the Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland economy. We need to think about the right to peaceful protest and whether the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 is compliant with the conventions. Quite frankly, I find the prospect of police officers judging some annoyance, disturbance or discontinuity of business sufficient to stop a peaceful protest in a democratic country abhorrent, and it is the sort of thing that will play into the hands of Vladimir Putin.

We need to think about the issues around Rwanda. Israel refuses to send its refugees to Rwanda because they might face torture, death or rape. We need to think about the evidence, not, “Oh no, it is a court interfering”, as has been suggested. We also need to think about the independence of our own judiciary: how that should stand strong and not be attacked by the Government. In recent years the Supreme Court has been attacked by Ministers, who have been amplified in the press, on key decisions such as giving Parliament the right to vote on the EU deal and bringing democracy back after the prolonged Prorogation.

A recent report by the all-party parliamentary group on democracy and the constitution, which I chair, flags that issue and the fact that the Supreme Court has now reversed seven of the Government’s decisions in the last two years. We criticise the intimidation and chilling effect of an independent Court, but we should look at whether we are satisfying fundamental values.

I am very much a supporter of those fundamental values. I rejoice in the fact that we were founding members. After the war, Winston Churchill was instrumental in bringing about this bastion of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Around the world, whether in China—I appreciate that it is not in the Council of Europe—or elsewhere, those values are being broken down and alternative totalitarian or authoritarian systems are being championed. It is incumbent on us all to fight the fight, be a bastion for those values and not let them be undermined at home. I very much welcome the debate secured by the hon. Member for Henley; we must stand firm together for our fundamental values.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alyn Smith]

I genuinely thank the right hon. Member for his intervention, and I could not agree with him more. One of the things that has struck me since I got to this House is that we are not all goodies and baddies, and there are a number of shades of grey within. I acknowledge the governing party on this issue. I very much agree with his point. Happily, it is on my page of notes, so we can all look forward to that.

That criticism of the framework is ahistoric. As we have heard, the Council of Europe came from a speech that Winston Churchill made in Zurich in 1946. It was formed by the London Statute, signed in this city in 1949. I am a proud member of the Scottish National party; I have a different worldview from many on the Government Benches and many of the Members of this House, but I celebrate the work of the English and Scottish lawyers in drawing up this international framework of decency historically. To withdraw from that would be deeply ahistoric and an act of nihilism and vandalism, which I would deeply regret. The part that the UK has played in the growth and development of the Council of Europe is an example of global Britain that we can actually be proud of, because it has effected real change in the real world, on our European continent. To walk away from it would be an act of great harm, not only to the wider continent but to us at home.

I pay tribute to that proud history, but I also have to list a few of the things, as mentioned by some Members, that we see currently. When we talk about grievous international acts of criminality in Ukraine, the Donbas, or Cyprus or elsewhere, we need to be consistent at home. So loose chatter—in the Queen’s Speech, no less—about a British Bill of rights, as if somehow the European convention on human rights does not work for us uniquely, is an absurdity. In fact, I would say that it is a deeply, deeply regrettable policy trend.

Loose talk of breaking international law—a solemn international commitment, only recently signed—over the Northern Ireland protocol, when there are dispute resolution mechanisms within the protocol itself, is setting the worst possible international example to those who would seek to do bad things internationally. How can we possibly look Mr Putin in the eye with any credibility when we are ourselves talking about breaching international law, as if it is a mere bagatelle? The odious reaction that we have seen to the European Court of Human Rights quite rightly stopping the odious policy of offshoring refugees to Rwanda is deeply dangerous. We are also seeing the limiting of rights to protest and indeed to vote at home; we can look forward to the Court’s judgments on those issues, too.

There is also talk in some quarters—not by everyone, but in some quarters—about “unelected foreign judges”, as if our own judges were elected and as if “foreign” has anything negative to it. The whole framework of extraterritorial judicial scrutiny is the point—it was designed in this city. The point is to ensure the enforcement of decency and proper legal standards. The rule of law is an important thing to observe at home as well as abroad.

[Geraint Davies]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that, on the one hand, there are those who criticise the credentials of judges in the European Court of Human Rights, and yet we have had Lord Chancellors—such as the current Foreign Secretary, actually—who have not really got much legal expertise? What we really need is a Lord Chancellor here for a sustained period of time to protect the independent judiciary, rather than taking pot shots at it.

[Alyn Smith]

I am similarly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am really concerned about the public discourse in these islands. If we believe in the rule of law, that means that we also believe in it when it is difficult or inconvenient for the Government of the day. The Scottish Government have been before the European Court of Human Rights as well on the issue of prisoners slopping out. It has been difficult for us, too, but if we sign up to a set of rules and to extrajudicial scrutiny, we need to allow that to run its course. Undermining the independence of the judiciary is a really, really dangerous place for us to go, so I urge everyone, from all points of the compass, to stop it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I think that the right hon. Gentleman points out the importance of maintaining contacts with all those who are opposing Putin’s regime. Indeed, I think that Vladimir Kara-Murza was mentioned. That is a case that we are all deeply concerned about. It is important that we maintain contact through many bodies, including the Council of Europe, with those who would stand up for democracy and human rights in Russia and against the actions of the Putin regime.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) for the work he does as a rapporteur. He made some very important points. I would reference his point on the attacks on the judiciary in the UK; I think that some of the comments we have seen are very damaging. He, like many others, raised the issue of the ECHR and Rwanda, which has obviously been a crucial point.

On that, I echo the comments of the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper): there is no point in the Government blaming anyone but themselves on this issue. Ministers have been pursuing a policy that they know is not workable and that will not tackle criminal gangs. Despite that, they paid Rwanda £120 million and hired a jet that now has not taken off, all because they wanted someone else to blame in a confected row. They ignored the warnings about the policy, including on the potential treatment of torture victims—which of course is a crucial issue for the Council of Europe. It has rightly been referenced in this debate, but I think the Government need to take a hard look at themselves to understand why they are in the position they find themselves in this morning.

The Council of Europe has done excellent work in many areas since its foundation. I mentioned the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, which makes unannounced visits to places of detention. The Committee of Social Rights also verifies that rights to housing, health, education and employment are being implemented. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale mentioned the anti-corruption work of GRECO, and the Council of Europe also works with other bodies, including the OSCE, the EU, the United Nations and other international bodies, which use Council of Europe reports in pursuing their own excellent work in these areas.

The ECHR itself—I would say this again as a salutary warning to those who make unwarranted attacks on the ECHR—has delivered more than 16,000 judgments. Let us remember the wide range of those judgments, including on the right to life, the prohibition of torture, the prohibition of slavery and forced labour, the right to liberty and security, the right to a fair trial, the right to respect for private and family life, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, the prohibition of discrimination, and indeed the protection of property. Of course, one of the Court’s most high-profile cases was its ruling that Russia was responsible for the murder of Alexander Litvinenko. That is the scope of the ECHR’s work and it needs to be more fully understood. As has been mentioned, the abolition of capital punishment—something I have long campaigned for—has been a precondition for accession to the Council of Europe since 1985. Indeed, the Council of Europe has played a critical role in ensuring that we do not have the death penalty in member states.

The Istanbul convention has rightly been referenced, and I have a question for the Minister on that. We need to acknowledge that violence against women is a human rights violation and a form of discrimination. The Council of Europe has carried out work on the fight against discrimination for reasons of sexual orientation or gender identity. These are critical issues, particularly when we see backsliding by some members. This is a matter that I hope the Council will pay increased attention over the months and years to come.

I reiterate Labour’s unshakeable commitment to maximising opportunities to work alongside allies and partners on issues of human rights, the rule of law and democracy through as many multilateral institutions as possible, and a critical institution is the Council of Europe. Today’s world is too precarious and, frankly, dangerous to operate unilaterally, as unfortunately we have seen the Government do on too many occasions recently. I hope the Government and the Minister will reiterate our commitment to working through the Council of Europe on these issues, because we face some deep threats across our continent and the world, and the Council of Europe will be key to tackling them.

Beyond reiterating its solidarity with Ukraine and expressing an unwavering commitment to its sovereignty, the Council adopted an action plan for Ukraine, including measures to protect displaced people, to support legal professionals, to document human rights violations—which is critical when we see some of the horrific atrocities currently taking place in Ukraine—and to protect the rights of vulnerable groups, including children and the Roma. As the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said, it is important that links with civil society in Russia and Belarus are strengthened. That grassroots work is critical in fighting back against the Putin war machine and the Kremlin’s unrelenting disinformation campaign across Europe.

[Geraint Davies]

Would my hon. Friend accept that it is important to accept the credibility and importance of the statutory role of the Council of Europe’s Court? If other countries fail to abide by these rules, that could collectively undermine the fundamental values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law that we are trying to push forward. The Government should think twice before putting stuff in the media about the Council of Europe and the convention when they are found in need by the Court.

Xinjiang Internment Camps: Shoot-to-Kill Policy

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Milling]

I have set out on a number of occasions the actions that we are taking. When it comes to trade with China, it is essential that the trade is reliable, avoids strategic dependency and does not involve the violation of intellectual property or forced technology transfer.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

We heard, by way of example, of the case of a mother who has been interned and may be subject to the shoot-to-kill policy because she is associated with her son, who has been imprisoned for 10 years on the grounds that he does not smoke and drink and may therefore have leanings towards religion. The Chinese Government at the highest levels seem to have no respect for human rights, the rule of law and democracy and are allowing genocide, yet we are not taking proper action on procurement and through the modern slavery Bill. High Speed 2 and Hinkley Point are reliant on China. We are selling off our microchips. Our universities are impregnated. What are we doing, in alliance with the United States and others, to take a concerted economic approach so that we stand up for our values and against genocide?

[Amanda Milling]

I have set out a number of our actions, which include standing with our international partners in calling out China’s persecution of the Uyghur Muslims and other minorities. We remain committed to continuing to hold China to account.

Commonwealth Day

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I am delighted to have co-sponsored the debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger), and I congratulate him on securing it on Commonwealth Day.

As a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, I appreciate the importance of the interconnected nature of the Commonwealth and the need to keep and strengthen the strong cultural, trade and diplomatic relationships between the countries of the Commonwealth. I am looking forward to strengthening our sporting ties this summer, when we will welcome people from across the Commonwealth to Staffordshire, particularly the west midlands, for the Commonwealth games. I welcome the Minister to her place. I know that she shares my enthusiasm for the games, as the mountain-biking event will take place in Cannock Chase forest, which borders our two Staffordshire constituencies.

I am honoured to have been appointed as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Kenya, one of the leading Commonwealth nations in east Africa. The close Commonwealth connections between the UK and Kenya mean that it is one of the first countries that the UK has done a trade deal with in this area following our exit from the European Union. I was pleased to be at the signing of the UK-Kenya economic partnership agreement, which I believe will provide continuity for UK businesses and help to create more jobs, both at home and abroad. From my recent visits to Kenya to meet British businesses working in east Africa and Kenyan Government Ministers, the importance of this trade agreement for our mutual prosperity is very clear. Such trade deals are being replicated across the Commonwealth, increasing economic prosperity for all Commonwealth citizens.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset, I attended the Commonwealth service at Westminster Abbey yesterday with the Prime Minister and the royal family. I sat alongside a number of African MPs who were here this week in London to attend the Westminster Seminar. I was struck by how united the Commonwealth is in its aims for the future and how immense the potential is to tackle the great global challenges we all face, including one of the biggest threats to our current way of life: climate change.

I attended the COP26 summit last year in Glasgow to meet with parliamentarians from around the world who are all so dedicated to delivering sustainable development goals and looking at ways to promote international conservation. It was clear from talking to those MPs that there is international will to tackle climate change. In particular, there were strong commitments from Commonwealth nations. I welcomed the Glasgow Climate Pact, which includes a plan to phase down the use of unabated coal power, as well as the Global Methane Pledge, which was signed by over 100 countries, committing at the summit to cutting their methane emissions by 30%. These steps will lower greenhouse gas emissions and help to reduce the use of fossil fuels, which ultimately will help us tackle climate change.

As ever, it is vital that these agreements are what make a real difference on the ground. I note that the COP26 President, my right hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), recently said at COP26,

“This is our last hope…Our best chance of building a brighter future.”

I welcome the fact that he retains the COP presidency until November this year, so that we can continue to make progress on tackling climate change. I believe this is a real opportunity to build on the plans to reach net zero by 2050; as a global Britain, we should continue to use the COP presidency as a platform to protect our planet further.

Climate change and damage to the environment are occurring now as I speak here in Parliament. In the last minute alone, we have lost 30 football pitches of forest and at present, over 1 million species are facing extinction. Those are staggering figures. The reality is that climate change is not just about statistics or abstract concepts of temperature modelling: it impacts the lives of people every day living in the Commonwealth. Sadly, it is only set to get worse in the future if we do not work together to tackle it.

I am sure that, like me, many Members saw Tuvalu’s Foreign Minister Simon Kofe’s very emotive speech at COP26. He said, “We are sinking.” The camera then panned behind him to show that the island where he was standing was actually under water. As they say, a picture really does speak a thousand words. Climate change and rising sea levels are a problem not just for Tuvalu but for British overseas territories and other countries throughout the Commonwealth.

Also at COP26, the UK launched the Clean Green initiative to help developing countries take advantage of green technology and grow their economies sustainably. That included a doubling of UK-aid-funded green investments to more than £3 billion over five years. It provides new guarantees to support clean infrastructure projects in the Commonwealth and throughout the developing world.

One of the obvious opportunities for renewable energy is in east Africa with solar. Let us face it: Africa has a lot more sun than we do in London. On my first visit to Kenya as trade envoy last year, I saw first hand the transformative impact that renewables can have in Africa. I toured east Africa’s largest solar plant—Malindi—which was built by the British firm Globeleq using $32 million of financing from CDC Group, now British International Investment. The plant’s 157 solar panels began powering a clean energy transition earlier this year. That is a great example of where the UK-Kenya economic partnership is already delivering clean, green infrastructure on the ground in Kenya today and is the type of collaboration I would like to see replicated across the Commonwealth.

We have also seen deforestation throughout the Commonwealth; sadly, it is exacerbating climate change. As the chair of the sub-committee on the work of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, I have recently held an inquiry on international climate finance and how UK aid is used for halting deforestation and preventing irreversible biodiversity loss. We had a recent oral evidence session with Lord Goldsmith as the Minister for the environment at the FCDO. I asked the Minister how the Government see the role of tackling deforestation and protecting biodiversity, specifically in relation to reducing poverty. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the Government are now actively looking for nature-based solutions when planning Official Development Assistance-funded projects.

Tackling deforestation and planting trees is one of the areas where the Commonwealth is leading the world. The Queen’s Commonwealth Canopy, launched at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in 2015, is an excellent example of how all Commonwealth countries are collaborating to make a difference to our planet. This is a flagship international conservation project and comprises millions of trees, from the Maldives to Malawi, from St Lucia to Singapore. It will eventually link Commonwealth nations across the globe, which demonstrates the power of the Commonwealth working together for the common good.

The project is also being replicated here in Great Britain. Earlier this month, I was delighted to plant my first tree for the platinum jubilee at Flash Ley Community Primary School in my Stafford constituency. Not only will that fruit tree teach local children about caring for the environment, but it also forms part of the Queen’s Green Canopy, which aims to encourage every community throughout the United Kingdom to plant trees to mark Her Majesty’s 70th year on the throne and expand the tree canopy in the Commonwealth. I encourage all my colleagues to do the same and especially the Minister, as my next-door neighbour in Staffordshire.

In conclusion, I applaud the efforts of all countries in the Commonwealth that are aiming to create a sustainable future that is more green. The Queen, as the Head of the Commonwealth, said it best in her recent Commonwealth statement. She said we must:

“endeavour to ensure the Commonwealth remains an influential force for good in our world for many generations to come.”

I absolutely agree.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

I call David Mundell—and not just because he is wearing a Commonwealth tie.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and to take part in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Theo Clarke) and for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) on sponsoring the debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset in particular for the work that he does as chair of the UK branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and for the work that he is doing on the international front, stepping in, as is his wont, to challenging situations and carrying that work forward with his usual good humour and disposition.

Last week, I had the pleasure of taking part in a Commonwealth day celebration in another Parliament. I was on the steps of the Lesotho Parliament in Maseru with the Speaker of that Parliament and the President of the Senate, along with our excellent and newly established British high commissioner in Lesotho. It was heartening to see the value placed on the Commonwealth by the Members of that Parliament and the tributes made, as they have been this morning, to Her Majesty the Queen and her commitment to the Commonwealth.

As other Members have referenced, the Commonwealth ranges in scale from countries the size of India and the geographic size of Canada to the very small, landlocked Lesotho. People in Lesotho are clear that their country is as much in the heart of Her Majesty the Queen as any of the other members of the Commonwealth, and her 70 years of service were celebrated as much in Maseru as they are being celebrated here in London and in the rest of the UK.

That visit—I know you are familiar with Commonwealth Parliamentary Association work, Mr Davies—was part of a series of contacts that have taken place between the CPA UK and the Lesotho Parliament to enable parliamentarians here and the CPA UK to support the Lesotho Parliament to develop and improve processes, and to learn from each other. The Lesotho Parliament is facing a situation that will be new to certainly all Conservative Members: there is a conflict within the ruling party and apparently a challenge to the Prime Minister, and there will potentially be a vote of confidence in Parliament. We were able to have a full discussion about how such matters are handled in our own parliamentary system.

I am being slightly flippant, but a serious discussion took place on how processes in that Parliament can evolve. The CPA UK has done a great deal of work that has fed into the National Reforms Authority, which has been established in Lesotho to try to take forward the omnibus Bill, which will reform that Parliament. That highlights the very important work that the CPA UK is doing not just in terms of what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset does in this Parliament, but in working with other Parliaments—peer-to-peer working between Members of this Parliament and other Parliaments, and learning from each other. There are certainly things that we can learn from what is done in Lesotho and all the other members of the Commonwealth.

This is an appropriate time to pay tribute, as others have, to Jon Davies, the chief executive of the CPA UK, and his great team. We were accompanied on our visit to Lesotho and South Africa by Felicity Herrmann—she is responsible for many of the partnerships between this Parliament and other Parliaments—and others, such as Victoria Bower. They do an excellent job supporting members in their activities.

I led the delegation, and while we were there we met the Deputy Speaker of the South African Parliament. He made exactly the same points that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset made about the status of the CPA. I want to reinforce to the Minister that that is a really important issue, particularly for African members of the Commonwealth, which feel that the CPA’s charitable status demeans it in terms of the status that it should be afforded.

It was clear to me—I am sure the Minister and her colleagues are aware of this—that the position in South Africa vis-à-vis the UK is not exactly as we would want it to be. For example, the South African view of the Russian war with Ukraine is not the same as ours. It is very important that we have good working relations with South African politicians. South Africa is a hugely influential country, both in that part of the world and globally, and therefore we have to take it seriously when its Parliament says, “We don’t like the way in which the CPA is constituted.” I would be grateful if the Minister would take on board not only the point I am making, but the point made by my hon. Friend.

In his intervention, our hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) referred to the Commonwealth as a family, while the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) used this debate to raise his concern about faith issues. In my capacity as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV and AIDS, I say to the Minister that we need to use the fact that we are in the Commonwealth family to put pressure on other members of the Commonwealth and raise the issue of HIV/AIDS and their response to it. Some 60% of people living with HIV live in Commonwealth countries, while one in four men in Caribbean countries where homosexuality is criminalised has HIV. There is a great deal to be done.

Thanks to the advances in medicine over the past 40 years, today there is no reason why anyone with HIV should live a shorter life than someone without it. Crucially, we have the tools to radically slow new infections through education and prevention measures. However, the ability to prevent the spread of HIV is seriously compromised by punitive laws, discriminatory and brutal policing, and denial of access to justice for people with and at risk of acquiring HIV, which is fuelling the epidemic.

The issue at the centre of international efforts to deal with this pandemic is a crisis of human rights law in many Commonwealth countries, not the lack of medicines. There is now overwhelming evidence of the link between the criminalisation of homosexuality and the rate of HIV infection. To end new diagnoses of HIV by 2030, which this Government are committed to doing, the punitive laws against LGBT+ communities in the Commonwealth must be reformed. We must not be afraid to raise this issue with Commonwealth family members—being a family is about being able to raise difficult and challenging issues.

As we have heard this morning, the Commonwealth is a really positive institution. Countries such as Rwanda and Mozambique have joined it. However, we must be clear with our friends and family members that we want to see them reform their own procedures and customs. On that basis, we can look forward to a very positive future for the Commonwealth. I certainly want to do my bit as part of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in the UK. I encourage all my colleagues in this Parliament and the devolved Parliaments to take part—it is a really worthwhile opportunity.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Last but not least from the Back Benches, I call Maria Miller.

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies. I thank the hon. Members for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) and for Stafford (Theo Clarke) for co-sponsoring this debate and bringing it before this House. Many right hon. and hon. Members from across the Chamber have made significant contributions on topics including promoting democracy across our Commonwealth nations, promoting religious freedoms, economic prosperity, preventing the spread of HIV, and connectivity between Commonwealth countries.

Commonwealth Day is an opportunity for us to reflect on the enduring bonds we have with our Commonwealth siblings. Nothing more effectively reminds us that we are part of a global Commonwealth family than contact with our constituents. Our diversity is our strength, and I think we in Lewisham appreciate that more than most. I have Guyanese Indian and Jamaican descent, and I am British born and bred, so I am a child of the Commonwealth through and through. On my trips to both those countries, I have gained such an appreciation of the culture and traditions that have developed over centuries from people mixing together. In Guyana, I love the pepperpot and cook-up rice, just as in Jamaica I love the saltfish and ackee with green bananas. I have been to many Commonwealth countries so far in my life—The Gambia, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, Mauritius and Malta—and hope to visit many more.

We cannot take our Commonwealth family ties for granted: the strong relationship we have with each other must be constantly nurtured. The institutions of the Commonwealth help us to do just that, and find new ways to partner and co-operate to solve our common challenges. Today, we look forward to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Rwanda this June. As we know, the timetable was delayed by the pandemic; the UK has now held the chair for four years, and I am sure the Minister will set out what the Government see as the achievements of our time as chair.

I also want to hear about the engagement that has been happening in preparation for June. One of the ways in which the Commonwealth brings people together is through sport, and we look forward to the 22nd Commonwealth games in Birmingham later this year, which will provide another welcome opportunity to renew and deepen our connections. I would like to take this opportunity to celebrate the achievements of Birmingham as it prepares to host the games.

The challenges we face are daunting, but we are stronger together than apart. Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine has far-reaching impacts. We must be clear that the Russian invasion is a violation of the Commonwealth values and principles set out repeatedly in declarations from Singapore, Goa, Harare and Coolum. Does the Government intend to facilitate any discussion among Commonwealth partners?

As Commonwealth members, we believe in the notions of peace and security, and the international rule of law. Both of those principles have been shattered by the Russian invasion. The Kenyan ambassador to the United Nations, Martin Kimani, said it best:

“We must complete our recovery from the embers of dead empires in a way that does not plunge us back into new forms of domination and oppression.”

I could not agree more. Those words are another example of how we have so much to learn from the experiences and histories shared across our Commonwealth partners. I would like to again put on the record Labour’s support for improvements to the curriculum so that a broader range of perspectives can be fully understood.

The Russian invasion will also have economic implications across the world, including for many Commonwealth countries. Labour urges the Government to publish assessments of the impact of the food and energy price rises on developing countries, particularly the least developed states. I urge the Government to restore funding to 0.7%, otherwise the humanitarian money that is rightly being devoted to Ukraine will come at the expense of others. That will often mean Commonwealth countries whose needs are also great.

Much of the UK’s time as chair-in-office of the Commonwealth has been dominated by the covid-19 pandemic. I ask the Minister to give an update on the number of vaccinations delivered into arms as a result of UK donations. I also ask the Minister to say something about any progress that has been made on delivering those doses earlier and more predictably, because a dose that arrives just weeks before it goes out of date is not really a donation at all—it is closer to the dumping of medical waste. Quite frankly, that is an insult.

To recover from the pandemic, we need education systems to bounce back quickly and effectively. In many Commonwealth countries, as in the UK, schools were shut, in some cases for almost two years. That can have a massively greater impact on girls, particularly in parts of the Commonwealth affected by poverty. Children who are not in school are vulnerable to child labour and child marriage.

Analysis of the 2020 and 2021 aid budget cuts suggests that together they would result in 700,000 girls losing support from education programmes. The leaked equalities impact assessment last week showed a reduction of 75% for programmes to tackle violence against women and girls, and up to 80% for some sexual and reproductive health programmes. The focus of this year’s Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Rwanda will be empowering young people through technology. There are many strong UK companies and NGOs which could contribute expertise, so I hope that the Minister will say more about what the Government will be doing.

The benefits of an inclusive recovery from covid are huge. Girls and boys who can achieve their potential will build more secure societies and expand opportunities for trade and investment. Labour is watching closely to see how the Government live up to their promise to fully restore funding for women and girls, and I hope that the Minister will say more about that today.

Democracy and inclusive governance are core Commonwealth values. This year will see elections in many Commonwealth countries, including Malta, The Gambia, Papua New Guinea, Australia, Kenya, Lesotho, and Fiji. We look forward to being able to celebrate the outcomes of free, fair, and peaceful elections with all of those Commonwealth siblings in the months to come.

We must do everything we can to support those values through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and Commonwealth Foundation, and through direct diplomacy by the Government. However, the funding for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy remains in doubt. The Government must continue to support its work.

The protection of human rights is another Commonwealth principle, and we must continue to raise issues affecting marginalised people across our sibling countries. As we know, the colonial legacy includes laws targeting LGBT+ people, and all those standing up against that legacy today must have our full support. Likewise, we must work together to end violence against religious and ethnic minorities, and ensure that journalists and political activists can operate freely in every Commonwealth country, including that of the incoming chair-in-office. I hope that the Government will set out their intentions to do that in their response.

Having saved the best until last, the Commonwealth must come together to tackle the climate emergency. There is surely an opportunity in Kigali to set the stage for COP27 in Egypt and to announce continued deepening of shared Commonwealth programming. What are the Government doing to engage with Commonwealth states in June on the acute needs that many have on climate financing and on adaptation, mitigation, and loss and damage funds?

The members of our Commonwealth family are bound together by so much: our histories, our common values, our endeavours and our shared challenges. The Commonwealth can be a deepening partnership of equals that helps our world to flourish all the more. Labour joins in the celebration of Commonwealth Day, and I with it, as the Commonwealth is special to me. We encourage the Government to set out the steps they will take to make the promise of the Commonwealth a reality.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

To respond to all those points, I call the Minister, Amanda Milling.

Relationship with Russia and China

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Thursday 24th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

The world order is at a pivotal point in history. From Moscow to Tehran to Beijing, autocratic rulers are attempting to enforce their undemocratic models not only on their own people, but on those beyond their borders. What we are witnessing in Ukraine today is the starkest example of that frightful and frightening phenomenon.

Almost unbelievably, in the 21st century we are witnessing the invasion of a peaceful European state by an armed aggressor—something we have not seen since the actions of Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Yet, in a warped and perverted view of history, Putin last night compared Ukraine to Nazi Germany, painting it as a genocidal state that poses a threat to the Russian people. That can only be true in the deranged analysis of Putin’s mind as he unleashes a tsunami of violence against the people of Ukraine.

How could Ukraine be a threat to Russia? Russia has 4,100 aircraft; Ukraine has 318. Russia has 772 fighters; Ukraine has 69. Russia has 1,543 helicopters; Ukraine has 112. Russia has 12,400 tanks; Ukraine has 2,600. Let us also remember that Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal at the end of the Soviet era on the basis of a guarantee that it would not be invaded by Russia. One wonders whether, if Ukraine had maintained its nuclear deterrent, those tanks would be rolling across Ukrainian territory today.

Make no mistake: Putin will continue to challenge the international order and advance his imperial agenda until he is decisively confronted. He seeks to reverse the democratic result of the 1991 Ukraine referendum and resurrect the Soviet empire. With increased security control in Eurasia over recent years, the Baltic states and Ukraine stand as outliers—those states that have stayed beyond Moscow’s malignant grip.

The implications are clear. We must now increase the NATO presence in the Baltic states, as well as in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania, which will now be on the frontline. NATO countries must be willing now not only to raise the proportion of their GDP that they give to defence, but to give that money to NATO rather than making paper promises.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The right hon. Gentleman mentions that Russia has 12,400 tanks. He will know that the Prime Minister mentioned that we had sent 2,000 anti-tank missiles to Ukraine. Does he think we are doing enough to provide assets to Ukraine to defend itself?

[Dr Fox]

No, we have not been doing enough. Since we saw the occupation of Crimea in 2014, many of us, including some who are in the House today, have been arguing that the west should be giving Ukraine the proper capabilities to defend itself. It is clear today that we did not do so—something that I will come to in a moment.

Since sanctions were imposed on Russia in 2014, it has paid down state debt, had significant import substitution to make it less dependent on outside producers, and made large investments in European metallurgy, energy and critical infrastructure. In 2020, the inward stock of foreign direct investment in the UK from Russia was £681 million, and the equivalent EU figure was £112 billion. Sanctions must include restrictions on all Russian investment if we are to stop Russia from wriggling out of any new sanctions that are applied because of what it has done today.

To go back to the point made by the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), I hope the House will forgive me for quoting an article I wrote on 22 February 2015, which said that an option would be

“to give the Ukrainians the capabilities they most require in order to defend themselves against the military superiority of the pro-Russian separatists and their Kremlin allies.

Primarily, this would involve properly encrypted communications, UAVs for surveillance and targeting and anti-tank capabilities to deal with the massive deficit which the Ukrainians currently have on this front.

There is increasing scepticism in Washington that any diplomatic solution reached with the Putin government will be as worthless as that achieved in Minsk last September.”

What was true at that time about NATO is true today:

“Everybody wants the insurance policy, but too few want to pay the premiums.

Western nations are too afraid to reallocate funds from their welfare addicted domestic populations to their national security budget and Russia knows it.”

National security is the first duty of all Governments. Today’s shocking events should be a clear reminder of that to all of us.

The challenge of Ukraine is likely to be faced elsewhere, as despots start to believe that the west is weaker than it has been for many a long year. It will be a challenge to our values, our democratic way of life and our security. All of us in politics, at whatever level, should remember this: politics is essentially binary. Either we shape the world around us, or we will be shaped by the world around us.

I believe that the values we hold and the history and culture that we defend are worth not only protecting for ourselves, but extending to those in the rest of the world who should have a right to enjoy the same freedoms and benefits we have. The gauntlet was picked up by previous generations. The question is whether we will have the courage to do so today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who stands out as the only Scottish Member of Parliament who voted for the renewal of Trident in 2016. That is a great credit to him and to his prescience, because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) said, if there was ever a demonstration of the futility of nuclear disarmament, it is the position that Ukraine finds itself in now. Yet that is the policy of the SNP and of a great number of Labour MPs, and they are a threat to our national security.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing this debate. As the dark shadow of war once again falls across our entire continent, I reflect on the adage attributed to Leon Trotsky:

“You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”

Everyone who loathes war and wants peace should reflect on that. If other people are determined to foment war, we have to take an interest.

The question in this debate is how we should now see Russia and China and the relationship between them. In the UK, we see Russia as an immediate threat, but China as perhaps the much greater long-term challenge. In the US, it is different. All US presidents since Obama have seen China as the existential threat and today’s Russia as yesterday’s problem, Europe’s problem, and a regional rather than a global threat. There are, to be sure, specialists in the US who understand that, like China, Russia is a long-term opponent, but their voices must compete with those who are effectively advocating appeasement for Russia—resets, normalisation, and the overlooking of previous illegal incursions, overseas assassinations, cyber-attacks on NATO allies and so on.

In Europe, Germany understands the existential nature of the Russian threat, but has until very recently pursued a policy of engagement with Russia. This now looks to have been deeply unwise. It has created serious vulnerability for Germany and for Europe as a whole. France, historically anti-American, must now accept that Russia presents the threat. Even this week, the French were, understandably, trying to use this to their advantage to prove their global influence and to try to secure peace. But all of Europe must now be united.

Nor is the United Kingdom beyond criticism. We have a firm understanding of the Russia problem in our analytical community, and of China, but until recently successive Prime Ministers chose to turn a blind eye to both problems. This is now changing, but the UK finds itself without the necessary tools to tackle the Russia threat and the China challenge. Our military has lost its ability to fight a peer enemy. Our legal system allows Russians and Chinese agents to exploit the vulnerabilities inherent in democracy. Our own blind reliance on spot markets to obtain cheaper gas has undermined our energy security. I have spoken before about how the UK Government lack the capacity for deep continuous strategic thinking to match the strategy and planning of our enemies, and I will return to that point.

Putin and President Xi have observed years of western failure to react to Russian encroachments and Chinese anti-democratic influence. We have encouraged them to join together in thinking that, despite our bluster, Putin’s taking Ukraine and China’s expanding influence are in their mutual interests and will remain largely unchallenged. That must now change, and it is changing. Until recently, it seemed that Putin might succeed, as he did in Georgia and Crimea, but Putin has miscalculated. His bullying has mobilised Ukraine’s resistance, is galvanizing support for NATO in previously neutral nations such as Sweden and Finland, and is rekindling Washington’s concern about Russia’s threat to global peace.

[Geraint Davies]

The hon. Gentleman will have seen a map drawn by Putin of Ukraine, where a lump is given to Ukraine by Stalin, another lump by Lenin and another lump by Brezhnev. Does he agree that the implicit plan is to take all that bit, to leave a little bit, like a doughnut, for the Ukrainians to be corralled in, to have them like the Uyghur population, to Russify the rest, to finish off Ukraine and to take the large majority of it?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

What is completely clear is that President Putin has repudiated his own words and security guarantees that were given to Ukraine on its existing borders.

Last night’s strikes by Russia on Ukraine’s military infrastructure and border guard units, and the incursions of military vehicles, show that there can be no compromise with Putin. We will only find peace through strength. What is there to negotiate? Putin is now seized by an irrational obsession to crush Ukraine by one means or another. His performance on Russian TV addressing his security council underlined how Putin is now acting out his emotions—his frustration, wounded pride and lust for revenge. According to him, only great powers count, and if you cannot bully your smaller neighbours into submission, you are not really a great power.

President Xi is very different from the usurper Putin. While Russia represents great culture and history, Putin’s rogue regime is fundamentally weak, trying to prove its power despite Russia’s internal dysfunctionality and economic failure. China, however, represents a far older, more consistent and altogether more considered philosophical tradition. Putin acts impetuously; President Xi demonstrates strategic patience. Russia is trying to distract from its failures; China is building upon its success. The task of the west is not only to deal effectively with Putin, but to give a clear message to China and to other countries that might consider endorsing or imitating Putin’s aggression.

To his credit, President Xi has now backed off from his earlier strong support for Putin, as he came to realise that a full-scale invasion of Ukraine will mobilise the west and enable the west to strengthen its defences and have a more competitive stance, against not only Russia, but China. China should reflect on the questions now being asked in Washington and Europe, as raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset. Why should we not formally recognise Taiwan’s sovereignty and its right to self-determination, if China is to co-operate so easily with Putin in Ukraine? China can use this moment to build trust with the west. The west will continue to have great differences with China, but we want to work together with China for global peace and security and for a sustainable planet. We cannot begin to do so if China aligns itself with the now rogue regime in Moscow.

2002 Gujarat Riots

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and wear masks. I will call Kim Leadbeater to move the motion. I would normally then call the Minister to respond, but I think Theresa Villiers wants to make a brief contribution. Any time that is taken will limit the amount of time the Minister has to respond. This is only a 30-minute debate, and there will not be time for the lead Member to respond at the end.

[Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the 20th anniversary of the 2002 Gujarat riots.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate, which is my very first Westminster Hall debate.

The riots took place in the days following 27 February 2002 in the Indian state of Gujarat. The precise death toll remains a matter of dispute, even as we approach the 20th anniversary of the events. There is no agreement on the facts of what happened, never mind who was or was not complicit in instigating the violence or allowing it to continue. All we can say with certainty is that, at the very least, 1,000 people lost their lives and that the majority of them were Muslim.

There have been numerous investigations and inquiries, including by the Indian Supreme Court and highly respected organisations, such as the international Human Rights Watch. However, as far as I am aware, none of these has reached conclusions acceptable to all parties, communities and faiths. It is not my role here in the British Parliament—very distant in both time and location from those horrific occurrences—to pass judgment. I would not be able to do so even if I wanted to. What I can do, and what I very much want to do, is consider the legacy of what happened from the point of view of the families of those who lost their lives or were seriously injured. Today is about acknowledging the loss and hopefully providing some comfort, and maybe even some closure, for those families.

Every act of violence has repercussions well beyond those caught up directly in it. Some survivors and relatives will never fully get over the trauma of what happened. For others, while the pain may lessen over time, it will never disappear completely. As hon. Members will know, I have personal experience of this—not just of the loss and the hurt but, crucially, of the desire to never forget our loved ones and to try and learn something from the most horrific of events and so that we do all can to ensure they are not repeated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

I thank my hon. Friend for his important intervention, and appreciate his support on this matter.

I have spent recent years since the murder of my own sister making the case for stronger, more united communities where we focus on what we have in common as human beings, not the things that might divide us. I believe that if we work together in that spirit, we all benefit; if we allow our differences to define us, we all pay the price. Even before I became a Member of Parliament, I made the case that political leaders have their part to play too, by doing what they can to heal divisions and not make them deeper. In the words of Barack Obama on a visit to India in 2015,

“every person has the right to practice their faith…free of persecution and fear and discrimination.”

Those powerful words and important principles should guide all nations. They cannot be repeated too often. The deeper they percolate down into the heart of communities, the better chance we have of reducing those tensions that all too easily lead to unspeakable violence.

I will close with a few words to the families of all those who died in the riots. If the best wishes of a humble Back Bencher in a faraway Parliament can bring any comfort, I send you mine. When you are grieving a lost one, all the political arguments, accusations and counter-accusations rarely count for much. Every victim is somebody’s son or daughter, somebody’s brother or sister, somebody’s father or mother, somebody’s friend or neighbour. They are never just a statistic; they are human beings whose lives were brutally cut short when they should not have been, so it is right that we remember them here today. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for joining me in doing just that.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

I give my condolences to the family as well. I would normally call the Minister straight away and I will give her about 15 minutes, but Theresa Villiers has indicated that, with the permission of Kim, she will speak. Over to you briefly, Theresa.

Uyghur Tribunal Judgment

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes that the December 2021 Uyghur Tribunal’s judgment in London found beyond reasonable doubt that the People’s Republic of China was responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and torture in the Uyghur region; and calls on the Government to urgently assess whether it considers there to be a serious risk of genocide in the Uyghur region and to present its findings to the House within two months of this motion being passed, use all means reasonably available to ensure the cessation of ongoing genocide, including conducting due diligence to ensure it is not assisting, aiding, abetting or otherwise allowing the continuation of genocide and fulfil its other obligations under the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, accept the recommendations of the Fifth Report of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, Uyghur forced labour in Xinjiang and UK value chains, Session 2019-21, HC 1272, including black-listing UK firms selling slave-made products in the UK and putting in place import controls to protect UK consumers, and place sanctions on the perpetrators of this genocide, including Chen Quanguo.

I put on record my thanks to the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China and the World Uyghur Congress, and to Rahima Mahmut and Dolkun Isa in particular. I also thank Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, who chaired the Uyghur Tribunal. He worked at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia between 1998 and 2006 and led the prosecution in the trial of Slobodan Milošević, the former President of Serbia, for genocide. I cannot stress enough that there is no person more qualified than Sir Geoffrey to assess the facts and determine whether there has been genocide, the crime of all crimes.

There is a lot of speculation in this place about people abdicating their legal and moral duties, and that is what this debate is about. The Government have a legal and moral duty to respond to the Uyghur Tribunal’s verdict and the evidence that was put before it. They must stop shirking that duty by using expensive Government lawyers to weasel their way out of acting—a course of action that is truly reprehensible.

As we know, the Uyghur Tribunal verdict last month, which was based on the facts, was crystal clear: genocide is taking place in the Xinjiang region of north-west China. What more do the Government need to see and hear? Surely the Minister cannot argue with the evidence presented to the tribunal, or its conclusion that human rights abuses, torture and genocide are taking place—a conclusion that it made while it was sanctioned by the Chinese Communist party. There is no plausible reason for the Government to ignore the conclusions of the tribunal. To do so is to quibble on a point of dubious legality, to ignore evidence and to ignore the moral and legal duty to act. When will the Government do the right thing, and—this is a question to which we desperately seek an answer—where is the organising force of this Government?

I am not interested in hearing the Minister discuss whether or not the Uyghur Tribunal is a competent court. That is irrelevant to this debate. I am focusing on the International Court of Justice’s Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro 2007 ruling, which completely blows that argument out the water. Let me remind the Minister of the legal situation that the Government are in. The ICJ ruled that

“a State’s obligation to prevent, and the corresponding duty to act, arise at the instant that the State learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed.”

That is the crux of the issue, and of this debate. Those are the rules that the Government are operating under—unless the Minister intends to suggest today at the Dispatch Box that we are now making up our own rules on the hoof.

This House, too, has examined some of the most horrific evidence put to the Uyghur Tribunal. With one voice, Parliament agreed that genocide was taking place in Xinjiang against the Uyghur people and other minorities. That was a significant development. We joined our allies in America in taking that view, and were soon followed by Parliaments in countries across the world, including the Netherlands, Lithuania, Canada and the Czech Republic.

Today’s debate is about three things. First, now that the evidence has been presented to the Uyghur Tribunal, the Government must assess whether, under their ICJ obligations, they consider there to be a serious risk of genocide. Today’s motion will force the Government to present that analysis to the House within two months.

Secondly, if the Government will not or cannot do anything about the genocide, the mass rapes, the torture and the abuses taking place in Xinjiang, they should at least protect the British people. The British public—including my constituents and, no doubt, the Minister’s constituents—do not want to be assisting, aiding or abetting the Uyghur genocide. Only the Government can protect the British consumer by introducing import controls, blacklisting British firms profiting from slave labour, and toughening up the current toothless anti-slavery rules.

Finally, the Government should act in line with our closest international allies and use Magnitsky sanctions against Chen Quanguo, the architect of the misery in Xinjiang.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady’s excellent speech. Does she agree that there is also a case for labelling products that may have been produced in the context of the genocide, in that they were subject to Uyghur exploitation, so that consumers themselves can decide whether they want to buy ethically produced products?

[Ms Ghani]

I do agree with the hon. Gentleman. Our constituents want to know the heritage of the products that they are consuming, quite apart from the environmental impact. There is nothing to prevent the Government from ensuring that these products are labelled “stained with slave labour from Xinjiang”.

The tribunal spent a year, in London, amassing the most comprehensive body of evidence in existence on the Uyghur crisis. It took testimonies from academics, legislators and witnesses, and that is how it was able to make a legal determination. There was evidence of, for example, a massive drop in Uyghur birth rates in Xinjiang, which represents just one of the five markers of genocide. In one Uyghur region, birth rates are down by 84%. That accords neatly with the marker: the destruction of a people by stopping them having children, in just one generation. The tribunal labelled it “the biological genocide”.

Nowhere else in the world are so many women being violated in one place at the same time. Although the Uyghur region accounts for just 1.8% of China’s population, 80% of all birth control device insertions in China were performed in that region. Is the Minister really going to challenge the evidence with which the tribunal was presented? It heard that:

“Pregnant women, in detention centres and outside, were forced to have abortions even at the very last stages of pregnancy. In the course of attempted abortions babies were sometimes born alive but then killed.”

Those are the facts that were presented to the tribunal.

Witnesses’ testimonies were so horrific that I cannot list them all, but the Board of Deputies of British Jews compared this to the holocaust. Its president, Marie van der Zyl, wrote:

“Nobody could…fail to notice the similarities between what is alleged to be happening in the People’s Republic of China today and what happened in Nazi Germany 75 years ago”.

Having considered this evidence, the tribunal said that it was

“satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the PRC, by the imposition of measures to prevent births intended to destroy a significant part of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang as such, has committed genocide.”

I urge the Minister not to maintain the Government’s position of “Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil”. That is straight out of the CCP’s playbook. We have moved on, and the Government must now act. I am going to give the Minister some time in which to consider rewriting her speech, because the Government have now been told of the ICJ’s 2007 ruling, and we do not want to hear a rehearsal of their previous arguments.

Let me try to help the Minister by pre-empting some of the points that she may make. In the past, the Government have deferred to their holding statement that this is a matter for competent courts. That is irrelevant to today’s debate. The House now knows that the ICJ’s Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro 2007 ruling has blown that argument out of the water. Let me say it again: countries have a

“duty to act...at the instant that the State learns of, or should normally have learned of. the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed.”

That duty has long been triggered. When the Minister recently praised the tribunal for

“building international awareness and understanding of the human rights violations occurring in Xinjiang”,

that triggered the duty to act. Not only that, but when she

“urged the Chinese Government to engage with the evidence provided by the Uyghur Tribunal”

during a recent meeting with the Chinese ambassador, that triggered the duty to act. So does she agree with the ICJ ruling and agree that it is the duty of Governments, not courts, to continually assess whether there is a risk of genocide? Is she today going to change Government policy?

AUKUS: Impact on Anglo-Chinese Relations

Geraint Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Westminster Hall

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I encourage hon. Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government and House of Commons Commission guidance. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering or leaving the room. Daniel Kawczynski will move the motion.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of the AUKUS pact on Anglo-Chinese relations.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I am pleased to have secured this debate on AUKUS, the new British naval alliance with Australia and the United States, which will play a pivotal role in maintaining peace and security in the Indo-Pacific region.

There is no doubt in my mind that both Russia and China are threats to the United Kingdom. Make no mistake: Russia and China are both grave threats to freedom, to the western world in particular and to true democracy in general. The discussion is not about whether they are a threat but about the type of threat they present and the degree to which they endanger us.

Russia’s threat is predominantly cyber, but China’s threat is much larger: it is multidimensional, complex, far reaching and interconnected. China’s threat is based in economics and logistics, including manufacturing, supply chain and minerals. We have spent 18 months suffering the reality of that, and we must now recalibrate our investment and trade policy in order not to be so over-dependent on China in the future.

I started asking questions of our own Government about the situation in the South China sea on 4 January 2016—nearly six years ago. I asked the Foreign Office—the then Foreign Secretary was Mr Hammond—and the reply came from Hugo Swire. I asked what the United Kingdom Government’s attitude was on the situation in the South China sea. This is the first time in my 16-year career that I pay tribute to the BBC, but having watched a BBC documentary on the situation in the South China sea, which very clearly highlighted the extraordinary situation in which China is stealing hundreds of atolls from neighbouring countries, pouring concrete on them and turning them into giant military installations, I asked the British Government what their view was. The answer came back:

“The UK takes no position on the sovereignty of the Spratly Islands or other disputed features in the South China Sea.”

That was a serious mistake by the Conservative Government at that time.

Under Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne, we had a policy of maximum engagement with China in order to safeguard and protect the massive, multibillion pound investments that it was pouring into our country—conveniently overlooking the growing and increasing human rights abuses that were taking place in China and China’s nefarious conduct in the region.

Of course, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, we expect China to be a strong country, to have a strong military and to have a capability sufficient to defend her national interests. However, during the course of the debate, I will share with hon. Members the extent of China’s recent hostile activities towards her smaller, more vulnerable neighbours—activities that go beyond those UN Security Council responsibilities. China is starting to look like a large regional power attempting to bully and subjugate its neighbours. Who are those countries? Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei and Malaysia. Remember those names and the significance of those countries to the United Kingdom, not only historically but from a trading perspective today—Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia.

As I have outlined, China has stolen hundreds of those atolls from each of those four nations, pouring concrete on to them, turning them into military outposts and trying to take control of the whole South China sea. Just think about the significance of that statement. We rightly admonish Russia about what it is doing in the Kerch strait, restricting the access of Ukrainian ships to the sea of Azov. That is a walk in the park compared with what is going on in the South China sea.

Let us not forget that 60% of global maritime trade goes through the South China sea—$5.3 trillion of trade passes through that waterway. China is attempting to take control of all of it and to restrict the movement of international shipping in order for China to have the confidence of stretching its empire that much further south, so being able to control the region that much better.

I pay tribute to our own Navy, which has been at the very forefront of pursuing freedom-of-navigation exercises through the South China sea. I dread to think what would have happened by now had the United Kingdom had not taken such a pivotal role in ensuring that our ships were at the forefront of protecting the right of passage through that waterway.

I want to come on to outline why I am concerned about China. Some people might accuse me of being anti-Chinese or slightly hysterical about the threat emanating from China, but let me give some evidence for why I think that China is becoming an increasing threat. I have already been warned by various Chinese publications here in the United Kingdom that I am on a watch list and that if I continue to speak out and scrutinise Anglo-Chinese relations, I will be the next Tory MP to be put on China’s sanctions list. If so, I will scrutinise China even more, because—I want the Chinese ambassador to know this—the British way is not to be bullied and intimidated.

We are all British parliamentarians, and we have a duty and responsibility in this House to challenge our own Government and our Government’s policy towards China in a sensible, pragmatic and democratic way. If this debate pushed me into being sanctioned, I for one will not relent from that ongoing scrutiny of my own Government and their conduct towards China.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, I was being rather contrite and measured in referring to the policy as ethnic cleansing. He is of course correct, and I will utilise his word: what is going on in western China is genocide.

I will repeat what our Government, the Prime Minister and others have said. I saw something in the media this week. The Prime Minister said we must not discount Chinese investment in our country. I understand we are in a precarious economic situation. I understand that it is tempting to accept tens or hundreds of billions of dollars from China, but, as I will come on to say, China has a 1,000-year strategy to control global economies, and we must not fall into the trap.

Again, I agree with my hon. Friend. I am old enough to remember the agreement that Margaret Thatcher signed in December 1984. In that meticulous agreement that we entered into with the Chinese, my understanding is that we did not have to give up all the territory, but we did it for one country, two systems, and China has completely trashed that agreement—not after 100 or 200 years, but just a few short decades—and it has been put in the bin. The most heartbreaking thing that I heard the other day was a young man from Hong Kong who said to me, “We have come to expect and we have acclimatised ourselves to smelling tear gas on our streets on a daily basis.” The Chinese intend to do everything possible to snuff out and destroy the embryonic stages of a democratic movement in Hong Kong. Yes, we have a responsibility to the Uyghurs and to our other partners in the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, which we will be joining, but—goodness me—we have no greater responsibility to anybody in that region than we do to the people of Hong Kong who have stood with us and fought with us for generations.

If an MP has the temerity to challenge the dangerous conduct of China, they will, as I have said, be put on a sanctions list. I am extremely pleased that Mr Speaker has now banned the Chinese ambassador from entering this House. It is extraordinary that the ambassador from a fellow permanent member of the United Nations Security Council cannot step into this building. I applaud the courage and bravery of our Speaker. It is intolerable for us to allow the Chinese ambassador into this building while hon. Friends such as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is put on the sanctions list and is threatened, bullied and intimidated. What signal would we send to the Chinese if we allowed the Chinese ambassador to come here and enjoy our receptions and debates, and have the privilege of being able to lobby Members of Parliament, when our own colleagues are being sanctioned?

I now come to AUKUS, which is the purpose of this debate.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Finally.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Well, I am a politician, Mr Davies. You have to give me some leeway to give you a brief synopsis up front. Thank you for your patient indulgence.

With regard to AUKUS, we need to celebrate. I am having this debate because I want to send a copy of it to all of my members in Shrewsbury. I rang my association chairman—we have about 500 members in the Shrewsbury Conservative Association—and I have asked for a copy to be sent to all of my members because I think we ought to celebrate the signing of AUKUS. It is extraordinary how little coverage it has received in the press and that the United Kingdom is the only European country that has been asked to join this extraordinary military-naval pact with America and the United States of America.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Not surprisingly, I completely concur with everything he has just stated. I would also say to him that in addition to the treaty—the Minister will know about this—we gave Mauritius £4 million as final settlement. Hon. Members will remember how much £4 million was in 1965. Mauritius took that money. Now, 50 years on, Mauritius is trying to overturn—

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Order. Please can we bring it back to AUKUS? Also, we will have to begin to time-limit the few people we have to speak.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Sorry, forgive me—I had to get in the British Indian Ocean Territory, because I would argue that it is a critical part of the AUKUS strategy.

My final comment is an appeal to the Minister, which I have briefed her officials about. When she replies to me to say that we will never give up the British Indian Ocean Territory until we no longer have a military requirement for these islands, may I ask her to change her view? It should never be the case that we will hand these islands back, even in the very rare circumstances that there is no further military requirement for them. They are part and parcel of, and intrinsic to, our long-term strategy of AUKUS and bringing Britain back into the Indo-Pacific, to ensure that we use our position on the UN Security Council and our military might to help our new economic partners in the CPTPP and beyond to maintain peace and stability in this crucial part of the world.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

I think we have three Members who wish to speak, who by my reckoning each have about eight or nine minutes each to speak, before 10.28 am.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Davies, for allowing me to take part in this debate. I would like to thank the Minister; she and I have not always agreed on everything, but we have moved on, and I am glad to see her here. I give sincere congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski); his was one of the highest-quality speeches that I have heard in this Chamber. This is an incredibly important debate, and I am sorry that it is so thinly attended.

You have given me about six minutes, Mr Davies, so I will motor on, but I want to make one or two important points that were not in my speech, but that arise from what my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham said. Perhaps the most important thing he said was that now that we have freed ourselves from the straitjacket of European Union trading arrangements, we need to participate fully in the Indo-Pacific tilt and its trading arrangements. He is quite right that it is one of the fastest-growing regions in the world. It is certainly growing much faster than the European Union, which is, if anything, retrenching in terms of percentage of world GDP; he is 100% right on that. I hope we succeed in our CPTPP negotiations. He is also 100% right to talk about naval bases. Ironically, that is exactly what the Chinese are doing; they are expanding their naval bases those in Sri Lanka and Djibouti being just two examples. China is doing exactly what he urges us to do. At Diego Garcia and Guam there are two very significant American bases, which will be maintained at full strength.

My hon. Friend is also right to say that we should reduce our dependency on Chinese investment in this country. Unprecedentedly in my 29-year parliamentary career, I have called for an urgent question. It is on the Chinese purchase of Newport Wafer Fab. It makes our highly sophisticated microchips, which are extremely difficult to make; we have some of the world’s best technology, and we are selling it to the Chinese. These microchips are the basis of every piece of electronic equipment. It was crazy to allow this, and I still appeal to the Minister to look at this again, because it was not very sensible.

I have been actively engaged with members of the Chinese Government at the most senior levels for the last 20 years or so. I am also deputy chairman of the all-party parliamentary China group, so I can claim to have some insight into the Chinese psychology. What one really needs to look into is: what is the psychology driving China when it takes an action? How will it react to this trilateral security pact? Since 2010, the relationship between the UK and China has been pragmatic and often mutually beneficial. For example, the UK was the first western nation to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. It is still one of the largest foreign countries trading renminbi. I think we have to be pragmatic. I do not think we should cut off our trade with China; I just think we should diversify it.

I totally agree with Members who have mentioned the serious human rights violations in China, which we in the UK abhor and rightly express our concerns about directly with China. That does not mean that we should not be friends with the Chinese on a people-to-people level; nor should it prevent our Governments from having responsible dialogue. China is too big and strategically important not to engage with. The message I want to leave this House with is that if we stop engaging with China, we stop having any influence with it. It is absolutely essential to engage, and we have done throughout history. We have engaged with people whom we do not like and do not approve of. We do not approve of their human rights violations, but we still engage with them. That is what we ought to be doing with the Chinese.

The People’s Republic is extremely strategic and long-term in its thinking—as my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham said, it has a 1,000-year strategy. When it sets out to achieve something, it invariably does. I would like my hon. Friend to focus on this line: while it might protest about AUKUS publicly, privately it will respect the fact that the west is standing up to its imperial ambitions. There is no doubt that China wants to become the dominant superpower in the world in regards to political, economic and military influence. We must accept that, but that does not mean we should stop dealing with it. We need to find a sensible way to work with China.

The Chinese are spending huge amounts of money on upgrading their submarine, space and ballistic missile capabilities. According to the Financial Times, in August they tested a nuclear-capable hypersonic missile, apparently to the surprise of the US and western intelligence. Why it was a surprise, I do not know, because we have known for several years that they have been trying to develop these weapons. Such demonstrations show the advanced capabilities of China’s modernised military.

We have witnessed the deterioration in Australian-Chinese relations and the bullying attitude to Australia over trade, which, of course, has spurred Australia on to spend a significant amount of its GDP upgrading its submarine capability to a nuclear-powered capability, so that it can spend more time at sea, hopefully undetected.

I fully welcome the AUKUS pact. I think it is the right thing to do. Hopefully, the UK as well as the US will take part in the production and technology of those submarines. AUKUS has been, to many, a bold step. We are pushing our global Britain credentials with a bigger role in the Indo-Pacific region. Importantly, as my hon. Friend says, we are working closely with our allies—something talked about in the integrated review. He mentioned the number of countries in the CPTPP partnership. One important country he did not mention, and which I would like to mention on the record, is South Korea. We have a trading agreement, and a good relationship, with it. It is one of those countries north of the South China sea that is also troubled by Chinese incursion.

There are still many areas that require productive and sensible China-Anglo dialogue. COP26 is an important milestone for the future of the UK’s climate change agenda and ambition. The UK produces around 1.1% of the world’s emissions, whereas China emits around 28% and accounts for almost two thirds of the growth in emissions since 2000. Clearly, we can set a good example to other countries to decarbonise more quickly and make a real difference to climate change, but we need alliances with other countries, so that they can do the same. We need China to come on board with that agenda. Any fallout over AUKUS will have consequences for other matters, as I have demonstrated with COP26, but I would like to think that it is of benefit to both the UK and China to continue with a constructive dialogue.

While we will always have our differences, and I do not hesitate to articulate our views vociferously to the Chinese when I talk to them, particularly over human rights, overall it is in both sides’ interests to have a realistic but frank dialogue in the future. The idea of breaking off all dialogue with China, as some would advocate, is simply cutting off our nose to spite our face. Worse still, as I have said, we would lose the chance to influence Chinese thinking on issues such as climate change.

This has been an important debate. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to take something from it: that while we want to stand up to China, we want to have a dialogue with it; that its human rights activities are unacceptable; and that we should start to reduce our reliance on Chinese investment.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

I will call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 10.28 am, so Mark Logan has just under eight minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I must pick the hon. Gentleman up on the important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). Those submarines are powered by nuclear power; they do not have nuclear weapons on them. Bearing in mind that the hon. Gentleman said how strongly the SNP thinks about reducing carbon, surely it is more appropriate to have submarines powered by nuclear rather than diesel. Does he not understand that?

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Mr Hendry, could you begin to wind up your remarks?

[Drew Hendry]

I was going to before I took the intervention, Mr Davies. I will move as swiftly as I can towards the conclusion of my comments. The fact is that using nuclear power anywhere—on a submarine or elsewhere—means there is residual environmental waste that will go on for many half-lives. To have nuclear-powered submarines patrolling is not a solution to an environmental issue. That is a preposterous position.

The UK remains outside the Quad and the ongoing stately voyage of HMS Queen Elizabeth in the South China sea is more symbolic than substantive. The deployment has been noted for not carrying enough aircraft and for depending on US and Dutch escort vessels.

There are still questions to be answered about what the UK will get out of the partnership. The UK is clearly not going to be building the submarines after the mess it made of the latest Astute class hunter-killer boats that it cannot even scrap. That comes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham. It cannot even scrap the nuclear subs that we see as rusting hulks left to degrade in the water at Rosyth.

There have been vague references to wider co-operation in areas such as artificial intelligence, but the only specific programmes mentioned, such as those to supply the Australians with Tomahawks, joint air-to-surface standoff missiles, and long-range anti-ship missiles, concern American weapons systems. Perhaps the Minister can detail what is actually agreed.

The French Foreign Minister has already suggested that the UK is just the fifth wheel on the carriage. More broadly, the main issue is what this co-operation will do. Will it impede China’s intentions in the regions? A little perhaps, but not significantly. There was not much in terms of strategic commitments. Instead, there were lots of theatrics, a statement of intent and a promise of new submarines in 20 years’ time. That is no substitute for a joined-up, long-term strategy, decided between the US, UK, the EU and other like-minded partners. China’s long-term challenge will not be met by submarines alone.

Finally, it is right to be concerned about the ability to engage China on climate change. It is still unclear whether Xi Jinping will attend COP26. It would be a great deficit if he were not there because of decisions made at Westminster. Planetary health cannot suffer as a result of this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, may I mention that David Amess was an esteemed member of the Panel of Chairs, who chaired these sorts of debates? He is sadly missed and fondly remembered by all members of the panel—by all of us as friends. I wanted to put that on the record.