Oral Answers to Questions

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I am tempted to refer the right hon. Gentleman to my previous answer. We have already sanctioned more than 300 individuals and entities because of the crackdown on protesters and the brave women in Iran standing up for their rights. We have sanctioned members of the judiciary who have abused their own legal system to persecute those women. We have sanctioned individuals and entities who have been involved in supplying drones that Russia uses to attack Ukraine. We have sanctioned the prosecutor general, who was responsible for passing down the judgment on Mr Akbari. We will continue to take action to curtail the IRGC’s ability to do those things. As I have said, we do not limit ourselves to the responses that I have announced. We always keep our options under review.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

8. Whether it remains the Government’s policy that Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories are illegal.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)]

Yes.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

If the Israeli Government settlements are illegal, why did the UK Government vote against referring them to the International Court of Justice at the United Nations? What sanctions are being applied to Israel for supplying arms and trading with illegally produced settlement products? If those settlements are completely illegal, as the Government say, why are we having anything to do with them at all? Why did we change our stance at the United Nations?

[James Cleverly]

The United Kingdom opposes unilateral resolutions that damage efforts to advance dialogue and therefore damage the prospects of a two-state solution. The UK’s position on settlements has been clear, consistent and unambiguous. We continue to work towards a negotiated two-state solution. We strongly believe that that is in the best interests of Israelis and Palestinians. That will remain our policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cleverly]

The Safer oil tanker has been an issue of international concern for quite some time and I am glad that funds have now been made available. I have spoken to the Yemeni Government, the Saudi Government and even representatives of the Houthis about this to try to get the matter resolved, and we will continue to push to prevent what would be an ecological disaster on an unprecedented scale if that tanker were breached.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

T9. Four million Yemeni people have been forced from their homes, thousands have died and Britain has sold billions of pounds-worth of arms to Saudi Arabia, which have been used to bomb Yemen. When will we stop supplying Saudi Arabia in order to bring about peace in Yemen?

[James Cleverly]

When will the right hon. Gentleman condemn Iran for providing weapons to the Houthis that have been used against both Saudi and the United Arab Emirates? We have been instrumental in facilitating talks, which have brought temporary periods of peace, and we will continue to work with the Yemeni Government and with the other countries in the region to bring about a sustainable peace in Yemen. That should be our aim, and that is what we will continue to do.

International Human Rights Day

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a delight to take part in this debate, not least because my biggest anxiety about the world is that it is becoming more, not less, authoritarian. More Governments have given up on democracy and moved towards dictatorship than we thought possible. We always thought that progress would mean people enjoying greater freedoms as the world moved forward. Unfortunately, that is not the case for many people around the world.

I am struck by the number of countries that retain the death penalty. It is obviously shocking that so many states in the United States of America retain it. I am conscious that there are many countries in the world where people can be executed solely for their sexuality, including Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen. Many of those countries would say that they do not use the death penalty as there have been no executions. None the less, people are sentenced to death and then have to live in a sort of limbo land, thinking that they may be executed at any point.

On Saudi Arabia, I will simply say that it was quite shocking earlier in the year when the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) came to the Foreign Affairs Committee as Foreign Secretary. I asked her about when she had raised human rights concerns with Gulf states. There was just silence in the room. She tried to suggest that she had done it several times—or it had been done several times—but she could not come up with a single occasion on which the British Government had raised human rights abuses with Saudi Arabia.

I understand why the Government want to turn away from relying on gas and oil from authoritarian states such as Russia, but it is not much good if we then just simply turn to another set of authoritarian states in the middle east, and are not prepared to ask the questions that we now feel able to ask of Russia. For instance, it is truly shocking that the British Government have still not said that Jamal Khashoggi was murdered at the deliberate instigation of the Saudi Government, and dismembered on Saudi territory. That does not do anybody any favours. It is shocking that the British Government do not seem to have complained to Saudi Arabia about the 81 executions that happened on a single day earlier this year, or that there are now more than 100 people on death row, potentially awaiting execution at any point.

We have to continue to ask those questions. I do not think that anybody respects us when they know what we think, but we refuse to say it. It just means that we are weak, and people rely on our weakness. I find it shocking, too, that a country such as Indonesia has just introduced a new law that outlaws sexual activity of any kind outside marriage. I am not sure how that will aid the tourism trade in Indonesia. The country is only just getting back on its feet. Those kinds of repressive measures are simply backward, and do nobody any favours.

I worry about our Government for two reasons. First, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), we have not had an annual report on human rights since 8 July 2021. That is a long time ago. We have been doing it since 2003. It has become standard, and all the human rights organisations in the UK look to the process and love to feed into it. Other countries around the world look to the UK’s leadership in this space, and it feels as if the Government have simply surrendered that space.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

The hon. Member must also be aware that it seems to have been a consistent Foreign Office policy for about 10 years now to reduce the number of human rights advisers in our embassies around the world.

[Chris Bryant]

I was going to come to that point. The right hon. Gentleman has made it for me, which is great. Another point is that the European convention on human rights was written by a Conservative Member of Parliament. It was drafted, on the back of the second world war, to say that we did not want the human rights abuses that happened in Italy and Germany to happen on our continent again. Yes, there are all sorts of complications with the way that the Court operates, but if the British Government keep on rattling the cage about leaving the European Court of Human Rights and the European convention, we would automatically no longer be a member of the Council of Europe. We would join Belarus and Russia as the countries in Europe that no longer subscribe, which would be a terrible shame.

One of the things that we have got terribly wrong over the last 12 years in our foreign policy is that we have kept trying to appease authoritarian dictatorships around the world rather than stand up for what we genuinely believe. Sometimes we have relied too much on the United States, which is sometimes a wonderful ally and sometimes not very reliable, depending on who the President is. Who knows what may happen in two or three years? If Donald Trump were in the White House now, what would we be saying in relation to Ukraine? Far too often we vacillate on China. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) was right to refer to the situation facing the Uyghurs in China. Our Government have flip-flopped endlessly on whether to be robust on that policy, which is a terrible shame.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) spoke about the Minister withdrawing his comment. He was not correcting the record; he was withdrawing his comment on Saudi Arabia and whether the gentleman concerned had been tortured, which all the evidence shows he was. All that points to a Government who are uncertain about whether human rights really matter in the way in which we define ourselves as a country around the world. That will pay poor dividends in the long term for the UK and the values we believe in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) on securing today’s debate and on the speech that she made earlier and her remarks about the parliamentary human rights group, which I have been a member of since I was first elected. It is a genuinely independent human rights group and has done a fantastic amount of work over the years. Long may it continue.

It is wonderful to have a debate here in Westminster Hall on a Thursday afternoon, but why is the debate not on the Floor of the House? Why is it not in Government time? Why is there not a Foreign Office report on human rights, as there was every year from 2003 onwards? It is simply unacceptable that a Government who claim to fully adhere to all UN human rights protocols cannot do a report on our own activities and views on issues facing different countries around the world—things that are extremely important.

We have to put this debate within the framework of the human rights law that we have. We put into law the Human Rights Act 1998, which then put into UK case law the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as the European convention on human rights, which was already recognised and, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) pointed out, was written by UK barristers and judges in 1948.

The Government have constantly objected to the European Court of Human Rights—its administration and its judgments—and got very excited about an interim judgment that prevented an unnamed asylum seeker being removed to Rwanda, where he had never sought to go, anyway. That was then used to start a huge campaign about why we should withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights and the European convention on human rights. As the hon. Member for Rhondda correctly pointed out, if we withdraw from those, we then withdraw from the Council of Europe because there is no basis for being in it.

The function of the Council of Europe relates fundamentally to human rights. It monitors the election of judges to the court. Everyone accepts there are inefficiencies within that legal system—I am sure there is no part of the British legal system that has any inefficiency in it whatever. The important point is that we are adherents to the European Court and the European convention on human rights.

[Mr Carmichael]

I assure the right hon. Gentleman, from my own years in legal practice, that if he wants to find inefficiencies in a legal system, he does not have to go all the way to Strasbourg to find them. The point is that the Human Rights Act did all the things that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, but it did more than that, or we have subsequently used it to do more than that. We have hardwired it into the devolution settlement for Scotland and Wales, and also into the Good Friday agreement and the devolution set-up for Northern Ireland. How can that hardwiring be undone without damaging the institutions that are protected when the Human Rights Act is invoked?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The right hon. Gentleman’s points are absolutely correct. The 1998 Act enshrined the laws I have mentioned, but it also created a culture of human rights that has developed in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland through foreign policy and in many other attitudes. When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope she will make it very clear that there is no question of a British Bill of Rights or a Bill of Rights that undermines the principles of the United Nations’ universal declaration of human rights, the European convention on human rights or the European Court of Human Rights. If we go away from that, then what future is there for human rights in this country? Who are we to lecture anybody, anywhere around the world, on abuses of human rights if we have walked away from the very conventions that we are supposed to be adhering to in the first place?

The arguments used to oppose the interim judgment made by the European Court of Human Rights was that the asylum seekers were “illegal”. Let me be absolutely clear and put it on record that there is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker. The legal right to seek asylum is set out in international law and in UK law, as we should understand and respect.

Yesterday, I was at the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons of the Council of Europe. It was a lengthy but fascinating meeting that was very well attended by people from all over the member states of the Council of Europe. There were two significant reports, one of which was about the situation facing refugees from Afghanistan. It looked at problems with Afghan refugees settling around Europe, the poverty in which they are living, the numbers now being pushed back from trying to enter Greece or other European countries—I will come to that in a moment— and the desperate poverty of people in Afghanistan.

There have been 21 years of war in Afghanistan. Billions of pounds and dollars have been spent on that particular war. We have left behind the chaos of a lack of human rights and respect for people, along with desperate poverty and hunger. I know it is not central to this debate, but we can do a lot better by the people of Afghanistan than ignoring the situation. Whatever one’s views on the Afghan war, we have responsibilities to those people and the poverty in which they have been left.

We also had a very interesting report from the International Committee of the Red Cross on the question of asylum seekers. It put forward six policy recommendations, which I will refer to quickly because I am conscious that colleagues wish to speak. They are:

“National authorities and regional bodies should: Acknowledge the tragedy of missing migrants and address the problems their families face as a result of this situation. Put in place preventive measures such as ensuring that the respective legal frameworks are compatible with international law and adequately address the main humanitarian problems. Integrate the missing migrant issue into continental, regional and national policy and cooperation frameworks. Strengthen bilateral and multilateral cooperation in search efforts, including humanitarian rescue activities if migrants are in distress…Establish clear pathways to be followed in searching and identifying persons missing in the context of migration…Respond to the various needs of families and ensure institutional and legal frameworks that allow for an individual specific assessment and response.”

Those policy recommendations were important because the number of missing people around the world is increasing very fast. I was astonished to hear that far fewer than 20% of those who die in the Mediterranean or other seas around Europe are ever identified. That is life for some people. They live in poverty, under oppression, seek asylum somewhere else and die, unnamed in an ocean, while trying to get to a place of safety. On International Human Rights Day, of all days, can we not have a sense of humanity in our approach towards these people and the desperate situation in which they are forced to live at the present time?

Pushbacks, which I believe to be not just illegal but immoral, are practised in a number of countries, and the argument often put forward, particularly by Conservative politicians, is that we should have almost a military response to people trying to cross the English channel. These are desperate people trying to get to a place of safety. We should bring them to a place of safety and look after them after that—let them contribute to our society. The cause of people seeking asylum has to be examined, because we cannot look at human rights in the abstract. The reality is that it is driven by war and the appalling invasion of Ukraine. Millions of people have sought refuge, and there has been a terrible loss of life, both of people in Ukraine and of conscripted Russian soldiers. Russian peace activists have also been arrested. Hopefully, there will be some kind of process to bring about a cessation of the fighting and a long-term solution to the issues that have led to the war in Ukraine.

There are so many other wars that I would go on for far too long if I tried to mention all of them. I have already referred to Afghanistan, but the situation in Iraq is far from perfect. I still meet people who have sought asylum from Iraq, and I meet people from Libya who have sought asylum from that country. What is the connection between those three countries? All have had UK military involvement in their conflicts. The war in Yemen, to which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and others referred, is largely occasioned by huge supplies of American and British weaponry to Saudi Arabia, which uses them to oppress the people of Yemen.

Then we have the occupations, which are always wrong in any context. They include the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the colonialisation of the West Bank through the settlement policy. Again, that leads people seeking safety to go somewhere else. The consequences of our inaction, or positive action in supplying arms to the aggressor in many cases, often lead to the problems that we are now concerned with and complaining about.

Africa is often not mentioned in many debates, yet the reality of war in the Congo and other places is that it leads to huge displacements of people. It is occasioned by huge quantities of often small arms and lighter arms being sold to fuel those conflicts, and they are often funded by mineral interests and those who seek to gain land or power. We have to look very seriously at those issues.

My friend the hon. Member for Rhondda mentioned the situation in Colombia. I was in Colombia for the first round of the presidential election—I had been there before—and I talked to a lot of human rights groups, farmers groups, trade unions and academic groups. I did a seminar at the Catholic University while I was there. To the credit of President Petro, his new Government and Vice President Francia Márquez, they have started peace talks with the other guerrilla groups. They are trying to bring about a total peace accord, and they are proposing substantial land reform legislation. It is going to be very difficult, because there is an awful lot of opposition to what they are achieving from very powerful vested interests, and we have to wish them well in that process.

I hope that in this debate and future debates we look to our own culpability in all this. I have mentioned the wars, but we also need to think about the huge volume of arms sales that we are promoting and the way in which our embassies around the world have been turned into commercial operations for British companies in order to improve British exports. I can understand the need for that, but not at the expense of taking away the human rights advisers or, indeed, of no longer continuing the former policy, both within the EU and nationally, of having a human rights agenda in our overseas trade arrangements.

Sometimes, however, one gets good news in a difficult situation, and yesterday there was a very interesting judgment in a court in Oaxaca, Mexico. I have been quite involved in supporting the case. A young woman called Claudia Uruchurtu was arrested while she took part in a demonstration in Oaxaca against the corruption of the mayor of her town. The mayor of the town of Nochixtlán was deemed to be corrupt, and she was part of the opposition to what the mayor was doing. At the end of the demonstration, she disappeared. Her body has never been found. She has never been located. Her family, who live in the UK, were obviously desperately worried about her.

After a lot of action by good people in Mexico, including the British embassy and others, who did a great deal to support the family, the case was brought to court yesterday and the mayor was found guilty in the case of the disappearance of Claudia. The sentencing has not yet happened—we await that next week—but it is significant that in this one case of somebody’s disappearance under duress pressure, the perpetrator has been found guilty. That will give some hope to the families of the many, many others who disappeared in Mexico, of which there are at least 100,000 in recent years.

While one obviously condemns the disappearances and the abuse of human rights, one should pay tribute to the Government of President López Obrador for taking on these cases. It is creating a culture of respect for human rights and empowering the Ministry of the Interior to investigate historic abuses of human rights, including the disappearance of the 43 Ayotzinapa students some years ago.

There was news today that the Al Jazeera broadcasting channel is referring the case of the murder of Shireen Abu Akleh to the International Criminal Court. I wish the channel well in doing that. Shireen was shot in cold blood for no other reason than that she was filming Israeli soldiers oppressing Palestinian people. She is one of many journalists who have been injured or shot not only in the conflict in Palestine but in many other places around the world. We should recognise that there are all sorts of human rights defenders and they come in all shades. They can be journalists just as much as human rights defenders from voluntary human rights organisations. We should be doing all we can to speak up for them.

The issues abound in many other countries that I could refer to today. Briefly, I obviously concur with the remarks made about the women of Iran and their bravery in demanding human rights themselves, and there are others who want to see human rights throughout Iran. The British Government are also supporting people such as Mehran Raoof, who is a workers’ rights representative. We have to keep on demanding their release.

Nazanin’s release was excellent news, but she was sadly one of a number. Human rights have to be universal. They do not mean going to war with somebody. They do mean engagement to try to achieve better human rights. The case of Alaa Abd El-Fattah, who is still in prison in Egypt, was taken up during COP27. COP27 is over, the greenwashing is finished, they have all left town and people have stopped talking about his case. He has family in this country. He deserves to be freed, and we should support his release.

I have a very multicultural constituency, which I am very proud to represent in Parliament. It includes many people who come from all parts of Kurdistan—from Syria, Iran, Iraq and Turkey. The conditions facing Kurdish people in northern Syria are appalling, and the bombing that is now taking place against the Kurdistan Democratic party forces in Iran and Iraq and the problems that are going on in Turkey have to be recognised. Surely at the centre of all this is a failure to recognise the rights of people to their own self-determination and self-expression. The Kurdish people demand and deserve those rights. It is not good enough for us all just to go to Nowruz celebrations in March. We have to act all year round to ensure the Kurdish people get their place of safety.

Rights are universal. Rights of workers are universal. The International Labour Organisation confirms that. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that Britain is no longer going ahead with legislation that will be inimical to the International Labour Organisation and the various pieces of human rights legislation we have around the world that we should abide by. Workers’ rights are human rights, just as much as anybody else’s.

We need to educate our young people not to see the Human Rights Act as a problem or something to make a light-hearted joke about on the radio or television or in newspaper attacks—“Somebody’s abusing the Human Rights Act”. It is there only because of the bravery of human rights defenders in this country and around the world. If we walk away from the European convention and human rights legislation, we will leave a terrible legacy for future generations. The hon. Member for Rhondda is right when he says that there has been a pushback against human rights around the world. Let us not be part of it; let us go in the opposite direction by defending and extending human rights. The next generation will thank us for that and benefit from it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); not many people get to do that in this place, but it is my privilege today.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) on securing such an important and valuable debate, and on her long-standing commitment to these issues. I will probably end up echoing much of what others have already said, but that demonstrates the cross-party consensus that exists on these issues, and the importance of the Government paying attention to them. On the issue of ministerial corrections and the exchange on Saudi Arabia, the Procedure Committee is currently looking into how the record is corrected appropriately. We will make a point of drawing that particular correction to the attention of the inquiry.

As others have said, Saturday marks Human Rights Day and the beginning of a year of activism and activity, culminating in the 75th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights on 10 December 2023. The fundamental human rights set out in that declaration are just that: fundamental and intrinsic to every single human being. As we have heard throughout the debate, rights can be—and all too often are—denied, suppressed or not exercised. But they still exist at a fundamental level. Those rights belong to all of us, individually and collectively. In some senses, when they are denied to one person or one group of people, we are all diminished. We all have a responsibility to seek justice and restoration of those rights for all.

This issue is of huge concern to constituents in Glasgow North. I am proud to represent one of the biggest and most active Amnesty International groups in the country, based in Glasgow’s west end. I congratulate the group on its ongoing work. Many of those constituents will be taking part in Amnesty’s “Write for Rights” campaign at this time of year. I have vivid memories of first attending an Amnesty talk as a young person. It was about prisoners of conscience and the significant impact that writing to detained people and Governments to support their freedom can have. In some ways, it is a real privilege to be able to put those points directly to the UK Government years later.

I echo the cases highlighted by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), particularly Aleksandra Skochilenko in Russia and Luis Manuel Otero Alcántara in Cuba. We heard about both of those significant cases in the Jubilee Room earlier this week. I echo the calls of my constituents and other Members here today for the UK Government to make representations to their counterparts in those countries, asking for justice and the release of those prisoners. Equally, I echo calls for efforts to secure the return of UK nationals arbitrarily detained abroad, including Morad Tahbaz and Mehran Raoof in Iran, Alaa Abd El-Fattah in Egypt and Jagtar Singh Johal in India.

Another regular topic in my constituency inbox is the situation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Yesterday, some of us had the opportunity to witness some of the tragic acts of settler violence that take place there on a daily basis, using virtual reality technology brought to a room in Portcullis House by Yachad and B’Tselem, Both organisations should be congratulated for their efforts to work across communities in the Holy Land to bring about a peaceful political resolution to the conflict. It is interesting how this technology is being used to help us understand human rights abuses around the world. A few weeks ago, I, my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) and no doubt many others also used it to better understand the experience of the Yazidis, who the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) spoke about so powerfully.

I also hear from constituents, including some with direct personal experience, about the importance of supporting campaigners who support women, life and freedom in Iran. The decision of the Iranian regime to execute dozens or more protesters stands in contrast to the inspiring and determined action of the ordinary citizens standing up against brutality and dictatorship. I have already written to the Foreign Secretary about these matters on behalf of my constituents, but perhaps the Minister could say a bit more about how the Government are continuing to support the UN Human Rights Council’s fact-finding mission on human rights violations in Iran, and what steps they are taking to ensure that people associated with the actions of the Iranian regime here in the UK are not afforded any kind of sanctuary, protection or impunity.

The Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), mentioned the exhibition in Upper Waiting Hall that has drawn attention this week to the journalists and activists in Eritrea who were rounded up by their country’s regime in 2001 and have never been heard from since. We were fortunate to welcome the UN special rapporteur on human rights in Eritrea, Dr Mohamed Abdelsalam Babiker, to the Jubilee Room earlier this week and to hear directly from him about the ongoing efforts to document the terrible human rights abuses in Eritrea and the steps being taken to hold that Government to account. Eritreans make up one of the largest populations of refugees in this country—indeed, that is the case in many countries—because their claims to asylum are so clear and so many of them have to flee for their lives.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

A recent Westminster Hall debate focused on Ethiopia, particularly the situation in Tigray. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to keep the pressure up on the Ethiopian Government to ensure that human rights observers from the United Nations Human Rights Council have absolutely unfettered access to all parts of the country?

[Patrick Grady]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Sadly, many of those observers do not have the access they require and to which they have a right under an international mandate.

In Scotland, we welcome refugees and are proud to have them in our communities, but people should not have to flee oppression and brutality, so more must be done to call out the practices of the Eritrean regime and, indeed, other regimes in that part of the world. On top of all that, the horn of Africa in East Africa is undergoing a severe food crisis. Right now, more than 19 million people are directly affected by chronic food shortages, but the right to adequate food, water, sanitation and clothing is declared under article 25 of the universal declaration of human rights. Several of us have been to see Save the Children today, its Christmas jumper day, on which it is raising awareness of food insecurity overseas and, sadly, increasingly in the United Kingdom. Also, as the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) has said, the UK Government’s massive cuts to the aid budget are sadly making it much more difficult to respond adequately to the food crisis in the horn of Africa, in a way that might have been possible in the past.

As others have said, there is some irony in the fact that we are using these debates to ask the UK Government to take action on human rights abuses around the world at a time when the legal framework on human rights in this country seems to be under threat. I have heard from a significant number of constituents who are deeply concerned about the so-called Bill of Rights, which is technically before this House, although there is no clear timetable for Second Reading or any further stages. The Bill as published would diminish the rights of those seeking sanctuary here in the UK. It would remove obligations on some public authorities to respect existing rights and make it much more difficult to seek recourse from the courts when rights are threatened. The best thing the Government could do with this Bill is bin it, leave it in the legislative doldrums and let it disappear at the end of the Session.

Constituents are also concerned that there might be attempts to change provisions and protections for certain minority groups in the Equality Act 2010, despite there being no particularly clear need for that to happen. I share the concerns about the ever-growing drumbeat on the Tory Back Benches, and even within the Cabinet, for withdrawal from the European convention on human rights, as the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said. Indeed, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, that may well have an impact on the ability of the devolved legislatures and Governments to exercise their statutory rights and obligations under the terms of their founding Acts. That leads me to the same question that the right hon. Member for Islington North asked: how can such actions by the UK Government lend them any kind of international credibility when they are attempting to speak out against human rights abuses elsewhere in the world?

If the Government really want to legislate in the area of human rights, perhaps they could consider proposals for a new UK supply chain regulation: a business, human rights and environment Act that would require companies to take reasonable measures to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for the actual and potential impacts of their activities on people and the environment. In Brazil, Colombia, which the hon. Member for Rhondda referred to, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and many other resource and mineral-rich countries, too many people are forced to work in almost slave-like conditions or are having their land seized for mining and monocropping to provide consumer goods for those of us who already live in comfort and plenty.

As other Members have said, many of the issues that we have discussed today are the focus of a range of all-party parliamentary groups, particularly the all-party parliamentary human rights group. Unlike some APPGs, these are often supported by volunteers, charitable groups and Members’ staff, who are effectively donating their time on a pro bono basis. They provide valuable information for debates such as this, and for those of us who are active members. We thank them sincerely for their work. They help us to hold the Government to account and to make sure, as I hope the Minister will confirm, that the Government will remain committed to protecting and enhancing fundamental human rights, both around the world and here at home.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I do not have the data to hand, but I signed off a parliamentary question to another colleague that set out clearly that none of that funding goes to the Chinese Government. It is mostly for working with them on third-country issues and climate change, but I will ensure that the breakdown is sent to the hon. Gentleman, because it is important that we are clear that that is not how we are spending the money. We are working together where we can to tackle some of those wider issues. I will ensure that the detail is sent to him.

We are also working in our international fora to continue to shine a spotlight on violations and to hold China to account. We are not shy of being a critical friend where we need to be. In October, our global diplomatic effort helped to secure the support of 50 countries for a further joint statement on Xinjiang at the UN General Assembly.

Under the Magnitsky sanctions, the UK announced new sanctions against four Chinese Government officials and an entity responsible for enforcing the repressive security policies across Xinjiang. We will continue to act in concert with our likeminded partners to ensure that those responsible for gross human rights violations are brought to account.

I hope that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will be reassured to hear that on 24 November, the Government announced that companies subject to the national intelligence law of the People’s Republic of China should not be able to supply surveillance systems to sensitive Government sites. The Procurement Bill will further strengthen the ability of public sector bodies to exclude suppliers where there is a concern about human rights.

The Taliban continues to repress viciously the rights of Afghans, particularly women and girls and others from marginalised groups. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) set out vividly some of the appalling human rights abuses being inflicted by the Taliban.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Obviously, I concur with the Minister’s view about the abuse of human rights in Afghanistan—I am sure we all agree about that—but the reality is that Afghanistan is desperately poor, and people are literally starving. What can the Government do to ensure that there is some kind of operation getting food into Afghanistan? Obviously, that would require some degree of co-operation, one way or another, with the de facto Government.

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I do not have the exact figures to hand, but we work closely with international groups such as the World Food Programme to find tools to address those incredibly urgent and difficult issues. I will ensure that the right hon. Gentleman gets the details, which I do not have to hand.

The challenge quite rightly set by many colleagues today is that it is difficult to have direct interventions with the Taliban at the moment. However, our UK officials, including the excellent chargé d’affaires of the UK mission to Afghanistan, regularly raise human rights concerns, alongside colleagues in the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, with the Taliban. That includes concerns about breaches of women’s rights, particularly regarding girls’ education, where there is an appalling gap for the whole country that will have such a long tail. We also regularly raise the issue of freedom of expression for members of minority groups. The Government have repeatedly condemned the Taliban’s decision to restrict the rights of women and girls, including through our public statements, through the UN Security Council, and through Human Rights Council resolutions —most recently on 19 October.

Let me respond to the question about Egypt and Alaa Abd El-Fattah raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous). The UK Government are providing consular support to Alaa Abd El-Fattah’s family, and the Foreign Secretary spoke to the family on 2 November. Lord Ahmad has met the family several times, most recently on 5 December. The embassy in Cairo and consular officials continue to engage regularly with the family, and we continue to urgently seek consular access to visit Mr El-Fattah. He is a British citizen. We are challenged by the Egyptians’ claim that their legal process for recognising dual nationality has not been completed, but we continue to press for consular access.

The Government continue to advance a range of wider human rights priority issues. Our annual human rights and democracy reports are an important part of that work, and colleagues will be pleased to know that we will publish the 2021 report imminently.

Missile Incident in Poland

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. and gallant Friend makes an incredibly important point about the importance of our collective defence. I remind the House that the NATO Secretary-General’s assessment is that this was not a deliberate attack, so in this instance, article 5 would not be the most appropriate response. Again, I commend the Polish Government on their swift and decisive, but calm and measured, response to this incident. I had a conversation this morning with our permanent representative at NATO in Brussels; NATO also acted swiftly and calmly by discussing this incident, and the response will be calibrated to the facts on the ground. However, as I say, my right hon. and gallant Friend is right that our collective defence is a cornerstone of our safety.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. We all, obviously and correctly, totally condemn the Russian invasion, the war against Ukraine and the illegal occupation, as we condemn illegal occupations everywhere else. Possibly more than 200,000 people have already died in this conflict, and with the current trajectory, tragically, there are going to be many more deaths of Ukrainians and, indeed, Russian conscripts. There are going to be devastated families all around.

I hear everything that the Foreign Secretary has said, but he did not say anything about the possible role of the United Nations or any other world body in trying to bring about a process that could at least halt this conflict, restore the status quo in terms of land areas, and try to bring about an early end to this war. Otherwise, we are going to have hundreds of thousands more dead as a result of what is, of course, the totally wrong occupation of Ukraine.

[James Cleverly]

I remind the right hon. Gentleman that calls for halting the war were not emanating from Moscow when the Russians felt that they were on the front foot. They were not calling to halt the war when those tanks were surrounding Kyiv; nor were they calling to halt the war when they thought that President Zelensky’s Government would collapse. I find it interesting that calls to halt the war are coming from certain places now that Russia is on the back foot and losing territory in the east and south of Ukraine.

It is important to make the point that ceasing a conflict is not in itself a neutral act. The Ukrainians have been attacked and murdered, their cities damaged, and their critical national infrastructure put beyond use. It is incredibly important that the message is sent—both to President Putin and to other potential aggressors around the world—that those who start conflicts such as this have to be prepared for the consequences of the nation defending itself and its friends around the world helping it to do so.

Ultimately, of course, we want this war to come to an end. We would prefer for it to come to an end quickly, but it has to come to an end on terms that are acceptable to the Ukrainian people, and only the Ukrainian people can decide when that time is.

Conflict in Ethiopia

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I will stick to five minutes as you asked, Sir Gary, so we can all speak. I congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) on securing the debate and the way she introduced it, particularly her drawing attention to the way women were treated during the conflict in Tigray, the abominable abuse they suffered, and sadly probably continue to suffer, and the lack of closure in that part of the conflict.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

The cessation of hostilities agreement is obviously very good news. For there to be lasting peace, however, it is crucial that victims and survivors have justice. Does the hon. Member agree that accountability for war crimes and serious human rights abuses is paramount?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Absolutely. I am sure that everyone agrees with the hon. Member on that point. I certainly do. I was going to say this further on in my speech, but I will say it now: we must ensure that the UN Human Rights Council has unfettered access to all parts of Ethiopia to examine these abuses and the crimes that have been committed. In the past, it has been barred from access and had to interview victims by telephone and things like that. Obviously, that is a very unsatisfactory way of reporting.

The other point I make about Ethiopia generally is that there are almost a million refugees in Ethiopia from most of the neighbouring countries: South Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea and so on. There is a massive demand placed on Ethiopia to deal with that. I hope that when the Minister comes to reply, he can give us some indication of what support we can give to ensure that the refugees are decently treated and, where they want to and where it is possible, what assistance we can give them in returning to the country they come from.

The Tigray conflict ended because of the intervention of South Africa, with the support of the African Union, and we should be very grateful for that. It was good that they brought about the ceasefire and the agreement. The ceasefire and agreement are one thing. What is important is the progress that happens after that: the investigation of the crimes that have been committed; getting humanitarian aid, medical aid and food rapidly into Tigray; and not being blockaded or blocked from going in.

There is also the question of their democratic point of view. They could not take part in the Ethiopian elections last year. The government in Tigray has been dissolved and there is no regional government in Tigray—it is done from Addis Ababa. Surely there is therefore a big democratic deficit in Tigray. If that democratic deficit is not addressed, it could well be the source of future stress and conflict.

The last point I want to make is this: Tigray is not the only part of Ethiopia where there are problems. The Roma community are also facing tensions and stresses. There has been unrest and violence, and there have been deaths as a result. It is not for us to interfere in the running of another country—I am absolutely clear about that—but we must be prepared to recognise that we may be able to play a role that can help by facilitating the UNHRC and with necessary aid and support of a humanitarian kind. We must ensure that we do not supply arms that fuel this conflict to any actor on this field and that arms that we sell elsewhere do not end up in Ethiopia, because the terror, death and real problems that the people of Ethiopia face—drought, famine, poverty, the lack of medical aid and other issues—must be addressed as quickly as possible.

Ethiopia was the one country that was never colonised by the Europeans. I see it as the major beacon of Africa. It is the centre of the African Union and so much else. Let us respect that history and participation and give all the support we can to what we hope is a path to long-term peace in that country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

I made an error: I counted six instead of five speakers, so the next two speakers can in fact have six minutes each. I apologise—especially to you, Jeremy.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Can I come back for two more minutes?

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

No. I call Jim Shannon —you can have six minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Sir Gary. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) for securing the debate and opening it so brilliantly. I thank all other right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions; it has been an excellent debate.

The devastating conflict in Ethiopia has lasted for two very long years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury stated, some estimates suggest that as many as half a million people have died, including hundreds of thousands of civilians. The ceasefire agreement could simply not come quick enough and Labour is deeply grateful to the diplomats who have worked to secure it, most of all the African Union and its representatives. We need to face the reality that the chaos in the Conservative party over recent months has weakened the UK’s international voice, but now we need to look forward. I hope the new Minister will tell us how the Government will deepen the UK’s support for African Union mediation, peacekeeping and peace-building work over the coming years.

East Africa was named a priority region by this Government in their “Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy”. Now we need to understand how that commitment will be implemented to support peace, security, inclusion and accountability. The first priority, as we know, must be to support humanitarian access for the people of Tigray. In August, 89% of the population in Tigray were assessed as food insecure, and 29% of children under five and half the pregnant women and breastfeeding women were malnourished. That situation will inevitably have worsened since then.

Over the past two years, many people have been descending into deeper desperation in the absence of aid. That in itself is sure to have fuelled the conflict, because if the only way people can eat and survive is by signing up to fight, why would they not do that? That desperation puts women and children at massively increased risk of abuse and exploitation, so what progress has been made with humanitarian access right now to all parts of Tigray? Let us face it: demand for assistance is extremely high in many parts of Ethiopia and across the region because of the terrible drought. Are we confident that aid agencies have enough resources to take full advantage to deliver life-saving help quickly?

The Minister has rightly said in response to my written questions that the UK stands ready to support the peace process—that is fabulous—so now I would be grateful to understand how. Will he tell us if discussions are ongoing with the Government of Ethiopia and the African Union? Like my hon. Friends, I have several constituents who have been agonisingly out of contact with their families in Tigray for many months now. Surely we can expect a rapid and final end to the communications blackout and the restoration of services.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Like my hon. Friend, I have constituents from Tigray, Oromia and Ethiopia as a whole, and they are going through the most awful stress. There is a lack of communication, but they want to send help and aid in support. Does she think we could do more to facilitate information, to give the families some sense of security about what is happening to their relatives? The community in this country is also very keen to send whatever help it can.

[Ms Brown]

My right hon. Friend has known me long enough to know that I agree entirely with what he just said. As my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury, for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), and for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), have highlighted, there have been many credible reports of repeated war crimes and potential crimes against humanity.

It is unacceptable that the UN-mandated International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia has been so heavily restricted in its work. Despite those restrictions, the commission has set out damning evidence of horrifying abuses by all parties to the conflict. Because of the lack of access for journalists and human rights defenders, the violations we know about may well be only the tip of the iceberg.

It would be good to know how we are preparing for the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative conference in two weeks’ time. There have been many reports of women, children and men being subject to horrific sexual violence, including repeated rape and torture. Many seem to have been targeted, based on their identity, with sexual violence being used as a weapon of war. I hope that the Minister will tell us how the UK is working to support survivors through access to specialist services, including mental and physical health support, and access to justice.

For many of the survivors who have been displaced it is not currently safe to return home. Many are in camps in Sudan as well as across Ethiopia. I am sure we all understand that specialist support needs to get to where they are now, and quickly. I genuinely struggle to see how the enormous divisions in Ethiopia will mend without proper accountability. That is about security as well as justice for the victims.

I am struggling to understand how we can have confidence in a sustainable peace, if there is not healing and inclusion in Ethiopia. I hope that the Minister will tell us more about the approach that he will take to support credible accountability for the countless victims of abuses in this war. I want to ask the Minister about some of the pitfalls, as it would be devastating to the people of Ethiopia and damaging to UK interests if the agreement fails.

First, the agreement excludes Eritrea, and it is not clear how the rapid withdrawal of all Eritrean forces will be ensured. The Government have failed to mirror previous US sanctions against Eritrean entities involved in the conflict, so I hope that the Minister will consider that as a lever that he might have to deploy.

We know that there are significant border disputes, particularly around western Tigray. Many of the alleged systematic abuses, including ethnic cleansing, relate to that area. A pathway will need to resolve those disputes fairly and peacefully. The ceasefire does not end the need for close and consistent engagement by the UK—far from it. Let us be clear: the UK has much to gain from a just peace.

Ethiopia has made an enormous contribution to sustainable development and to the pan-African vision and its institution. The potential of the people of Ethiopia is even greater than their history. I believe that our partnership and collaboration could be much stronger if the UK supports the peace to hold, and if justice is done and seen to be done for the peoples of that very great country.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Mr Andrew Mitchell)]

Thank you, Sir Gary. This is the first time I have had the privilege of performing under your eagle eye. It is my third time in government, since I first became a member of the Government in 1992, but I have never taken a debate in Westminster Hall before, so I hope you will treat me gently on this occasion, as I am a bit of a debutante.

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) for securing this debate. I thought that she led and framed it with humanity, wisdom and knowledge, and the whole Chamber will be grateful to her for doing that. I am also grateful to other hon. Members and right hon. Members for their contributions to the debate, and I will try to respond to as many of the points that were raised as I can. I will come directly to the important points that were raised at the end of my remarks if I do not cover them in the speech that I am about to deliver.

After two years of brutal and bloody conflict, today’s debate takes place at a moment of hope. There is finally a path towards peace and prosperity for the people of Ethiopia. During two years of fighting in the north of the country, thousands of people have been killed. There have been human rights violations and abuses on an appalling scale, as has been set out during this debate, and some 13 million people have been left in need of humanitarian aid. It has been one of the world’s most destructive conflicts.

The peace agreement signed on 2 November by the Ethiopian Government and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front is an opportunity to bring a permanent end to this conflict. I recognise the achievement of both parties in taking this step towards peace. I particularly commend the role of the African Union and its envoy—the former Nigerian President, Olusegun Obasanjo—who led mediation efforts, with support from South Africa and Kenya.

This weekend, there was further cause for optimism. On Saturday in Nairobi, senior military commanders from both sides in the conflict signed a further agreement that maps out implementation of the peace process. At the forefront of this agreement is a rapid return to full and unhindered humanitarian access to Tigray, which, as Members have made clear today, is absolutely vital. The peace agreement provides for a permanent cessation of hostilities, the disarmament and demobilisation of Tigrayan forces, and the restoration of services across Tigray. It also provides for a restoration of the constitutional order and the presence of federal authorities within the region.

This is a comprehensive agreement which, if implemented in full, can be the basis of a lasting peace. However, its implementation is far from certain. It will require sustained, magnanimous and restrained leadership on all sides, and support from Ethiopia’s friends across the international community. The UK Government have offered our support to the Ethiopian Government and the African Union. So far, the early signs are promising. Since 2 November, we believe that fighting has largely ceased, and the agreement signed on 12 November demonstrates commitment to implementation.

Humanitarian access is desperately needed. The UN estimates that 13 million people in northern Ethiopia require assistance, which includes millions of people in Tigray whom humanitarian agencies have been unable to reach since August. Humanitarian access has been one of our chief concerns throughout the conflict, and I know that that concern is shared by many in this Chamber. The UK Government have consistently called for humanitarian agencies to have unhindered and unfettered access to northern Ethiopia.

My predecessor as the Minister with responsibility for development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), raised this issue when she met Ethiopia’s deputy Prime Minister, Demeke Mekonnen Hassen, on 22 September at the UN General Assembly and she followed up that meeting with a visit to Ethiopia on 19 October, when she again held talks with the deputy Prime Minister.

In both those meetings, our message was clear: stop fighting, start talking and ensure that all those affected by the conflict can access humanitarian aid and essential services. We therefore welcome the commitment of the Ethiopian Government and the TPLF to enabling humanitarian aid to enter Tigray and to the restoration of essential services. It is crucial that this agreement rapidly makes a difference on the ground.

Turning to the issue of drought, the conflict has taken place in the context of a wider humanitarian crisis in Ethiopia. In the south and east of the country, there have been four consecutive seasons of failed rains, which is unprecedented. This has led to a devastating drought. In October, my predecessor visited a region in Ethiopia that has been impacted by drought, and she witnessed one of the largest and most severe humanitarian crises in the world. As many as 24 million people have been affected in Ethiopia alone. In the past 18 months, the UK Government have allocated nearly £90 million to support communities in the Tigray, Afar, Amhara, Oromia and Somali regions of Ethiopia, which have all been affected by conflict and drought.

The issue of human rights has been raised by a number of right hon. and hon. Members. The peace agreement affirms the principle of respect for fundamental human rights. It commits to the creation of a comprehensive and national transitional justice policy aimed at delivering truth, accountability, redress, reconciliation and healing. Throughout the conflict, there have been appalling records of human rights abuses and violations. The civilian populations of Tigray, Amhara and Afar have endured the most terrible suffering.

Throughout the conflict, the UK has consistently called for an end to human rights abuses and violations, and for accountability for those found to have perpetrated them. We have raised this issue frequently with all parties to the conflict through our embassies in Ethiopia and Eritrea, through my predecessor’s engagement with Ethiopian Ministers, and at the Human Rights Council. The UK was a co-sponsor of the resolution of the Human Rights Council that established the International Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia, and we are also providing direct funding to support the important work of the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I thank the Minister for his contribution. Is he confident that unfettered access to all parts of Ethiopia will be given to the UN and other agencies?

[Mr Mitchell]

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that I am not confident about that, but we are pressing in every way we possibly can, and we must move forward optimistically. I will come to his specific point in a moment, when I address some of the comments that have been made during the debate.

Non-proliferation Treaty: 50th Anniversary Review

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for what she said and for the work she has done over many years on peace and nuclear disarmament issues. We have been at many rallies, meetings and demonstrations together, and I am sure we shall be at many more in the future. I also absolutely endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) said.

This is an extremely important and timely debate, because it means that the Government have an opportunity, which they have not always had, to set out ahead of the non-proliferation treaty review conference their position and aims for the conference. I do not remember them ever doing that before, and I hope the Minister is able to help us with what the Government’s aims and plans will be.

I attended the last NPT review conference, which was held in New York in 2015, as a representative of peace organisations in Britain. It was, as such events always are, extremely interesting. A large number of peace organisations were present, as were Governments from around the world. In this country, our media protect us from the anger of many people around the world who see Britain and the other five declared nuclear weapons states as insular, uncommunicative and not very interested in discussing peace issues. Our media do not report that.

You do not have to spend long at an NPT review conference to understand that a large number of Governments around the world take non-proliferation extremely seriously and support all sections of the NPT. I have also attended a large number of non-proliferation treaty prep conferences, which take place every year, so I have seen the great efforts made to build alliances to improve things, and when people say, “Well, the NPT hasn’t achieved anything,” I beg to differ—it has achieved a great deal.

The NPT was a landmark policy in the 1960s, and we should give credit to Harold Wilson and the Government of that time for bringing it about. It requires the declared nuclear weapons states to take steps towards disarmament, and its other signatories not to share, accept or develop nuclear weapons technology. It is easy to say that it has not worked because other countries, such as North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel, have clearly developed nuclear weapons, but many other countries have not. South Africa, for example, specifically renounced the development of nuclear weapons, which helped to bring about an Africa nuclear weapons-free zone. We also have such zones in Latin America and central Asia, so the steps have been enormous.

The significance of the 2010 and 2015 review conferences was in the discussion about the middle east weapons of mass destruction-free zone. That is a bit of a mouthful, but the point was for it to cover the whole middle east and therefore to include both Iran and Israel, as well as Saudi Arabia. That would mean negotiated talks including both Israel and Iran. I do not expect them to agree on everything, and they may well disagree on many things, but everyone must see that taking a step towards a nuclear weapons-free zone in the middle east is a huge opportunity. The issue was pushed forward in 2010 and discussed again in 2015, and that step forward has not totally happened by any means, but we did get the weapons agreement with Iran, and that is now back on the agenda.

Together with the all-party parliamentary group on Iran, I have been on visits to Iran and indeed to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna to push that agenda forward, and we have a great opportunity to do that again. I hope the Minister will tell us that the Government are serious about resurrecting the deal that Donald Trump did so much to sink—by the way, that is an international agreement, not a bilateral agreement between the US and anybody else, as Donald Trump probably thought it was. I think that that is a positive development.

There are two other positive points about the global ban on nuclear weapons, as mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Pavilion and for Cynon Valley. The ban is widely supported around the world, with 60 countries—a large number—having endorsed, signed and ratified it, so the idea that Britain cannot engage in any way is going against the wishes of the vast majority of the world’s nations, which have very different political views and aspirations. Instead, we are expanding our number of nuclear warheads and we have signed the AUKUS pact with the US and Australia. While that is not specifically a nuclear agreement, two nuclear-armed countries are involved in it, and Australia is apparently willing to host whatever the US wishes to place there. We should therefore pause for a moment and think.

This is not an academic debate; it is a matter of enormous seriousness. I totally condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There has to be a ceasefire and a long-term settlement of some sort that will give peace to the people of Ukraine, Russia and, in particular, the Donbas. But it must be obvious to anyone in the world that a nuclear-armed state—Russia—is directly involved in the conflict and that NATO, which is obviously nuclear-armed to a huge degree, is supplying large amounts of weapons to Ukraine. So there is a serious danger—obviously, I hope this never happens—that this thing proliferates into a nuclear war. That should at least give us some pause for thought and concentrate our minds on where we go on this.

I hope the Government can play a positive role in New York, and perhaps explain to the rest of the world why at this time we are increasing the number of nuclear warheads we have. The others of the five declared nuclear weapon states—China, Russia, France and the US—are also apparently increasing their number of nuclear warheads, despite a period in the 1990s when that number reduced. I hope that we will be serious about the negotiations and our participation.

Those who attended the Vienna conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons—my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) attended it, for example—listened to the victims of nuclear war. The victims were elderly people in Japan who survived but lost family or have suffered cancers ever since, because of the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki—very small compared with the nuclear weapons now available—or, with harrowing stories, nuclear-test victims from all around the world. They include British, American and French servicemen, and peoples of the Marshall Islands and so many places around the world who have suffered the effects of nuclear testing. We should think carefully about that.

I will conclude with this point: we have a whole generation now who do not really appreciate what a nuclear weapon does. It is the ultimate weapon of mass destruction, completely indiscriminate in who it affects. There is no such thing as a targeted nuclear attack or a battlefield nuclear weapon; a nuclear weapon kills everything within its reach, in the area surrounding a nuclear explosion, and it leaves behind a residue of cancerous materials, there for decades and decades to come, polluting the atmosphere and the oceans.

Anyone who would seriously contemplate using a nuclear weapon, knowing that millions will die as a result, with the potential for a further disaster after that, needs to think very seriously about what humanity is about and what we are about. On 6 August we commemorate Hiroshima Day, and 9 August is Nagasaki Day. Those were the only times that nuclear weapons have been used in war, but they have been used in tests and threats ever since.

Please, let us be serious about the non-proliferation treaty review conference and about how we can help to bring about, seriously, a nuclear-free world. It is within our grasp. As a country that has nuclear weapons—we developed them after the second world war and maintain them—we are in a strong position to say, “We will take a lead. We want to follow the NPT in its words, its letter and its spirit, and help to bring about that change.” We have to talk peace at some point; and while there is a war going on, this is the most ideal time to talk about peace. That is really what we are all striving for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

Thank you, Mr Dowd. It is a pleasure to be back. I am grateful to Members for returning to the debate.

We remain committed to our article 6 obligation to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament. Reducing the risk of nuclear conflict remains a priority and we believe that short-term progress, in line with many of the contributions we have had, is achievable. We should seek to foster dialogue, which many Members have mentioned, both among states possessing nuclear weapons and between states possessing nuclear weapons and non-nuclear weapon states in order to increase understanding and reduce the risk of misinterpretation and miscalculation.

Although we recognise that work on risk reduction does not replace disarmament obligations, we see it as a complementary and necessary step to reduce the risk of nuclear conflict and enhance mutual trust and security. We will continue to work with international partners, civil society and academia to build mutual trust and create the environment for further progress on disarmament.

The UK works to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. We have sought to strengthen the international nuclear safeguard system and the International Atomic Energy Agency through our diplomatic efforts and through direct assistance from our nuclear safeguards programme. We will encourage all states that have not yet done so to sign, ratify and implement safeguards agreements. We will promote the ratification of security conventions and seek universal commitment to the additional protocol and a comprehensive safeguards agreement, which together provide credible assurances of the absence of undeclared nuclear activities and will strengthen the non-proliferation architecture. Nevertheless, the UK recognises that significant regional risks remain, particularly from Iran and North Korea. They have been highlighted in the debate. We are working hard to combat the risk of proliferation and remain firmly committed to ensuring coherence to the NPT and the IAEA safeguards regime to ensure global safety and stability.

Finally, the UK has encouraged and will continue to encourage the development and exchange of peaceful nuclear technologies, enabled by the NPT. Nuclear technologies have a critical part to play in tackling climate change, for instance, not only in helping to achieve net zero, but also through nuclear applications such as helping to improve food security and agricultural resilience. The technologies can help countries to adapt and become more resilient to climate change. They are also vital to global health, as they are used to treat cancer and prevent the spread of insect-borne disease. We want the review conference to highlight the significant global contribution that the peaceful use of nuclear technology makes to improving people’s lives and advancing progress to the UN sustainable development goals.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am interested in the outline that the Minister is giving us of what will happen in New York. Could he assure us—I think a number of my colleagues raised the question—that Britain will be represented by a suitably empowered delegation that can take part in serious discussions about building alliances for the future? These conferences do not normally come to a huge conclusion themselves, but they often point to a direction for the future. I would like assurance that this country will be adequately represented, so that we can go forward on this. Also, can we possibly offer up at least a reduction in nuclear stockpiles as part of our negotiations?

[Graham Stuart]

It is not our practice to announce in advance who will be attending. What I can tell him is that we are very much looking forward to it. It has already been delayed. I hope that the rest of my speech has made clear that we take this as a serious opportunity and aim to make the most of it.

We have published a working paper on a new sustained dialogue on peaceful uses, which aims to help overcome barriers to accessing the benefits of the peaceful uses of nuclear technologies. We continue to urge all non-NPT states to sign and ratify the treaty as non-nuclear weapon states as soon as possible.

There are a number of issues, and I will try to deal with some that have been raised. The spokesman for Her Majesty’s Opposition, the hon. Member for Leeds North East, raised the point that the UK supports the universalisation of the NPT. Though we cannot force any state to join, we discuss the importance of the NPT with all states at all levels, and whenever we engage with states. We regularly seek to encourage India and Pakistan, for example, to join the NPT.

On Scotland hosting nuclear weapons, the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent is a national endeavour benefiting the whole of the UK, and it underpins the security of this nation and that of our allies. By way of information, I note that recent opinion polls show that Trident enjoys 58% support among young Scots, even though the SNP and Green Ministers in the Scottish Government wish to see us remove it and even leave NATO altogether—[Interruption.] I do not think the SNP can have it both ways. It wants to have an independent Scotland and join NATO, which is perhaps what the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) will say, while also removing part of its nuclear deterrent.

[Graham Stuart]

As the hon. Lady will be aware, that is a matter for the UK Government, and this Parliament of the Union reflects the whole of the United Kingdom, including the people of Scotland.

The hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) requested that we should put on paper our position on the New York conference. I have already directed him to our November 2021 national report, and I am confident that the Government will update the House after the rev con in due course.

On the point made by the right hon. Member for Islington North about having a weapons of mass destruction-free zone in the middle east, we remain committed to that and firmly believe it can be achieved only by consensus of all the states of the region. I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we continue to push for that.

I hope that has addressed most of the points that right hon. and hon. Members have made. The right hon. Member for Islington North also made a point about the humanitarian impact. The UK recognises the importance of engaging with the humanitarian consequences debate and listening to the views of non-nuclear weapon states. However, we believe that that conference was co-opted by civil society organisations to press for unilateral disarmament, which obviously is not the policy of this country. It was on that basis that the UK decided not to attend.

I hope that I have dealt reasonably with right hon. and hon. Members’ points. We will be able to discuss any further ones following the New York conference, and I look forward to working with Members of different parties in doing so.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

In response to what the Minister just said and what my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) said earlier, after the NPT conference will the Minister be in a position to make a statement or ensure there is a debate, so that Members of the House can raise in discussion what actually happened at the conference? Too often, these conferences have huge energy put into them but there is not much parliamentary discussion afterwards. If the Minister was prepared to guarantee that there will be some kind of statement, that would be very helpful.

[Graham Stuart]

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that fresh in my post as I am, I am not yet briefed as to whether I am in a position to guarantee that, but I am quite sure that Members in this Chamber are more than capable of ensuring that we follow up on that conference, whether in this format or another. In common with the right hon. Gentleman, I would hope that would occur, given the seriousness of the issue and the fact that it must not disappear from parliamentary debate or drift out of sight.

To conclude, the NPT remains essential to the maintenance of a safe and secure world, and I am delighted to have such cross-party support for that. At the 10th review conference, the UK is ready to work with all states parties and partners from across the international community and civil society to achieve a meaningful outcome that contributes to the preservation, universal adoption and, of course, full, ultimate implementation of that treaty, which had such foresight so many decades ago.

NATO Accession: Sweden and Finland

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Ford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I praise not only the Swedish leadership but that of Finland. I know that he pays close attention to the affairs of Sweden, a country for which he has strong personal affection, and I know that as a former serving member of the Royal Navy, he pays close attention to what happens on our seas and therefore across our North sea.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I thank the Minister for her statement. Like many others, I absolutely condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine. What steps are being taken to engage an interlocutor, through the United Nations or some other world body, to try to bring about a ceasefire so that lives may be saved, both of the people in Ukraine and conscripted Russian soldiers, and at least a cessation of fighting in the war before some ultimate political settlement? All wars end with a political settlement. The killing is appalling and refugee flows are terrible. Surely we must talk the language of peace, as well as the language she has put forward this morning.

[Vicky Ford]

Russia started this illegal war. Ever since it started, we have continually—day in, day out—asked Russia to lay down its weapons and stop this illegal, brutal and horrible war. Russia must lay down its weapons, and we will continue to call, with our allies and friends around the world, for that ceasefire that everybody so much wants.

Iran’s Nuclear Programme

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I compliment the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) on obtaining this debate and I particularly endorse the last point he made about looking forward to the ultimate day when there will be no sanctions against Iran, because that surely is the place we would want to be.

We should have a slight passing interest in the past British relationship with Iran, which is not much discussed in this country, but is discussed a great deal in Iran. There are memories of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, later BP, and the promotion of the coup in 1953 by Britain and the CIA together to get rid of the secular progressive Government in place at that time. It might seem a long time ago, but it is very real to people in Iran, and the arguments about it are rehearsed many times over.

The 1979 revolution in Iran was obviously a massive event in every respect. It was a total revolution. A very authoritarian regime was installed. There was a massive killing rate by that regime and universal and total abuse of human rights. Many people from Iran came and sought asylum in this country and many others—indeed, a considerable number came to live in my constituency. In anything I say, I am well aware of the systematic abuse of human rights in Iran for many years. Any discussion with Iran must include a discussion of human rights. Obviously, that includes the dramatic horrors of executions and public executions, but the restriction on rights of assembly and freedom of speech are to me equally important.

It is also worth remembering that the Iranian people have lost relatives and thousands and thousands of soldiers in conflict since 1979. The appalling and disastrous Iran-Iraq war, which ended up achieving hardly anything for either side, cost hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides, wrecked both economies and has led to a continued economic problem for both sides. In discussing the nuclear issues, one should have regard for the longer-term history of Iran and the relationship of this country with Iran.

We are coming up to the non-proliferation treaty review conference this August in New York. Iran was a member of the non-proliferation treaty. Successive meetings that I have been to on the non-proliferation treaty have always concluded with the hope that there would be the declaration of a middle east weapons of mass destruction-free zone, which would give the opportunity for Israel and Iran to be included in the negotiations for a non-nuclear future for the middle east. While I fully appreciate that Iran clearly has developed centrifuges and enriched uranium almost to weapons-grade, two other countries in the region either have nuclear weapons or could. One is Israel, which clearly does have nuclear weapons, and the other is Saudi Arabia, which could quickly develop nuclear weapons if it wanted. The urgency of having a negotiation and a revamped version of the 2015 agreement, or something like it, is important if we are to try to preserve the peace of the region.

I was part of a delegation from the all-party group on Iran in 2014, and it was a fascinating experience, because the members of the delegation were Lord Lamont, a former Conservative Minister and Chancellor, Jack Straw, a former Labour Home Secretary, the current Defence Secretary, and me. The four of us divided up our roles in the delegation very clearly early on. Lord Lamont talked about economic issues, Jack Straw talked about global issues and trade, and I relentlessly and endlessly raised a lot of concerns about individual and collective human rights cases with the people we met in Iran. We were quite well received at universities and so forth, and we had serious negotiations. It was clear to me not only that such negotiations are tough, but that, if the Iran nuclear agreement was to succeed—this was pre the agreement, by the way; that is why we were there—it had to be accompanied by two things: the lifting of sanctions, which were very severe, particularly the medical sanctions being imposed at that time; and a human rights dialogue. The Iranians made it clear that they were prepared to have a human rights dialogue with the EU, or with other parties.

We have to strive for the lifting of sanctions, and that means there has to be a renewed effort to bring about an agreement with Iran to end the enrichment of uranium to anywhere near weapons-grade. I am not a great fan of nuclear power, but the Iranians are legally entitled to develop nuclear power if that is what they want to do. Personally, I do not think it is a great direction to go down, but obviously they can legally choose to do that. We should be well aware that, if we do not succeed in rejigging the 2015 agreement, we have problems ahead.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously believe that a country with a secret nuclear programme that is hidden from the IAEA inspectors and a country that is obstructing those inspectors is serious about negotiations? Is that his genuine belief?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Iran has to be serious about negotiations and we have to be serious about negotiations. That is the whole point of this debate and the whole point of the joint agreement. If my friend has a better alternative, I would be interested to hear it. We should be aware that the agreement with Iran was made with the support of the United States under President Obama and of this country and many others. It is an international agreement. It was Donald Trump who said it was a bilateral agreement and the US should walk away from it. That is essentially the situation we have reached at the present time.

I hope that there will be strong negotiations with Iran. They will obviously be led by the US, the EU and other countries, including this one. That is an important way forward. Perhaps the non-proliferation treaty review conference is an opportunity to start to explore that way forward, because what is the alternative? The alternative is we increase the number of nuclear weapons within the region. I hope to goodness that Iran never develops nuclear weapons, as I wish other countries did not. We have to remember, though, that this country has nuclear weapons and this Government have just announced an increase in the number of our nuclear warheads, so it is not as if we are on the moral high ground when saying that nobody should ever develop nuclear weapons.

There is added urgency because of the situation in Palestine, the occupation of the west bank and the siege of Gaza. There is also the war in Yemen, where thankfully there is now a ceasefire. I hope the ceasefire becomes permanent and that the people of Yemen are able to live in peace, but our supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia has made the situation much worse.

We have to look towards a future in which there can be relations with Iran and a serious programme of improvement in respect of the human rights abuses in Iran, so that sanctions can gradually be lifted. That would allow the Iranian economy to develop and living standards to improve. Many people in Iran lead very poor lives, partly because of the sanctions and partly because of the level of resources taken up by the military, as was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Newark.

In his intervention, my friend the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) asked whether we were serious about negotiations. We were very serious about negotiations when we were trying to get Nazanin Ratcliffe released from her appalling detention in Iran. Eventually, she was released and the parallel agreement was made about the repayment of money by this country to Iran. However, other people were not released. I would be grateful if the Minister let me know, either when she responds or later in writing, about the situation facing Anoosheh Ashoori and Morad Tahbaz, both of whom should have been released with Nazanin but were not. They are still there and apparently the British Government are supporting their release. Those negotiations that were brought about for one person—a very special and wonderful person—had a good outcome, but there are other detainees who should be released.

This debate takes place at a time of peril, with the appalling war between Russia and Ukraine, and the resulting loss of life, and the increase in arms expenditure, with NATO proposing a huge increase. If we succeed in re-engaging with Iran and have a good outcome, good work will have been done and we will have helped to bring about a more peaceful middle east. If we do not, the pressure of the militarist hawks in Iran will become even more enormous and even more resources will go into nuclear and other weapons technology, with obvious dangers for everybody in the region. Surely our whole focus should be on nuclear disarmament and peace through negotiation to bring about a better standard of living for the people of Iran and, indeed, of all other countries in the region.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), and I thank him for his contribution. I also thank the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) for setting the scene so very well, and other hon. Members for their contributions. It is good to see the House united, by and large, in the statements we try to make.

I have spoken about the complexities of the Iranian nuclear question on a number of occasions, and it is clear that we are fast coming to the stage at which we will need to do more than simply discuss or debate it in this House. We must register our concerns, but we need to act, and act urgently. I said the same thing six months ago, and I reiterate it today. Let me put it on the record that I am unashamedly a friend of Israel. I was a member of the Northern Ireland Friends of Israel group when I served in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I am a member of the Friends of Israel here in this great House. I also have a close working relationship with the Iranian Government in exile, to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) referred earlier. That is a good working relationship, and an opportunity to hear about human rights abuses and deprivations, which I will mention later.

There are many in the world who despair at the actions of Iran. On 8 June, the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors voted overwhelmingly to adopt a resolution introduced by the United States, Britain, France, and Germany, censuring the regime in Tehran for non co-operation with the agency’s inquiry into nuclear traces found at three undeclared sites. Iran has a blatant disregard for democracy, freedom, and liberty, and for truth and honesty—it is as simple as that. They will tell lies ‘til the cows come home, as we often say. Indeed, the authorities in Tehran rejected the draft of that resolution, even before it was adopted. The May 2022 IAEA report, perhaps the most detailed and damning since its November 2011 report, made it clear that the regime had not been entirely open and honourable—what a surprise. I have heard it characterised as playing games with the agency. It did, and it must be made accountable for that.

Other Members have referred to the three locations that the IAEA had requested to visit. The regime razed the buildings, and removed structure and soil, yet the IAEA still found traces of nuclear material. The regime did not do the job terribly well, and that badly executed cover-up left an evidential base, which tells us as much as any sample could ever have told us. Action is needed as soon as possible. There are actions that have taken place that the regime does not want us to know about, and in light of the IAEA’s report stating that it has not provided explanations that are technically credible in relation to the agency’s findings at those locations, the only conclusion is that actions have been carried out contrary to the agreement. Again, that must be addressed.

I am pleased to see the Minister and the shadow Minister in their place, and I ask this: is the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action dead, as the regime continues its nuclear provocations and breaches? Perhaps the Minister will answer that when he winds up the debate. Although the IAEA’s position had already come to be regarded as a potentially insurmountable obstacle to the JCPoA’s revival, each of the participants in that agreement remained unwilling to abandon the negotiations.

That situation did not immediately change in the wake of the IAEA board of governors resolution. Tehran even appeared to test that reaction before the censure was formally adopted, turning off two monitoring devices that the IAEA relied on for monitoring the enrichment of uranium gas at the Natanz nuclear facility. The measure was accompanied by a statement from the spokesperson for the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran, urging western nations to “come to their senses”—perhaps it is time for Iran to come to its senses and see that it is time for decency, honesty and truth, and for it to drop the censure.

When that did not happen, the AEOI initiated plans to remove 27 surveillance cameras from several nuclear facilities. Many commentators described Tehran’s reactions as a final or fatal blow to the JCPoA. Those changes come at a time when Iran is already planning to install two new cascades of advanced enrichment centrifuges at Natanz, which could substantially speed up the rate at which uranium is enriched to Iran’s current high level of 60% purity, and potentially beyond that, even to 90%, or to weapons-grade. That should reiterate to all Members of the House that time is of the essence, time is short, and we cannot wait to take action.

On Monday 20 June, Reuters news agency, citing a confidential IAEA report that it had seen, reported:

“Iran is escalating its uranium enrichment further by preparing to use advanced IR-6 centrifuges at its underground Fordow site that can more easily switch between enrichment levels.”

Again, that is a very worrying development that we must be aware of and concerned about. According to Reuters:

“IAEA inspectors verified on Saturday that Iran was ready to feed uranium hexafluoride (UF6) gas, the material centrifuges enrich, into the second of two cascades, or clusters, of IR-6 centrifuges installed at Fordow, a site dug into mountain, the confidential IAEA report to member states said.”

The work was done on a mountain, in easily hidden places and under darkness.

On 7 June, in a joint statement to the IAEA board of governors addressing the regime’s implementation of its nuclear commitments under the JCPOA, the United Kingdom, France and Germany said:

“We are deeply concerned about the continued nuclear advances that the Director General documents in his report. As a result of Iran’s nuclear activities in violation of the JCPOA for more than three years, its nuclear programme is now more advanced than at any point in the past. This is threatening international security and risks undermining the global nonproliferation regime.”

The risk is at its highest ever. The axis of evil of Russia, China, North Korea and Iran threaten the very stability of the world. It is time, as others have said, to refer the matter to the UN, which is the body responsible, and it is time for a collective response. The world must unite against Iran. It is, as has been said, a rogue state that must be controlled. It cannot be allowed to roam free. Iran has disregard for human decency, as we all know.

In Iran, we witness some of the worst human rights abuses in any part of the world—I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, which I have a particular interest in—with the persecution of Christians and of Baha’is. It is also about the rights of women to be women and to have freedom and liberty, but in Iran they face acid attacks on a daily basis. It has high rates of poverty and deprivation, yet it seems to find immense amounts of money to spend on its defence and nuclear programmes. Iran sponsors terrorism across the world and is involved in terrorism in the middle east, in the far east and elsewhere. It is time to bring it to book for what it does.

The dire situation could not be clearer, so our corresponding action must be just as clear, firm and immediate. I respectfully ask the Minister and her Department to act appropriately. I am keen to hear what more action we can take. Strongly worded statements are not enough. It is vital for the future of the planet and this world that nuclear arms are kept away from unstable nations and Governments such as those in Iran who have proven themselves not to be honest and open when it comes to their aims. Iran seeks the wanton destruction of Israel and other parts of the western world. We need to be vigilant, prepared and ready. We look to our Minister for a satisfactory response.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to correct a name that I gave wrongly in my speech. I said that Anoosheh Ashoori was in detention, but I was wrong to do so. The names that I wanted on the record were Mehran Raoof and Morad Tahbaz, who are in detention, and I obviously support a campaign for their release.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for having taken steps to correct the record immediately he realised there had been a mistake. The record now stands corrected.

Council of Europe

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[John Howell]

I completely agree with that intervention. I will come on to say something about that at the end of my speech; it is crucial to what we are about.

The Russian expulsion has, however, left the Council with a deficit, which this time we are keen to see professionally filled. I appreciate the need for reform of the Council, and we look forward to participating in that. It is bizarre that meetings have taken place at a ministerial level in which there has been little contact with the delegation, which has tremendous experience of the Council and its work, but I am grateful that the UK Government have agreed to provide an additional £2.8 million this year to help the Council out of the hole left by Russia’s expulsion. That gives us an opportunity to take advantage of the current situation to push the UK position forward in the full knowledge that we are participating fully in the future of the Council.

It is important to understand how the Council works. It works on the basis of putting forward conventions—international treaties—for countries to agree. Those set standards across a wider Europe in key areas. I will give the example of the Istanbul convention, which goes a long way to answering the question: what does the Council do for us? The Government have set 31 July as the date by which they expect to ratify the Istanbul convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. Many of us regard it as a flagship convention of the Council of Europe and as the gold standard for the protection of women and girls in Europe. Dame Maria, you and I spoke at a debate on this subject that I organised in the covid period.

The Government signed the convention in 2012 and have been working since that date to strengthen UK laws to better protect women and girls—we like to change the law in this country before we finally ratify a treaty. The necessary Command Paper was laid in both Houses on 17 May. I hope that there will be no objections in the following 21 sitting days and that the convention will be ratified.

There are two reservations in the convention that the UK is allowed to make. The first concerns crimes in UK law that are not crimes in other territories, and the second relates to migrant victims. Members are free to ask Ministers questions about those caveats. That illustrates only too well how the Council works: a treaty that it is not compulsory to sign, where the arguments for or against are set out and fully debated, and where the successful signing of the treaty involves us as members of the delegation in pursuing the diplomacy involved through, for example, Westminster Hall debates; by encouraging meetings between Ministers and the President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe; and by our membership of the parliamentary network “Women Free from Violence”.

The Council is also active in the field of human rights, and never has there been a greater need to be on top of this issue internationally. I have already held a debate in the main Chamber on the future of the European Court of Human Rights because it does need reform. Non-governmental organisations have too much influence. Some of the judges could be more suitably qualified. Not only were Russia’s judges sent back for examination; the same has also happened with Iceland. But one of the biggest tests for the court is occurring in Turkey, where the Committee of Ministers—the second chamber of the Council—has begun infringement proceedings. The key question here is: are we to allow Turkey to infringe the court, or are we to take action? And what should that action consist of? Does it mean the expulsion of Turkey from the Council, or are there other routes to follow since we cannot do nothing? As one of the rapporteurs for the Council on Turkey, let me explain the situation in relation to Osman Kavala.

Kavala is a leading businessman and campaigner who has been sentenced to aggravated life imprisonment after a period of pre-trial detention. The Turkish authorities argue that the original court case has been complied with in relation to the European Court of Human Rights in that Kavala was released to be rearrested the following day. The court argues that its judgment applies to the whole of the evidence base for all charges brought against Kavala, which are lacking in any evidence. That is the source of the current impasse with the Turkish Government. Turkey faces many attempts at terrorism, for which I have great sympathy, but the question must be asked whether these anti-terrorism laws are too restrictive and contravene human rights. There are, of course, other examples besides the Kavala case.

That example illustrates the important work of the Council in monitoring countries to ensure they are complying with the three pillars of the Council: human rights, the rule of law and democracy. That work and election monitoring are important functions. While I can see there is room for joint monitoring exercises with the Committee of Ministers, this is an important element of what the Council does. I would not like to see it given away to another organisation, and the Council not to have a role.

There is plenty of opportunity for the Council to work with other organisations, such as the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. I have already had discussions with the head of the UK delegation to the OSCE, and we are looking at ways to work together more closely, but it would wrong to see the OSCE having more experience of election monitoring or in monitoring more generally.

A key question remains about the future role of the Council of Europe. I welcome the UK Government’s support for Kosovo to join the Council, which the delegation also supports. Many discussions on this have already started, in which we can, should and do participate. The recent Turin ministerial meeting is one such example. I am grateful for the attendance of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary at that meeting. Another is the debate that took place at the standing committee in Dublin on the future discussions that will take place.

There is so much more that the Council could do in the area of the rule of law and in promoting democracy more widely across Europe. There are gaps in both those areas in many countries, and knowledge is needed to help them get the right answer. We stand ready to work in promoting that area. The delegation would value the chance to have more extensive discussions with the Foreign Office, and with other Ministers. We do have the experience of putting together programmes in this area.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the problems with the Council of Europe is that its work, importance and role are not fully understood, even by Members of this House, never mind the general public? I know he has worked hard on that. We need to have a much more active public relations initiative, explaining the value of the Council of Europe, its powers and the changes it can, and does, bring about among members states.

[John Howell]

I agree fully with right hon. Gentleman. I try my hardest to push that as leader of the delegation. It is essential to get across what the Council is about, how it can help, and the role it now plays in—I have to use this expression—a post-Brexit Britain. It plays a vital role in ensuring that we have good relations with parliamentarians in other parts of Europe.

I will conclude by saying that putting down written questions after each debate at the Council of Europe brings home how wide those debates are, and how they affect policy across Government. Debates that relate to the Foreign Office account for about 30%. The rest cover a range of Ministries, from the Department for Work and Pensions to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. I ask those questions I put to them to show the range of debates that we conduct, partly to ensure there is a written answer on record for the issues that have been discussed, and so that we understand what Government are doing. That is welcome, at least by members of the delegation, but we would welcome the Minister’s help in ensuring that the Government’s position can be put across when rapporteurs visit the country on behalf of the Council and need to see a Minister. I know that that is a pain, but without it the result does not look good and can leave us in an embarrassing position.

I am extremely grateful not just for the work of all members of the delegation—we try to operate on a genuinely cross-party basis wherever possible, and the number of Members here for the debate illustrates that—but for our utterly brilliant secretariat led by Nick Wright, to whom we would all like to pay our thanks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I am pleased that we are having this debate, and to be an alternate member of the Council of Europe. I have found the experience very interesting. As I said to the leader of the UK delegation, the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), in an intervention, the lack of information, understanding and publicity about the Council must be addressed.

The Council of Europe is a big body and it spends a great deal of money on staff, resources and all that—I am not complaining about that, but there has to be a much better understanding of what it does. Its foundation in 1949 was historic and dramatic, because it gave a European focus on human rights, and it supported the principle of the European convention on human rights and the European Court of Human Rights.

Some people, no doubt, will not be very pleased with the decision made last night, but personally I think it was absolutely the right decision. If any member state, including this one, goes outside the European convention on human rights and behaves in the way that the British Government wanted to, there are consequences. The Court has intervened to bring that about.

Personally, I support the decision, but others might not. However, we cannot complain about other countries not complying, such as Turkey or in the past Russia, if we do not stand up for exactly the same principle ourselves. The European Court of Human Rights is something that the whole of Europe apparently subscribes to and ought to continue to subscribe to.

The discussions in the Council of Europe on human rights issues are important, but more important in some ways is the engagement with, and delegations to, different member states to try to improve their human rights records, their prison conditions and prisoner rehabilitation regimes.

Russia was expelled from the Council of Europe. That has now happened. It is a huge step to expel a member state. Although I, like everyone in this Chamber, totally condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the war that is going on there, we have to ask ourselves a question: what message does it send to human rights campaigners and victims of human rights abuses in different parts of Russia if they no longer have access to the European Court of Human Rights? I know the issue of Turkey is writ large. Turkey is an abuser of human rights through its prison conditions, its treatment of Kurdish and Armenian minorities, and in a number of other ways. I am not in favour of the expulsion of Turkey from the Council of Europe. I want to see engagement—for us to work with and support the many brave journalists and human rights campaigners in Turkey, and try to bring about improvements in their society and their country.

The role of election observation is an important one. I was recently an election observer—not on behalf of the Council of Europe, but a different body—at the elections in Colombia. Having observed other elections in other places, I know the great importance, not necessarily of finding all the faults, but of simply being an unexpected presence at the polling stations with a right to investigate and inspect what is going on. Therefore, to me, the Council of Europe is a very important body.

To conclude, we must ensure that there is a serious information campaign about the role of the Council of Europe and all its policy areas—environment, human rights, and many other social policy areas—so that people understand what it does. Obviously there was a funding issue with Russia’s removal, but that ought to spur us on to have a better information campaign and better reporting back. The least we could expect is to have a debate in the main Chamber of our Parliament, rather than here in Westminster Hall; I am not criticising Westminster Hall, but this ought to be a main Chamber debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dame Maria. I thank the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) for securing this debate at a critical time for democracy and the rule of law across our continent. I agree that it is a shame that this debated in the main Chamber; I hope that can happen in due course.

It is perhaps arguable that the work of the Council of Europe has never been as critical as it is today, whether that is on human rights, the rule of law and democracy, or, of course, in its crucial election-monitoring role or through the many other activities it undertakes. Not only do we face the pressing threat of Russia’s illegal war against the people of Ukraine, but we see attempts to sow disharmony, undermine democracy and foment tensions elsewhere, whether in the western Balkans, Moldova, or the Caucasus—all, of course, within the geographic remit of the Council of Europe.

We have had some excellent speeches today. I echo the hon. Member for Henley in thanking our officials, the permanent representative, our judge, and all those who play a part in delegations, many of whom are represented today, including many of my hon. and right hon. colleagues on this side of the House.

I want to recognise the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) and the work he does, and his recognition of the Council of Europe’s role for many member states in the huge, historic shift from the time of fascism and communism to where they have come to today. He spoke about Turkey and others—I will come on to those—and made a powerful statement about the importance of the ECHR and its judgments, and the role that we played in creating it, while also recognising the need for reform, for example in the length of time for judgments.

The right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) made some powerful remarks about the importance of the Council of Europe and its geographic reach. He rightly referenced the expulsion of Russia—something I think we would all agree with. He also referenced other issues, such as Cyprus. I had the pleasure of visiting Cyprus recently and agree with many of his comments about the need to resolve that conflict and return to the plan for a bizonal and bicommunal federation.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is also important in this context to have as much contact as possible, through the Council of Europe, with Russian human rights campaigners and activists, so that they feel that there are people who are interested in the difficult situation they find themselves in?

[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.

British Nationals Detained Overseas

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 20th April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Brennan]

I am sure the Minister will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said and will want to respond to that remark. It is important that, when the Prime Minister visits other countries and meets their leaders, he highlights these sorts of cases as a priority.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

May I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the case of Mehran Raoof, a trade union activist who is in jail in Iran? He was not released when others were released. The Foreign Secretary rather erroneously said that he did not want his name to be made public. It has been made absolutely clear through Amnesty International that his family do want his name to be made public, they do want a public campaign, and they do want him to be released in the same way that the very welcome release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe took place.

[Kevin Brennan]

My right hon. Friend quite rightly highlights that case and makes that name public. I am sure that will have achieved what he wanted. There are other cases, of course: Morad Tahbaz and Mehran Raoof, whom we have heard mentioned, are two other British-Iranians whose arbitrary imprisonment continues despite the recent negotiations. There is also British citizen Jimmy Lai, who is being held in solitary confinement in Hong Kong under the dystopian national security law.

Today, however, I want primarily to tell the story of my 30-year-old constituent Luke Symons, who has been held without charge or trial by the Houthis in various prisons in Sanaa, Yemen, since 2017. Like many people in Cardiff, Luke has a Yemeni family background, owing to the seafarers who settled around the city’s thriving docklands in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. By 1914, the Yemeni population of Cardiff represented one of the two largest Muslim communities in Britain, and it continues to constitute a proud and vibrant part of the diverse population of Wales’s capital city.

In exploring his religious and cultural roots, Luke travelled to Yemen, where he met his future wife, Tagreed, a Yemeni national, in 2014. In 2016, they had a son together. Shortly after Luke’s arrival in the country, the civil war started, leading rapidly to the overthrow of the Yemeni Government, and he found himself caught in the middle of a violent conflict that came to involve military intervention by regional powers, including Saudi Arabia. Luke and his wife tried to flee to safety; they tried to come back to the UK via neighbouring countries. They managed to get to Djibouti, but they did not get the support they needed from the UK authorities to be able to travel to Britain; sadly and unfortunately, they had to return to Yemen. Following that, in April 2017, Luke was detained at a Houthi checkpoint in Yemen upon the discovery that he held a British passport.

In the ensuing five years, despite numerous promises from Houthi and Yemeni officials, talks between regional authorities and UK Foreign Secretaries, and a visit to the prison by the UK special envoy to Yemen, Luke has remained incarcerated. As the Minister will know, in October 2020, it appeared as though Luke might be included in a substantial UN-supervised exchange, which consisted of more than 1,000 prisoners. The Foreign Office says that, following extensive negotiations and logistical planning for Luke’s release, with arrangements also being made to ensure safe passage for his wife and child, Luke’s captors inexplicably broke the agreement and severed lines of communication with the UK Government. That was obviously devastating for Luke’s family, who watched helplessly as other foreign nationals, including some from the United States, were returned home by their Governments from captivity in Yemen.

Since then, there has been very little outward progress on Luke’s case. Occasionally, his family have been allowed to communicate with him via telephone. They have become increasingly concerned and distressed by his poor physical health, which has been exacerbated by the notoriously squalid conditions of his captivity and the ongoing covid pandemic. There is also concern about the lack of access to medical attention for Luke. I understand that his wife, Tagreed, was recently informed by Houthi officials that the visits that she had been able to make have been suspended.

Perhaps most notably of late, Luke’s grandfather, Bob Cummings, who is also my constituent and, along with other family members, has campaigned consistently and courageously for Luke over the years, has told me of Luke’s worsening mental health and diminishing spirit. Luke is isolated; he is alone in his cell and is not allowed outside. He is deprived of contact with any other prisoners, and sometimes he is not even aware of the day of the week. The telephone conversations he has had with his family in the UK, which have been few and far between, have been supervised by his captors and cut off after very short periods. I take this opportunity to appeal directly to his captors—after all, they are ultimately responsible for his incarceration—to release this innocent young man, who has no part in the ongoing conflict in Yemen, so that he can be reunited with his family and return to the UK.

Other countries have lacked diplomatic presence in Yemen, and that is often cited by the Foreign Office as a significant factor limiting the UK Government’s influence and options for intervention in this case. I appreciate that it is very difficult to deal with the Houthis and not a traditional Government of any kind, but we must note that other countries whose embassies in Sanaa are closed and vacant, including the United States and France, have been able to secure the return of multiple citizens in the past couple of years. That prompts the question: if those countries have been able to do that, why has the United Kingdom not been able to secure Luke’s release?

I ask the new Minister for the Middle East to make it clear to her officials that securing Luke’s release during her time in office is a high priority, if not one of her highest priorities. I ask her to commit to taking a fresh look personally at Luke’s case, mastering the details and doing everything in her power, with all her energy, to try to secure his release. I want her to redouble efforts to open channels of communication once again with the Houthis, by whatever means, and to engage personally with her counterparts in France and the United States to understand their recent successes in securing the release of prisoners by the Houthis.

As we enter the third week of the two-month-long UN-brokered ceasefire and the associated prisoner exchange negotiations between the Houthi regime and the Saudi-led coalition that have been reported, and during the opportunity that the holy month of Ramadan provides, it is vital that the UK Government exhaust all options and use their international influence, including via the UN and, quite frankly, their much-boasted relationship with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, to explore any avenue to achieve Luke’s release.

This country’s close ties with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are often controversial in this House because of that country’s human rights record. However, when Ministers are pressed on those ties, they are always quick to emphasise that the relationship allows us to influence the Saudi regime. Why, therefore, was Luke’s case not raised by the Prime Minister during his meeting with Mohammed bin Salman on 16 March, which, per the Government press release, included discussions relating to concerns about human rights issues?

Will the Minister undertake to speak with her Saudi counterparts to press them to include Luke’s name in any prisoner exchange that may take place during the current ceasefire? Recent discussions have not convinced Luke’s family that our diplomats are doing enough to leverage that relationship with Saudi Arabia, which is much discussed by Ministers, to press Luke’s plight.

The Minister will know that she is the fifth Minister to be appointed to the middle east portfolio since Luke’s arbitrary detention more than five years ago. There have also been four different Foreign Secretaries while Luke has been detained—the current Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), the current Deputy Prime Minister, and of course the current Foreign Secretary—all of whom have expressed support for Luke but none of whom has met his grandfather, despite extending opportunities for meetings to the families of other British nationals in similar positions around the world.

Luke comes from an ordinary working-class family in Cardiff. They do not have any special connections or friends in the media or anywhere else, but they deserve the same consideration and respect from this Government as anyone else. I ask the Minister to commit to Luke’s family that she will raise his case with the Foreign Secretary at their next meeting. I ask her to involve herself in this case personally, as she has done with other cases, and to take full advantage of this latest, time-limited opportunity to reunite Luke with his family. I also ask her to ask the Foreign Secretary to meet Luke’s family personally, so that she can truly understand their plight.

This incarceration has gone on too long. I believe that with a prioritised and renewed diplomatic effort, using the current window of opportunity, Luke’s release could be secured, and he and his family could be reunited. I implore the Minister to act now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Milling]

We are using every lever in our power. We all want to see Luke back in Cardiff.

Colleagues have mentioned a number of cases of British nationals overseas in this debate, and another case was raised with me by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). The FCDO and its team work tirelessly to support British nationals detained overseas. Hopefully I have set out some of the areas in which we do this. I think it is really important to say that I really appreciate Members’ concerns and support for their constituents, and I thank them for their efforts.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Could the Minister assure the House that the Government are in serious negotiations and talks with the Government of Iran about the release of Mehran Raoof, who I mentioned, and others whose names are not revealed but are nevertheless equally meritorious of being released?

[Amanda Milling]

As I say, we are in constant contact in relation to getting British nationals released. I will happily follow up on that with the right hon. Gentleman in writing after the debate.

I thank all colleagues for their contributions today on the cases that have been mentioned. We will continue to work tirelessly on behalf of British nationals detained overseas, and in the case of Luke to see him released and back in Cardiff, because that is what everyone wants to see.

Question put and agreed to.

Ukraine

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend has a strong record of standing up against the appalling actions of human traffickers. He is absolutely right that there is a real risk at the border and that people are being threatened—women and girls are being threatened—with these appalling activities. A core part of what our humanitarian aid is supporting is the international agencies protecting against those activities, which of course are also subject to war crimes investigations. We are seeing appalling rape accusations in Ukrainian cities as well. The UK is leading on prevention of violence against women and girls and on tackling sexual violence as a red line in war, and we will continue to do so.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, has just issued a very strong appeal for an urgent and immediate ceasefire. What are the British Government doing to support his call before there is more bombing, more deaths and more people driven into refugee status? Could the UN be the medium for a longer-term peace conference that will bring about some degree—hopefully a real degree—of peace and security for people in the area? Will the Foreign Secretary say something about the very brave peace activists in Russia who have risked a great deal to speak out against this war?

[Elizabeth Truss]

Of course we completely support the UN call for a ceasefire. We have worked at the UN General Assembly to secure the votes of 140 countries against Russia’s appalling aggressive action. It is down to Putin and the Russian Government, who have pursued this aggression against an innocent nation that had done absolutely nothing to provoke it. I applaud those in Russia who are prepared to stand up against the Government and protest against this appalling war. Ultimately, it is for the Russian Government to stop their appalling aggression in Ukraine and withdraw their troops. That has to be the precursor to any peaceful resolution of this crisis.