Draft Inter-American Investment Corporation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2022

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 General Committees

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Just briefly, although I know how hon. Members like to spend long periods of time in SI Committees, I want to ask the Minister a question, and I am happy if he writes to me in response. On this occasion, and as we have asked on other occasions, it would be useful to know exactly the specific immunities and privileges that are being afforded. What are the extent of those immunities? I raise that because the IDB has not been an uncontroversial body. Its recent president, a Trump nominee, was ousted as a result of allegations of malpractice, and we will be electing a new president on 20 November. We will be affording it, as the Minister said, privileges and immunities in the normal run of business, but with this body I think there are some exceptional concerns that we must have in monitoring and making sure that the immunities and privileges and their parameters are properly set and open to public scrutiny in some detail. I do not expect the Minister to reply today, but if he could write, that would be really helpful.

Global Vaccine Disparities

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Welcome to the coolest place in the building on this very hot day.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered disparities in the global distribution of vaccines.

I submitted a request for this morning’s debate because I want to draw attention to the grotesque inequalities in the distribution of vaccines to tackle the covid crisis. When we convene for these debates, often it is to seek more information from the Government or to make a request for changes in policy. Now that there will be a change of Prime Minister and potentially a rearrangement of the Government, including of Ministers responsible for this area in particular, this is a particularly opportune moment to place all the issues on the agenda and hopefully see some change. It is also worth using these debates to record one’s position, because when our children and grandchildren look back in decades to come on the Government’s performance, I think they will ask why we did so little to intervene effectively when there was such a huge scale of human suffering across the globe.

The global vaccine story is one of gross inequality. I heard the Prime Minister when he made the statement that it was greed that brought us the vaccine. It was not greed; it was public money. Very significant public resources went into all the vaccines. However, greed was certainly responsible for the obscene inequality that followed.

Over the last year, the richer an economy was, the more likely that country was to have vaccines. At the top end, it would likely have had far more than it needed, and at the bottom of the scale, many countries had almost none at all. Still today, just under 20% of people across the African continent as a whole are fully vaccinated, and only 16% of people in low-income and poor countries are vaccinated. The Prime Minister has talked about vaccine hesitancy being the main factor accounting for that. That is simply untrue. Studies have shown that there is far more vaccine hesitancy in the United States than in most African countries. However, the way that the giant pharmaceutical corporations—big pharma—and richer countries have behaved has certainly fuelled that scepticism, which should worry us all.

The problem is not simply a lack of solidarity or generosity, although that is shocking in itself. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), the shadow Minister for international development, recently uncovered, a year ago the Prime Minister promised to share 100 million surplus vaccines with the world’s poorest countries. That is a very small amount, but at least it is something; yet a year later, barely a third have been delivered.

Those are the doses that we had already bought and were otherwise going spare. They would have been thrown away if they had not been distributed, yet they counted against the aid budget. In fact, it gets worse: we charged the aid budget double what the UK was widely reported to have paid for those doses. The Government had charged around £4.50 per dose versus the £2.30 per dose that they paid, as reported by The British Medical Journal. Yesterday, we discovered that over 1 billion doses are believed to have been wasted around the world. That would have been sufficient to vaccinate everyone in the poorer countries.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Member for securing a debate on this issue, which has concerned me as well; indeed, it concerns us all across this House. Is he aware that Eswatini, a little country that borders Mozambique and South Africa and one of our Commonwealth family members, was hit hard by coronavirus? I have to say that whenever I raised this matter with the Government, and with the Minister in particular, they did respond. It is a country that I have a particular interest in because of the churches and the missionary groups there, and the Government deserve our thanks.

Does the right hon. Member agree that one of the difficulties—he has already outlined some of them—is that smaller countries have no one to advocate for them internationally? We need to be more proactive in our responsibilities, first to Commonwealth countries and then to those that have no one to advocate for them. I think he is also saying that we need someone to advocate for them and ensure they get the vaccines that are available. We should be doing that.

[John McDonnell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for his dogged pursuit of the issue in Parliament and with Ministers. There is an issue about the strength of the voices of individual Commonwealth countries, and a real concern about some not being listened to. As a result of that, interventions are not taking place effectively in those countries, but it is invaluable that the hon. Gentleman has consistently raised individual issues with regard to particular countries in which he has an interest through the Christian movement. That adds to the pressure on Government for more effective action, and I am grateful for that.

The situation is worse than just failure to donate at scale. We did not donate as we promised on the scale that we promised, but we also worked to stop others producing the vaccines in their own countries. Around the world, factories offered to produce the vaccines, and one factory in Bangladesh said at the start of the pandemic that it could turn out 600 million doses a year. Compare that to the 35 million doses that the British Government have donated. More than 100 factories around the world could have been safely producing mRNA—messenger ribonucleic acid—vaccines, but were unable to do so because the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, or TRIPS, agreement locks that knowledge, which is often publicly produced, behind a wall.

The TRIPS agreement allows huge corporations and their shareholders to profit while preventing us from taking the action that we need to take to protect our own society, as well as people around the world. It is good for the big pharmaceutical companies, and Pfizer predicts $50 billion revenue for its covid vaccine—an anti-viral pill—in 2022 alone. These are the most lucrative drugs in history, and more than one Moderna executive has become a billionaire off its publicly funded and publicly created vaccines, but this situation is bad for us because it has not only created massive inequality, but allowed the virus to go unchecked in many parts of the world, mutating in a way that risks undermining the medicines we already have.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I know how passionate the right hon. Gentleman is about the subject as he supported my Westminster Hall debate on global vaccine access. He is talking powerfully about coronavirus vaccines, but does he agree that there has been a loss of progress on vaccines more generally? A good example is the polio vaccine budget, which the Government have pretty much obliterated. As a result, we are beginning to see wild poliovirus circulating again in some developing parts of the world. It is not just coronavirus; we are failing in our responsibilities on other fronts.

[John McDonnell]

There is a lesson I thought we had learned decades ago, which is that when we have viruses such as this, whether it is polio, covid or others, unless we treat the world, eventually we will become vulnerable again. That is exactly the experience we are going through now. Even with covid, we are going through it again. As we know from information from the past month, a new covid variant has arisen, and from what we hear, that variant is more transmissible than anything we have experienced. On all those issues, unless we have a global strategy to vaccinate the world, unfortunately we will not be able to isolate ourselves from future infections and future tragedies.

Let me return to the issue of the TRIPS waiver, which a number of hon. Members present have raised in various debates. It is worth reminding the House that there was a call from most countries to waive the rules during the pandemic. The tragedy for us was that the British Government were implacably opposed to the waiver. Britain was one of the last countries standing, and only on the last day did Britain sign up to the World Trade Organisation’s very poor compromise on the waiver. I will be frank: I think that is disgraceful. It is disgraceful for a Government of a country that had all the vaccines we needed. The onus was on us to do everything we could to prevent this infection from spreading, and to do all we could to assist poorer countries.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his important contribution to the debate. On the one hand, the Government are currently negotiating a free trade agreement with India. On the other hand, they blocked the proposal from India and South Africa for a TRIPS waiver at the World Trade Organisation. Does my right hon. Friend think that is the right approach to take to the issue of fair distribution of vaccines, and to our relationship with India?

[John McDonnell]

The issue that my hon. Friend raises is something that we have raised before. I commend India and South Africa for the work they did in lobbying so hard to try to get international agreement on the TRIPS waiver. We need to learn some lessons from this period, and one of them is that when the Government act unilaterally in this way, they contaminate future relationships—whether they are over trade or other matters of co-operation. I think that is the anxiety that many of us have. It is a disgrace that we actually sought to prevent others from making the drugs that they needed.

Many countries around the world are shocked at the way they have been treated by this country, and they want to start to do things differently. South Africa has set up an mRNA hub to try to crack this revolutionary technology, which we think can be used not just to prevent severe cases of covid, but potentially to create treatments for a wide range of diseases, such as HIV, malaria and certain types of cancer. The big corporations still refuse to share their know-how, but South Africa has worked out how to make mRNA vaccines and—even better—is sharing this know-how with other countries patent-free. A couple of weeks ago, President Biden’s Administration announced that they would work with the hub to help it. Many European Governments have offered funds, but Britain has done nothing. The Government must support those efforts and protect them from the pressure that will come from the industry. This is a new model of how medicines can be developed, and it deserves our support.

It is not just about covid. I believe that the way we produce medicines is broken. I ask the Minister to talk to Lord Jim O’Neill, who has been trying to get the pharmaceutical corporations to produce the antibiotics that our medical establishment has depended on for many years. He has been trying to engage in a dialogue to change practices within the pharmaceutical industry, but the corporations have done nearly nothing. Look at HIV/AIDs. We now have the means to wipe out HIV through pills that stop transmission. New injectables have just come online. Again, the countries that most need them are being overcharged or shut out of the market altogether. It goes on and on.

We have an industry committed to making huge amounts of money, but not to making and sharing the medicines that humanity needs. We have to change that, and conversations are happening across the world about how to do it—except here, where the Government’s commitment to shareholder return appears sacrosanct and is prioritised above saving lives and reducing human suffering. My warning is this: it is not only ethically obscene; it is bad for us, too. It means that the British taxpayer is getting a terrible return on their investment in new medicines, that the NHS is overpaying for medicines such as covid vaccines, and that we are not developing the medicines we need to prevent the next health epidemic.

There are huge healthcare disparities, because many people still lack adequate public, universal healthcare systems. Sadly, however, the UK Government, like the World Bank, is still pushing a deeply inadequate private, market-based healthcare model in many countries. It is telling that some of the hospitals that were supported with British development funds refused to treat covid-19 patients in the first wave of the pandemic. Many died, and many were left destitute by this model. It is time for the Government to stop pushing that failed model and start helping to build national health services for all.

Let me come to the specific requests for the Government. A coalition of different organisations, which includes Just Treatment, Global Justice Now, Oxfam, STOPAIDS and many others, is calling on the Government to demonstrate support for the World Health Organisation’s mRNA technology hub initiatives. The hubs will help to end the covid-19 pandemic for all by increasing manufacturing capacity for treatments and technologies.

More broadly, the hubs will support self-reliance, independence and health equity in lower income countries. They will ensure that we are adequately prepared for the next pandemic. The UK Government must provide financial support to the hubs and ensure that pharmaceutical companies share their manufacturing know-how and refrain from undermining the success of the hubs with intellectual property barriers.

As the new Administration is formed under a new Prime Minister, will the Minister, first, now back the coalition’s request that the Government use their influence to encourage Pfizer, Moderna and BioNTech to share their technology and know-how, and urge companies to remove intellectual property barriers to the production of mRNA products and related technologies? Specifically, the UK Government should call on Moderna to revoke the patents they hold in South Africa and prevent other pharmaceutical companies from similarly undermining the work of the new mRNA hubs.

Secondly, will the Government make a public commitment to support and finance the €92 million that mRNA hubs need to fund the initiative over the next five years? Some 59% has been raised so far from other countries, but not this country.

Thirdly, will the UK stop blocking the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights waiver at the World Trade Organisation? Will the Government ensure that the TRIPS waiver has a minimal duration of five years and includes all forms of intellectual property, including medical tools beyond vaccines, treatments, and diagnostics?

I hope that, with a change of Prime Minister and Administration, there is a window of opportunity for the Government to think again on the vital issue of how to prevent the loss of life and human suffering that has taken place on a global scale, which we have done so little to assist in tackling.

I expect the Minister will repeat the Government’s response to the petition that was lodged on this issue by many members of the general public, restate the various contributions and donations that have been made and compare us to others. The reality is that the financial contributions do not go anywhere near what is necessary. More importantly, the issue that must be addressed is the blocking of the local production in lower income countries of the means by which we can tackle the pandemic. If it is not, that will be a stain on this Administration.

[The Minister for Asia and the Middle East (Amanda Milling)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for securing this debate and to all hon. Members who have contributed. I will try to respond to some of the right hon. Gentleman’s points.

According to recent research by Imperial College London, the global roll-out of covid vaccines has averted up to 20 million deaths, but progress has been uneven. Hon. Members are absolutely right to want the global roll-out to go further and faster, because too many people remain unvaccinated, particularly in lower income countries and marginalised communities and among those in the grip of humanitarian crises.

The Government’s priority is to end the acute phase of the pandemic by ensuring that those most at risk are fully vaccinated and enabling societies to live with covid. Everyone in this House and throughout the country can be proud of the role the UK has played in developing and rolling out covid vaccinations. UK scientific excellence and co-operation has made a huge contribution to collective knowledge about the virus, including how to treat it and vaccinate against it. Professor Dame Sarah Gilbert and her team created and developed the game-changing Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, backed by the UK Government. The Government also backed research into several other successful vaccines that were produced at unprecedented speed, including through our £250 million support to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, otherwise known as CEPI.

We have also played a big role in the global vaccine roll-out, which has been the fastest ever against a single disease. Furthermore, we are a founder and one of the largest donors to COVAX, with our commitment of £548 million to its advance market commitment. That has helped COVAX to deliver more than 1.5 billion vaccine doses to 146 countries and territories worldwide, including 87 low and middle-income countries.

To help to address the supply shortages last year, we used our presidency of the G7 to make a collective commitment to provide 870 million doses to poorer countries by the end of 2022. Collectively, the G7 has exceeded that commitment by making more than 1 billion doses available. Nationally, we have donated more than 85 million doses to nearly 40 countries and made a further 15 million available. We have done all we can to meet our commitment to share 100 million doses. In 2021, the UK donated 30.8 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, all of which were charged at cost. The OECD Development Assistance Committee will issue guidelines on the reporting of vaccine donations in 2022 later this year.

Through this immense collaborative effort, the world now has enough vaccine supply to enable countries to meet their immunisation goals; indeed, global vaccine supply now far outstrips demand. The key challenge is ensuring that developing countries can effectively administer the vaccines they have. We are working with the covid-19 vaccine delivery partnership and other international partners to tackle delivery bottlenecks and improve vaccine uptake to ensure that covid-19 vaccines reach the most vulnerable. Since January, the vaccine delivery partnership has accelerated progress towards national vaccination targets in more than half of the 34 countries with the lowest vaccination rates, with a strong focus on priority groups.

Community confidence and easy access are critical to successful roll-outs. We are using our development budget to encourage uptake and improve delivery. For example, our Nigeria health programme is supporting delivery and using evidence to build vaccine confidence in five of the poorest states. We have also provided £20 million to the Hygiene and Behaviour Change Coalition, which builds vaccine confidence through community engagement, working with health workers, religious leaders and other influential and trusted voices.

Just as the UK’s scientists and Government made a huge contribution to the first wave of vaccines, we are now working with partners such as COVAX and CEPI to ensure affordable and effective second-generation vaccines and make them available to low and middle-income countries, so that the world can respond rapidly to any new variant of concern. As part of this work, CEPI is supporting the Cambridge-based company DIOSynVax to develop a new pan-coronavirus vaccine to offer broader protection.

This year, we hosted the global pandemic preparedness summit, which raised more than £1.2 billion for CEPI’s work, including a UK Government pledge of £160 million. That money will fund the development of vaccines against new health threats—including possible new covid variants—in 100 days from any outbreak.

Rolling out covid vaccines puts huge pressure on weak and overstretched systems, so we are working with COVAX, the WHO, UNICEF and other partners to support countries in developing sustainable approaches to managing covid and other diseases. For the long-term control of the virus, it is critical to integrate covid-19 vaccination tests and treatments into primary healthcare systems, supported by strong and resilient health systems. The UK Government use our development budget to support countries to strengthen their health systems and work towards universal health coverage. We are also a leading supporter of Gavi’s work on restoring and strengthening immunisation and health systems for the 2.7 million children in the poorest countries who missed out on vaccinations in 2020 because the pandemic prevented them from getting their jabs.

Covid-19 has caused more than 6.3 million reported deaths, and the WHO estimates that there have been up to 15 million excess deaths in total around the world. It has had hard, far-reaching economic, social and health consequences, so stopping the next potential pandemic is vital. That will require a concerted and co-ordinated international effort. In addition to our investment in CEPI, the UK Government have pledged £25 million to a new World Bank-hosted fund for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. That will help to ensure more equitable access to vaccines, tests and treatments when a future threat to global health emerges.

On TRIPS, the UK Government continue to recognise the importance of the intellectual property system in incentivising innovation, research and the development of new medicines, vaccines and medical technologies. We welcome the consensus-based outcome on the TRIPS agreement reached at the WTO ministerial conference. We believe that decision will make it easier for developed countries to choose to export life-saving covid vaccines while preserving the incentive that intellectual property rights provide to invest in innovation.

[John McDonnell]

The Minister will soon run out of time, so will she address the issue of support for the WHO’s strategy of rolling out hubs? Will the Government think again?

[Amanda Milling]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting his case forward, but I have been clear about the UK’s position.

The global vaccine roll-out is pivotal to ending the acute phase of the pandemic and transitioning to living with covid. The points that have been made about delivery and distribution are live issues, and we are working hard with our international partners to resolve them. The Government are also investing in the development of second-generation vaccines, pandemic preparedness and the strengthening of global health systems. That comprehensive approach is the only way to strengthen global resilience to covid and other future health threats.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered disparities in the global distribution of vaccines.

Shireen Abu Aqla

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Ford]

My hon. Friend is right about justice: justice is really important. We absolutely condemn this killing and will continue to stress the need for the investigation to be fair, impartial, thorough and prompt.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I am secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group and we have raised these issues before, but, with regard to this killing, let us put it in the context of the systematic abuse of Palestinian journalists. The International Federation of Journalists already a month ago referred these incidents to the International Criminal Court. May I therefore, in that context, and in view of the happenings subsequent to the killing, which were disgraceful, repeat the question for the third time? The minimal action any Government can take is to call the ambassador in to express the concerns of the Government about the Israeli state’s behaviour, so can we ask for the third time: have the Government invited, or do they intend to invite, the Israeli ambassador to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for that discussion?

[Vicky Ford]

I have been very clear about the actions the Government have taken to date. We continue to condemn this, we have called for an investigation, we have, through our ambassadors and the British consul in Israel and in Jerusalem, made very clear our position supporting the leaders to restore calm, the need to protect holy sites and the need for dialogue to move towards peace, and of course we always take any future measures into consideration.

Elections Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

rose—

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Follow that!

[Beth Winter]

How do you follow that?

In the week in which the Government intend to prorogue the House, they have voted to carry over three Bills, and this is the fifth Bill they seek to force through following repeated Government defeats in the Lords. The Government really are losing their grip, and I regret that, in response, they are seeking to grab democracy by the throat.

I wish to confine my comments to Lords amendments 22, 23 and 86, which I support. First, let me highlight the extraordinary developments regarding the clauses that affect the work of the Electoral Commission. I express my support for Lords amendments 22 and 23, which removed what were clauses 15 and 16. As others have said, those clauses gave the Government the power to establish a Government strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission, and to place a duty on it to have regard to guidance issued by the Government relating to any of its functions.

3.30 pm

The Bill’s erosion of the commission’s independence gave rise to the letter signed by its chair and all but one of its board members on 21 February this year, which said:

“It is our firm and shared view that the introduction of a Strategy and Policy Statement—enabling the Government to guide the work of the Commission—is inconsistent with the role that an independent electoral commission plays in a healthy democracy. This independence is fundamental to maintaining confidence and legitimacy in our electoral system.”

The letter went on:

“The Commission’s accountability is direct to the UK’s parliaments and should remain so, rather than being subject to government influence.”

For that reason, I urge the Government to think again about the measures.

The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee also wrote to the Minister only last week to strongly urge the Government to accept the amendments tabled in the House of Lords by Lord Judge that removed clauses 15 and 16, as the Committee recommended in its report. Furthermore, in lieu of any Government support for the amendments, the Committee urged the Government to consider amending the Bill

“to provide that the Electoral Commission is able to depart from the guidance set out in the Statement if it has a statutory duty to do so or if it reasonably believes it is justified in specific circumstances”.

Regrettably, the Government have not done so, which is why I support Lords amendments 22 and 23.

Let me turn to Lords amendment 86, on voter ID, in respect of which I wish to draw some parallels with the Welsh experience. Initially, the Welsh Government withheld legislative consent for the Bill because it affects Welsh elections, because there was an issue with consulting the Welsh Government and because it negatively affected devolved powers. However, the Government have since conceded on some of those concerns and it is welcome that their voter ID proposals will not now apply to Senedd or Welsh council elections.

Although the Senedd has now granted legislative consent, there are still concerns about the Bill in all sorts of respects, but specifically with regard to voter ID. The Welsh Government say that the UK Government plans for voter ID risk making voting harder. Although I welcome the fact that the provisions do not apply to Wales, the inconsistencies between UK parliamentary elections and Welsh elections will cause all sorts of confusion for electors in Wales.

I support Lords amendment 86, which was tabled by Lord Willets and adds an additional list of documents that would be accepted as a form of identification for electors, for the reasons already given. The relevant part of the Bill is discriminatory and will disenfranchise millions of people. We already have extremely low turnouts for elections—the evidence is there—which is why in Wales we are doing the opposite and looking into different methods to encourage people to turn out to vote.

I will conclude with a quote from our Counsel General, Mick Antoniw, because the Welsh Government remain opposed to the Bill, which they believe—Opposition Members share these views—

“is more about voter suppression and enabling foreign funding than enhancing electoral democracy and integrity.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

I am delighted by the hon. Gentleman’s conversion to the cause of European democracy and alignment. The simple answer is that Scotland has one of the widest, most open and transparent franchises that has ever existed in western democracies. It includes 16 and 17-year-olds, asylum seekers—people who have made their home here—and people who are serving certain types of prison sentence, because we want to rehabilitate everyone and bring them back into the democratic fold. That is the franchise that will deliver independence for Scotland. Unlike the UK-wide franchise—[Interruption.] Conservative Members seem to find this highly amusing. They can laugh all they want once Scotland has voted for independence in the next couple of years, because that is the reality; it is not far away now, and it will be achieved on that wide and open franchise, whereas the UK-wide electoral system will be weakened and undermined by this Bill and by the Government’s refusal to accept the Lords amendments before us.

[John McDonnell]

I apologise to the Minister for being a few minutes late and therefore missing her introduction; I received a green card asking me to visit a constituent who was lobbying me.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I knew he was here before, out for a very short time, and here for the majority of the Minister’s opening speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

The constituent was lobbying on the abolition of imprisonment for public protection, and I am visiting one of her sons in prison, so I felt the need to see her.

I want to make three very simple points. When we get to this stage in the parliamentary Session, people start to become a bit light-headed, so let us try to concentrate on three issues. I am a member of PACAC, whose Chair, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), is here. Every time he makes a parliamentary intervention, he increases my respect for him. Electoral officers were looking for a Bill that was much more comprehensive and wrapped up a whole range of issues; they were looking to bring together existing practices in one piece of legislation, and to look at new challenges that they faced. Those challenges are not reflected in the Bill.

On the amendments, one of the main concerns about the operation of the Electoral Commission that the Government seem to identify is that it needs more direction by way of a Government ministerial statement. That was not part of any of the evidence that we heard from electoral administrators. This goes to the heart of the independence of the electoral administration of this country. That is why people are fearful. I have ranted on this before, and do not want to go into the arguments again about our being on a slippery slope to something that could be quite dangerous. However, if there is to be a statement from the Secretary of State, which I think is completely wrong, there needs to be at least some acknowledgement by the Government that there should be more of a role for Parliament in drafting it.

I want to ask the Minister a question, and I will give way if she can respond. Did I hear correctly that the statement will be dealt with by the affirmative procedure, but not the super-affirmative procedure? Can she clarify that by way of intervention?

[Kemi Badenoch]

Yes, I am happy to confirm it is the affirmative procedure.

[John McDonnell]

We introduced the super-affirmative procedure about a decade ago, I think, and it enables the House to amend the statement. What happens under the super-affirmative procedure is that the Minister publishes the statement, there is consultation, the Parliament comments on that, and then the Minister brings back the statement in the light of those comments. Actually, it works. If we look at past practice, what has happened is that even when there has been considerable dispute, the Government and the Secretary of State have usually been able to amend the statement and we have reached consensus. I urge the Government to follow that procedure, rather than the “take it or leave it” of the affirmative procedure.

We raised this issue in the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee with the Secretary of State. With the Government majority as it is, “take it or leave it” means that the Secretary of State is dictating terms to the Electoral Commission and therefore undermining the independence of the commission, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) said in quoting the letter from the commissioners themselves.

In another debate on another matter some years ago, people on the Government Benches—I thought it was interesting and constructive—said, “When you legislate for this, you have to legislate for your worst scenario.” Someone stood up and said, “Just think if John McDonnell was in power.” I therefore just say this: what we legislate for today might well be done in good faith by Government Members, but we have to guarantee in legislation for the future at least some form of level of practice that we can all support. I disagree with the whole concept of the statement, which undermines the commission’s independence. If we are to have one, at least give us the opportunity to have a proper debate and amend the statement before it is formally agreed.

My second point is about ID. On PACAC, we could not find evidence of large-scale electoral fraud. To address the point that the hon. Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) was making time and time again very eloquently, and at times with some amusement, the issue around it is that if we cannot find the evidence, it might still be happening. We therefore have to make a judgment when legislating as to whether the remedy we are introducing will cause more harm than the problem we are addressing. That is a subjective judgment.

A number of us have come to the view that, no matter how many times we have trawled for evidence of large-scale electoral fraud, we could not find the evidence that there were not sufficient powers to deal with the issue. The only time there was a real problem was Tower Hamlets. There was a special investigation, and special measures were taken, and I hope and believe the problem has been properly addressed. My worry is that the remedy we are introducing will suppress votes, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and will do greater harm than the harm we see at the moment, which is relatively minuscule, but there we are—that is a judgment.

[Tom Randall]

I enjoy serving with the right hon. Gentleman on PACAC. As a footnote to what he is saying, one of the concerns I have, which is shared by many—I know we divided on this in the Committee, and I found myself in a minority of one—is that allegations of offences are not properly investigated by the police. He might consider that to be a separate issue. As another footnote, he mentioned Tower Hamlets. Next week, we find ourselves in the horrible situation that Lutfur Rahman, who was the man who perpetrated all that electoral fraud, is on the ballot paper in Tower Hamlets. It is a fact that these problems have only been investigated to an extent, it seems.

[John McDonnell]

That is a valid point. Rather than change legislation, which could introduce a remedy that does more harm than good, it is a matter of looking at how the existing system is working to ensure proper resources for investigation. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the individual—I will not name them—is about whether the sanctions were severe enough to prevent such a return. That is the way forward on all that.

The other aspect is about the list of alternative provisions that the Lords have come up with. If the Government had looked at them and said, “Okay, we’ll accept some and not others,” that would have been a better approach, because it would have demonstrated an open mind to work towards something that I think could operate effectively, even though I oppose the whole concept of the use of ID as a result of this legislation. The Government did not even do that, however. To reject the list wholesale demonstrates that they have dug themselves into a hole. I think that we will have to come back to a new piece of electoral legislation in due course that does exactly what the returning officers wanted and consolidates our electoral registration and also remedies some of the unfortunately difficult parts of this legislation.

Those difficult parts could be quite dangerous. I caution about the issue around suppression. I stood for election in my constituency in ’92 when poll tax had been introduced and 5,000 people dropped off the register there—by the sound of it, most of them were Labour voters because I lost by 54 votes. That demonstrates that, if necessary, people will drop out of the system, which worries me. It is not so much that the votes go missing but that those people become distant from the democratic process. They do not engage and, if they do not engage once or twice, it is very difficult for them to re-engage. That is why what seems like relatively minor procedural legislation could have a dramatic effect, particularly in certain constituencies, and could be quite dangerous in the hands of future Governments. I urge the Government to think again on that.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

I am following the right hon. Gentleman’s argument with great interest. A constituent of mine wrote from a church to say that a number of her colleagues in the church are too old so they do not have passports or driving licences. I looked on the Government website and it would seem that local government can issue photo ID cards. Does he not think that to achieve the democracy that he and I want, it is incumbent on local government—although I hate to throw things at it—to ensure that such people get voter ID cards and to publicise that they are available?

[John McDonnell]

Two things on that: first, the hon. Gentleman is right to make us wary of putting even more responsibility on local government given its financial situation; and secondly, those cards have to be applied for, which is another process to go through that becomes costly. The hon. Member for Gedling intervened; it looks as though only 70% of people will actually do that, so we are still looking at a number of people dropping out of the system altogether.

That is why, with other colleagues, we are looking at what else people will have that they could use and why I thought that the list in Lords amendment 86 was constructive. There might be elements of that about which the Government think, “Well, that’s a bit iffy,” but I would rather that they had come back and said, “Well, let’s rule these ones out but accept the others.” They did not, which for me undermines their argument that they are trying to construct a legislation that will work effectively to ensure maximum democratic participation.

I am trying to be ultra-reasonable here, because people can lose their temper about this sort of legislation. My view is that whatever ping-pong takes place now, the two elements that we are talking about could be easily remedied. I want them to be dropped altogether, but if the Government will not drop them, then on the statement we should use a super-affirmative resolution process, and on the voter ID stuff they should at least look at some of the mechanisms and the list that the House of Lords has put forward, because several of the items are perfectly valid for their use. I will leave it at that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate. I wish to speak to Lords amendments 106 to 109, as they pertain to local elections in Northern Ireland and elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I totally agree with what the Minister said earlier, in particular about photographic ID. We have had that in Northern Ireland for a number of years, and it has proven to be successful. I understand exactly the principles of why it is important. All a polling card confirms is the name and address on it; it does not confirm anything else. That is why I believe photo ID is critical.

In Northern Ireland, someone can use a passport, a driving licence, a SmartPass or a war disablement pass, because they all contain someone’s name and address and also their photograph. The Minister is absolutely right that those are methods of doing this. We also have another method—it goes back to what the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) mentioned in his intervention on the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)—and that is electoral identification. Because we have an election coming up in Northern Ireland, people are coming in almost every day of the week to be registered so that they can use that electoral ID, with a photograph, which is recognised and issued by the Electoral Commission in Northern Ireland. It is done not by local government but centrally, by the Electoral Commission. Those are examples of why voter ID is important—because it works.

Elections Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call John McDonnell. There will be no time limit, but he must resume his seat no later than 8.55.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) on the work she has done, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) on his eloquent presentation. I serve on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and we have urged the House to pause the Bill and not go forward. I too am offended by the limited amount of time that we have been given this evening. The reason we said that is that with constitutional changes such as these, we need to build confidence. The way to do that in the parliamentary process is to have a draft Bill, a Joint Committee and adequate debate before bringing the legislation back here. We took evidence from a whole range of people, and we found no one who supported the Bill being developed at this pace. Helen Mountfield QC said that we risked the allegation that this was being done for political advantage. I regret that.

I want to deal briefly with the voter ID issue. Personation was the issue that was presented to us, but we found limited evidence of that. Also, the pilots were limited. We had one big pilot, though, and it was in Northern Ireland, where 2.3% of the electorate dropped out. If we extrapolate that to our electorate here, that would mean over 1 million people dropping out. Who would that be, most of all? It would be elderly and disabled people, those in residential homes, and members of the BAME and LGBTQ communities.

The reality is that this Bill is being pushed through. Unfortunately, I believe that it is part of a process of voter suppression and that the Conservatives are learning lessons from America. What I fear most of all is the interference in the Electoral Commission, because that presages the Government coming back with more that will undermine our democracy. I believe that would be a stain on this House.

[Kemi Badenoch]

With the leave of the House, I would like to address some of the points that were raised during the debate. I am afraid that I will not be able to speak to all the amendments. I have to say that I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the Opposition remain unable to see the necessity of this simple and proportionate protection for the integrity of our ballot. The fact is that voter ID is supported by the Electoral Commission. It is backed by international election observers who have repeatedly called for the introduction, saying that its absence is a security risk. It is long-established in liberal democracies across the world and is already in place in Northern Ireland.

The Opposition have suggested that specific groups, such as young people or ethnic minorities, would automatically be unwilling or unable to access the freely available voter card. These suggestions are based solely on assumptions about implementation—assumptions that are incorrect and harmful. I will be unambiguous in setting this out. Anyone who is eligible to vote will continue to have the opportunity to do so. The voter identification policy proposals have been informed by a significant amount of research. I reject the points made by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). That is not the research that has been carried out by the Cabinet Office, which is quite robust. A significant amount of work has been done with civil society organisations and other key stakeholders.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for her point about the length of election campaigns. She will know that I have looked into this issue, but I am afraid that I have not been able to find the perfect solution for her within the Bill. I acknowledge many of the points that she has made about lengthy campaigns, but I draw her attention to the argument made by the Association of Electoral Administrators in its written evidence to the Joint Committee about the risk of disenfranchising potential electors were the period to be shortened.

I shall also respond to some of the questions from the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) on joint campaigning. The measures are simply intended to strengthen the principle of spending limits already in law. They protect the level playing field by ensuring that groups cannot unfairly expand their spending limits when they are conducting a joint campaign. It is logical to extend this principle to political parties and third-party campaigners who work together. All registered political parties and third-party campaigners will be able to continue to campaign as they do now, but they will have to account for any spending that is part of a joint campaign in which they are involved. She also asked specifically about groups such as Operation Black Vote, which is simply campaigning to encourage people to vote. It will not be caught by those new rules as it would not qualify as regulated election campaign expenditure.

There were several issues raised by hon. Members on candidates’ home addresses. I have noted the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) raised about the current provisions. However, any further amendments in this space, although they may seem straightforward at first sight, would entail challenges for consistency in the rules that need to apply equally across differing areas of the country and that require careful and comprehensive consideration. The drafting of the proposed amendment, if accepted, would work well for candidates in rural areas, but it may lead to a less consistent approach for those in cities or remote locations. However, I am grateful that he says this is a probing amendment. I will ask my officials to explore these important issues and remain open to further conversations about how we can improve the current system.

I turn now to new clause 15, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), which deals with dual registration. I thank him very much for the points that he raised. He is right that voting twice in an election to the same body is a violation of the principle of one person, one vote. It is an offence that already carries a considerable penalty. I share the desire to take action to reduce the risk of this happening, but I do not think that the new clause would achieve that aim. It would be costly and impractical to implement at this time. I am sympathetic to the broad intention of the new clause, which is in line with the Government’s commitment to strengthening security and reducing the opportunity for fraud. This is also similar to new clause 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier). I understand the points that she raised. We do not think that the amendment is appropriate, for similar reasons, but I am open to further conversations.

I recognise many good points raised by my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), saying that we could have gone further. I am sure that this is not the end of looking at electoral integrity. We will continue to see how the franchise can be strengthened. I urge Members not to support the Opposition amendments. I hope the Government amendments will be supported.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 11 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 12

Purposes referred to in section 39

“(1) This section sets out the purposes referred to in section 39.

(2) The first purpose is influencing the public, or any section of the public, to give support to or withhold support from—

(a) a registered party,

(b) registered parties who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of such parties, or

(c) candidates or future candidates who hold (or do not hold) particular opinions or who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of candidates or future candidates.

(3) For the purposes of determining whether electronic material can reasonably be regarded as intended to achieve the purpose mentioned in subsection (2), it is immaterial that it does not expressly mention the name of any party, candidate or future candidate.

(4) The second purpose is influencing the public, or any section of the public, to give support to or withhold support from a particular candidate or particular future candidate.

(5) For the purposes of determining whether electronic material can reasonably be regarded as intended to achieve the purpose mentioned in subsection (4), it is immaterial that it does not expressly mention the name of any candidate or future candidate.

(6) The third purpose is influencing the public, or any section of the public, to give support to or withhold support from an elected office-holder.

(7) The fourth purpose is influencing the public, or any section of the public, to give support to or withhold support from elected office-holders who hold (or do not hold) particular opinions or who advocate (or do not advocate) particular policies or who otherwise fall within a particular category of elected office-holders.

(8) For the purposes of determining whether electronic material can reasonably be regarded as intended to achieve the purpose mentioned in subsection (6) or (7), it is immaterial that it does not expressly mention the name of any elected office-holder.

(9) The fifth purpose is influencing the public, or any section of the public, to give support to or withhold support from—

(a) the holding of a referendum in the United Kingdom or any area in the United Kingdom, or

(b) a particular outcome of such a referendum.

(10) For the purposes of determining whether electronic material can reasonably be regarded as intended to achieve the purpose mentioned in subsection (9)(b), it is immaterial that it does not expressly mention a particular outcome of a referendum.

(11) In this section “referendum” does not include a poll held under section 64 of the Government of Wales Act 2006.”—(Kemi Badenoch.)

This new clause and Amendments 22 and 23 replace the purposes set out in clause 39(3) as the purposes intended to be achieved by paid-for electronic material in order for Part 6 to apply to the material. In particular the New Clause makes it clear that this covers material in support of categories of parties, candidates and elected office-holders and applies whether or not the material expressly names the party etc.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Global Vaccine Access

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mrs Murray. Last month, the former Prime Minister and World Health Organisation global health ambassador Gordon Brown said that the global vaccine roll-out was a

“stain on our global soul”.

The numbers are stark: three quarters of health workers in Africa remain unvaccinated; less than 5% of people in low-income countries have been fully vaccinated. Companies such as Pfizer have made huge profits from their vaccines, but just 1% of its global supply has been delivered to COVAX.

Corporate philanthropy is not going to solve this crisis. We cannot sit back and hope that the pharmaceutical giants will do the right thing; to do so is a death sentence for millions of our fellow human beings. I have to say, in terms of the Government’s performance, that the UK has disgraced itself by voting to block the temporary TRIPS waiver that would put human life above private profit.

As has been said time and again, we live in a global world and we will not be safe from the virus until we are all safe. We know that the more there is transmission anywhere in world, the more likely that new variants will emerge; some will be more virulent, and others may be more lethal than omicron, although hopefully most will be mild.

As campaigning group Global Justice Now has said:

“Until we allow low and middle-income countries to access covid-19 vaccines, we will be trapped in an endless cycle of variants”.

If we want this pandemic to end, we have to stop its global spread—that means vaccinating everybody. The first way to achieve that is for the UK to stop blocking the TRIPS waiver at the WTO; secondly, to encourage UK pharmaceutical companies to share their technology with the World Health Organisation covid technology access pool and the mRNA technology transfer hub in South Africa.

A lot has been said about windfall taxes in recent days. Pharmaceutical companies have made windfall profits, largely derived from public funding. If they do not start sharing their vaccines and technology and start saving lives, I can think of no better circumstance for a windfall tax, with every penny used to fund vaccines around the world. If any Conservative Members are anxious about that, let me just say that it was Rab Butler who introduced a windfall tax 70 years ago this March.

I believe the time to act is now. The Government can do the right thing—they can save lives. If they do not act, their inaction will be, as Gordon Brown said, a stain on our global soul.

Colombia

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2021 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]]

I am the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group, and I want to raise again, as I have done in previous debates on Colombia, the plight of journalists—the abuse of their human rights and the violations of press freedom. The International Federation of Journalists has recently published another report highlighting the targeting of journalists by the Colombian authorities, in particular the killings, physical attacks and obstruction of their work, as well as the undermining of basic press freedoms. This is coming from the national police, public officials and reactionary elements associated with the current Government.

I want to leave the debate with at least some of the words of practitioners in the field in Colombia. Adriana Hurtado Cortés is the president the Colombian Federation of Journalists. Let me quote her directly and briefly:

“There’s an evident regression in the causes of violence against journalists; they are spied on in the traditional way and they’re harassed on social media.”

She says that politicians stigmatise them through messages on social media and accuse journalists of

“spreading misinformation, damaging democracy and polarizing society.”

Aggression against journalists has again increased. There are threats, physical attacks, killings, smear campaigns, legal actions aimed at censoring their work, illegal espionage, and many journalists forced into exile. There is a lack of labour protection for journalists. As a result of the pandemic, they are in a particularly weak economic situation, but their main concern is the loss of the rule of law, the Government acting with impunity and the slowness of justice when crimes against journalists are investigated.

I repeat what others have said: we now need an extremely strong statement from the Government, which links up with European and other international parties, to condemn the human rights abuses of the Colombian Government. I would like inserted in those condemnations the demand for a free press and the protection of journalists, which is essential for any democratic society.

In the past, we have not had the use of other powers in this country. I would therefore like the Government to start mentioning to Colombian Government officials that we now have the Magnitsky clause and, if necessary, we will use that to target human rights abusers through our own legislative system.

[Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)]

We now move to Front-Bench speeches. I ask everybody to keep to about 10 minutes to allow the proposer of the motion a couple of minutes to wind up.

Detention of Jagtar Singh Johal

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 30th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]]

I am here because of my personal concern about Mr Johal, but also because of the scale of representation that I have received from my constituents. The Government need to recognise the truly immense worry in our own country about this case. People are concerned because they have witnessed how Mr Johal can be picked up in this way, detained and deprived of his liberty. They feel that if it can happen to him, it can happen to any one of them, especially those who have raised real fears, concerns and criticisms about the current Indian Government’s human rights practices.

Those of us with family connections to India have immense affection for the country and its people. It pains me to see the reputational damage that has been caused to India by the actions of its Government in relation to Mr Johal’s case. I just want to ask a few basic questions about where our Government go from here.

First, in the light of the failure of their representations on Mr Johal’s case so far, can the Minister explain to us the strategy the Government will now pursue for effective representations from our Government directly to the Indian Government? Secondly, can the Minister explain their strategy to co-ordinate the representations from other countries and international bodies in order to create a climate of opinion that will, hopefully, force the Indian Government to act? What is the strategy to co-ordinate the work of human rights bodies to investigate and report on the adherence or non-adherence to basic human rights standards by the Indian authorities in relation to this case? Finally, if there are continued delays, what sanctions are the Government now prepared to take—politically, diplomatically, and if necessary economically—to either secure the release of Mr Johal or at least ensure that justice is done in this case?

There is a sense of frustration now within our own communities at the failure of the Government to act decisively. That is undermining confidence that our Government will actually protect their citizens when they travel abroad. I urge the Government strongly to listen to the representations that have been made so eloquently today, which I fully agree with, and to act. For goodness’ sake, we need speedy action on this appalling case.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

The last Back Bencher, but definitely not the least, is Jim Shannon.

Human Rights in Hong Kong

John McDonnell Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]]

It is always difficult and frustrating to identify what effective role we MPs can play when there is abuse of human rights across the world. My view is that we can at least bear witness to what is happening and then mobilise for action, whether it is in Gaza, Yemen or Hong Kong. At least we can call it out. In the few minutes I have, I want to bear witness to what is happening to my trade union colleagues—they have become friends during campaigns over the years—who are part of the Hong Kong 47 trial.

I have worked with Lee Cheuk Yan, the general secretary of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions. Carol Ng was the chair of the trade union confederation until her imprisonment in February. I worked with Carol in the British Airways dispute, when she was a Unite rep. Winnie Yu is chair of the health workers’ union—one of the new unions formed in late 2019—which had a five-day strike in January 2019 against the Hong Kong Administration’s early covid complacency. They are all up before the courts and in prison. What worries me is that at the hearing on Monday 31 May, the Department of Justice declared its wish to move the trial from the district court to the high court. That implies that the sentences for the Hong Kong 47, which includes my friends, will exceed the limit of seven years that the district court is limited to. The maximum sentence could be up to life imprisonment.

At Monday’s hearing, my friends’ defence attorney asked for clarification that the trial would be conducted in an open court with a jury, and the prosecutors refused to give that assurance, so there is a real possibility that the judges will be able to convict without press or public scrutiny. The next hearing is on 8 July, at which it will be decided whether the trial will be public and whether there will be a jury. It is critical that we maximise pressure through our own Government, and through civil society here and internationally, and seek at least the openness of that trial.

Lee Cheuk Yan is still bravely agitating from jail. His sentences for illegal unauthorised assembly are piling up. So far he has accumulated 20 months, but there are more trials to follow. As with all trade unionists engaged in international dialogue, the regime might at some stage deem his work there a coalition with foreign powers and in breach of the national security law. That is my fear. Another prominent target of the regime is Leung Kwok-hung, widely known as “Long Hair”. He is an avowed left-wing socialist in the League of Social Democrats and so far has accumulated at least 24 months—and it just goes on.

I have listened to the other speeches, and of course I support the calls for Magnitsky sanctions and the accommodation of younger BNO passport holders born after 1997. I also agree with those who have pointed out the role that British companies are playing, and we have to address this matter. They lobbied the Prime Minister to try to get him to tone down the Government’s criticisms. Swire, the company that owns Cathay Pacific, led the way in sacking staff who supported the democracy movement. We know about HSBC and Standard Chartered bank, of course, but what about Jardine Matheson? They supported the national security law, and—I say this to colleagues in other parties—they were also Tory donors. We have a duty to call out UK corporations who are the sponsors of the Chinese regime’s repression in Hong Kong.

Sri Lanka

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]]

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting): how many more times do we have to be here before we get firm action?

I thank the hon. Members who secured this important debate, and I pay tribute to all my constituents and the community groups who have contacted me to express their views about the deteriorating situation in Sri Lanka. All of them, especially from the Tamil community, have impressed upon me the need for decisive international action merely to secure a peaceful and just future for the country.

These next few days in the run-up to the UN Human Rights Council meeting on Monday are critical to securing a meaningful international intervention that could lead to that better future. That is why I support the call in this debate for urgent action from the highest levels of our Government, in particular the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, to ensure that the resolution is strengthened for Monday and also that the vote is overwhelmingly carried. I urge the Government to draw upon the full range of our diplomatic relationships, especially with our friends in the Commonwealth countries in Africa and Asia.

Many of us have been shocked but not surprised at the latest report in January on the situation in Sri Lanka from the UN Commissioner for Human Rights. It sets out straightforwardly the litany of concerns that our own constituents have drawn to our attention: the failure of the Sri Lankan Government to address past human rights violations; the closing down of the space for independent voices; the intimidation of civil society alongside a deepening attitude of acting with impunity within the Government; a visible and increased militarisation of the civil Administration; and, yes, the rise of ethno-nationalism and hate speech—there clearly has been a concerted and targeted attack on the rights of Tamil and Muslim communities.

I repeat what others have said: the seriousness of these issues means that the UK Government must throw their full diplomatic weight behind the strengthening of the United Nations Council resolution and make sure that we follow it through to implementation. As my hon. Friend for Ilford North said, we should also recognise that the adoption of the resolution does not preclude individual countries like ours from taking additional unilateral action. I believe that this country has a special responsibility for action as a former colonial power. We united the three kingdoms, one of which was a Tamil kingdom, into one country and then left in 1948.

To prove that we are serious about holding the Sri Lankan Government regime to account, the only way is for the UK Government to undertake unilaterally three distinct actions. First, we must ensure that all trade and aid agreements with Sri Lanka are only granted following the full ratification and enactment by the Sri Lankan Government of the UN human rights conventions and the fulfilment of their pledge to scrap the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Secondly, I support all Members who have said that we should use the Magnitsky provisions that we have recently put into legislation to ensure that we take action against those individuals who are accused of gross human rights violations. Finally, we must ensure that we fully fund and support bodies investigating human rights abuses and war crimes and bring on to the agenda the claims of genocide during the war in Sri Lanka.