Lebanon

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a statement on the situation in Lebanon.

On 27 July, Hezbollah launched a series of rockets into northern Israel and the occupied Golan Heights. Tragically, in Majdal Shams, one strike killed at least 12 civilians—young people, one just 10-years-old, who were playing football. I extend my deepest sympathies to their families and to the Jewish community as they grieve for their loved ones. The Government are unequivocal in condemning this horrific attack and calling on Hezbollah to cease its rocket strikes. This atrocity is a consequence of indiscriminate firing and paying no heed at all to civilian life. This attack is part of an intensifying pattern of fighting around the Israeli-Lebanese border. For months now, we have been teetering on the brink. The risk of further escalation and regional destabilisation is now more acute than ever.

At the end of my first week in office I spoke to Lebanese Prime Minister Mikati, and yesterday I called him again to express my concern at this latest incident. I have also visited Israel and discussed the situation with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Katz. I shall visit Lebanon as soon as the security circumstances allow. We support Israel’s right to defend itself in line with international humanitarian law. As I have said before, it is in a tough neighbourhood, threatened by those who want to see its annihilation. More than 40 people, including 24 civilians, have now been killed by Hezbollah strikes in northern Israel and the Golan Heights, and tens of thousands of Israelis have been displaced from the area, while in Lebanon more than 100 civilians have died and almost 100,000 are displaced.

A widening of the conflict is in nobody’s interest. Indeed, the consequences could be catastrophic. That is why we continue to press for a diplomatic solution based on UN Security Council resolution 1701, which called for a long-term solution based on the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, no foreign forces in Lebanon without its Government’s consent, and no armed forces, other than the UN and the Lebanese Government troops, deployed south of the Litani river, near the border with Israel. It is why, even in the face of serious provocation, our counsel is restraint.

We welcome the Lebanese Government’s statement condemning violence against civilians and urging the cessation of all violence. We continue to support the Lebanese armed forces, and the UK has provided more training and equipment to four of Lebanon’s land border regiments. We are working intensively with the United Nations and our partners, including the United States and France, to encourage de-escalation.

With our partners we will do all we can to prevent the outbreak of full-scale conflict, but the risk is rising. I therefore want to underline the Government’s advice to British nationals. We advise against all travel to the north of Israel and the north of the Golan Heights, and against all travel to Lebanon. There are frequent artillery exchanges and airstrikes. Tensions are high and the situation could deteriorate rapidly.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister chaired a Cobra meeting this morning, and I am working with Foreign Office consular teams to make sure that we are prepared for all scenarios. However, if the conflict escalates, the Government cannot guarantee that we will be able to evacuate everybody immediately. People may be forced to shelter in place. History teaches us that in a crisis such as this one, it is far safer to leave while commercial flights are still running, rather than run the risk of becoming trapped in a war zone. My message to British nationals in Lebanon is quite simple: leave.

The tensions on the Israeli-Lebanese border are one aspect of a wider crisis in the middle east. Across the region we see evidence of malign Iranian activity—in their support for Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis and other groups whose actions destabilise the region, and who show scant regard for the death and destruction that this causes. This Government are committed to working alongside our partners to counter Iranian threats.

Meanwhile, in Gaza, fighting continues. The scenes at the Khadija schools—civilians killed and shocking images of injured children—underline the desperate conditions endured by civilians. The reports of the humanitarian situation remain sobering, with the threat of disease and famine looming ever larger. This Government continue to do all they can to provide relief to Palestinian civilians. I recently announced new funding for field hospitals run by UK-Med, which has treated more than 60,000 Gazans since the conflict began. We have restored funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, providing £21 million in new funds to the agency that is able to deliver aid at the scale needed.

What is urgently needed is an immediate ceasefire. All the hostages must be freed. The fighting must end, and much, much more aid must get into Gaza. A ceasefire would not only alleviate the suffering in Gaza and secure the hostages’ release but reduce tensions across the region, helping to prevent an escalatory cycle in Lebanon, and it would offer hope of renewed peace processes between Israel and Palestinians.

As I said in my first appearance at this Dispatch Box as Foreign Secretary, we are committed to playing a full diplomatic role in efforts to secure a just and lasting peace. Our overarching goal is clear: a viable sovereign Palestinian state alongside a safe and secure Israel. We do not want to see more civilians killed or more innocent lives cut short, but the risks are clear. We are urging the de-escalation of the current crisis while ensuring that we are prepared if diplomatic efforts do not succeed, with a clear call today for all British nationals in Lebanon to leave immediately. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Lib Dem spokesperson.

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

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and his advice to British nationals, which seems like a very wise precaution and could prevent our having to evacuate British citizens in the future. I join him in condemning the Hezbollah strike in the Golan Heights, which killed 12 Druze children. Our thoughts go out to their families.

However, now we find the region on the precipice that many of us have feared since 7 October last year: the escalation of this dire conflict to another front, with Israel’s Minister Smotrich warning of an all-out war with Hezbollah. The UN special co-ordinator for the middle east peace process has urged “maximum restraint” and the immediate cessation of rocket fire across the blue line. We welcome that call and urge the UK Government to work closely with regional powers to do whatever we can to de-escalate the situation. My question to the Foreign Secretary is this: has he, and have his colleagues, engaged with the UN special co-ordinator? If not, will they do so, given the special co-ordinator’s vital role in moments such as this?

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Foreign Secretary’s call for an immediate bilateral ceasefire to end the humanitarian devastation in Gaza, to get the hostages home and to open the door to a two-state solution. This is a deeply insecure region and that insecurity is felt by everybody who lives there: Israelis, Palestinians and others. A two-state solution will deliver the dignity and security they need, and I am reassured to hear that he will be making those calls on regional powers when he next visits the region.

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to the Lib Dem spokesman for the tone and manner of his remarks. I can reassure him that I have been in touch with the UN special envoy, Amos Hochstein. I have spoken to him several times and I intend to speak to him again over the coming days. As I have indicated, it is my hope to get to the region if the security situation allows.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that an immediate ceasefire is what we need. We need those hostages out and we need the aid in. If we get that immediate ceasefire, if the Biden plan is adopted, it will allow de-escalation across the region. That is why we need to see that plan adopted by both sides as soon as possible.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call David Pinto-Duschinsky.

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I take this opportunity to welcome you to the Chair?

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement on Hezbollah’s horrific attack and his condemnation of the awful strike in Majdal Shams. What steps will he take to put maximum pressure on Hezbollah to cease its rocket attacks for good?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

It was very important for me to visit the occupied territories and Israel within the first week in office. We said this in opposition and we say it again in government: of course, given the hostages who are still in Israel, Israel has a right to defend itself, but it is a qualified right—it has always been, within international humanitarian law. The scale of civilian loss of life—the children and the women who have lost their lives, the aid workers who have lost their lives—against a backdrop in which journalists are not allowed into the country has been a matter of deep concern and worry across the international community, so of course I have raised these issues. It was also important to meet hostage families and to be absolutely clear that we want to see those hostages returned.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Kim Johnson.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your appointment.

I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees that the escalation of violence can be reduced if we look at ending the suffering in Gaza. At a briefing that I attended today with Oxfam and Medical Aid for Palestinians, they talked about how Israel was using water as a weapon of war. People have 4.7 litres of water per day to wash, clean and cook. That is less than a toilet flush. I welcome the position that we have taken—we have moved greatly—but does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to go much further and much faster?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who I know has taken up these issues over many years in this Parliament. Let me be clear: what I saw and what I continue to see in the occupied territories is unacceptable. He will know that the community who experience this violence in the Golan heights are Druze in background, and that this is occupation of the Golan heights—I do recognise that. I want to see de-escalation across the board and a solution along the lines of Oslo and 1967. A two-state solution is what we all want to get to, and we will achieve that if we have an immediate ceasefire and get back to political dialogue and conversation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call James Asser.

[James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)]

I was not down to ask a question, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Thank you. I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I always have a question. [Laughter.] Sorry, humour is not what this is about. I apologise for that—I should not have said that.

I thank the Secretary of State very much for his calm and measured statement, which encapsulated the temperament and concern of all of us in this Chamber, on both sides. The attack at the football pitch in Majdal Shams was deadly and full of complete evil: 12 children and young adults were slaughtered. Will he outline what steps are being taken to find the perpetrators and hold them accountable, and to ensure the message is sent that these attacks will not bring peace, but instead further division? What steps will be taken to assist Israel, whose very existence is under threat from Hezbollah? Hezbollah are terrorist murderers of innocents, and must be neutralised.

Oral Answers to Questions

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

18. What discussions he has had with his international counterparts on maintaining support for Ukraine.

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

19. What recent discussions he has had with his international counterparts on the war in Ukraine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leo Docherty]

I agree that there is a strong moral case for using Russian assets to repair the damage that Russia has wrought on Ukraine. We are clear about the fact that Russia should pay, and we continue to assess what legal path there might be to achieving that end.

[Judith Cummins]

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees recently said:

“I think the big difference from last year to this year is that this year…There is somehow a trend towards getting used to Ukrainian suffering.”

It is more than 200 days since the Opposition tabled a motion necessitating Government legislation to bring about the full seizure and repurposing of Russian state assets within 90 days, but no plan has yet been forthcoming. Why are the Government so out of step with our allies and partners in this regard?

[Leo Docherty]

We are not out of step; we are leading the pack, and have been doing so for the last two years. Our resolve is shown by our own financial commitment but also by our permanent commitment to the UK-Ukraine relationship, which was demonstrated when the Prime Minister signed the UK-Ukraine agreement on security co-operation at the start of the year. We are in it for the long haul.

International Child Abduction

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

Before we start, I welcome members of the public to our proceedings. I remind Members here to err on the side of caution so as not to prejudice any live cases in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call our first Member, I remind Members to err on the side of caution in order not to prejudice cases that are live in this country.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you as Chair, Mrs Cummins. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) on securing the debate and setting out, in his usual clear and methodical manner, the issues that we will deal with.

I know that other hon. Members, without crossing any sub judice rules, will want to talk about individual constituents’ cases, and to use them, as I intend to, to illustrate this serious matter. I could not agree more with what the hon. Gentleman said; this is about where proceedings have taken place and due process has been followed, often at great expense, and where, almost invariably, one party is unhappy with the outcome—normally litigation—but resolves that simply by not following the rules and by taking children out of the jurisdiction. The question is: what happens then? Does the system work? If it does not work, how can we make it work?

I wish to focus on a rather specific area of the issue, with its own particular problems. I have given notice to the Minister and the shadow Minister that I will raise issues that specifically relate to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, where there are all the usual problems and more—that is, children being taken out of this jurisdiction to that jurisdiction without the consent of the responsible parent. Perhaps we should call it an unintended loophole as, because the children are taken to the TRNC—if I may call it that—against the direction of the courts, and because northern Cyprus is not a signatory to The Hague convention on child abduction, the systems break down almost immediately. Our Government rightly do not recognise the TRNC, but there is therefore no co-operation, even from stage one, in organising the return of the children, even though, as I say, due process has been followed. I appreciate that there are particular problems with other countries; Poland has been mentioned already. There are always problems in child abduction cases and I think that all Members present today will have dealt with quite a number of them, but with northern Cyprus we do not even get to first base.

The constituency case that has been brought to my attention, which I think illustrates the issue well, is that of a father whose children were taken to northern Cyprus in 2018. The two parents separated in 2011. Residence proceedings began for two brothers who were then aged four and two years old. There were seven years of litigation, which again is not uncommon, because one parent made it as difficult as possible for the court to do its work over that period. There were many court hearings and appeals, and much turmoil, and a final appeal decision in 2018 unambiguously granted custody to the father.

The children, who were four and two at the beginning of the process, were 10 and eight at the end of the proceedings in this country. They were then taken out of this jurisdiction and are now aged 15 and 13. They have spent most of their lives embroiled in litigation or its consequences, because on the day before the final appeal decision was handed down, and in knowledge of what that decision was likely to be, the mother fled to the TRNC with the two children, following a convoluted route that went from Scotland to Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland to Turkey and then finally to northern Cyprus. One can infer from those facts that she knew exactly what was happening and that there was a disregard for the law in this country. The father has not seen his children since and has had no contact with them. He continues to instruct counsel in northern Cyprus, again at further significant personal cost, to try to arrange some visitation rights. However, any attempts to have his children returned to him have encountered immovable barriers.

All the proceedings through all the UK courts are not taken into consideration. I think they will be read for reference, but clearly they do not apply in northern Cyprus. There is likely to be some bias towards resident rather than non-resident parents; clearly, neither the father nor the children is at fault for that. There is also no role for child welfare—that is, it is a pure consideration of rights of visitation. The whole process is starting again, with the time and the costs and everything else that that involves.

A return order is in place. The UK authorities, like the father, are aware of the children’s location in northern Cyprus, but there has been no action. The courts in England and Wales recognise the father as the legal guardian of the children, but they are powerless to bring them home unless the mother co-operates with the return order, which all her conduct so far has shown that she will not, or unless—this is the point of my taking part in the debate—the UK authorities are able in any way to intervene. This is not an isolated case. As I am sure the Minister has been made aware, other parents face a similar ordeal to be reunited with their children with little or no support or guidance on how they to do that.

It is easy to find out, simply by internet research, that some organisations give advice and assistance to help those who wish to leave this jurisdiction to do so, and a number of parents have specifically gone to northern Cyprus because they know of the jurisdictional problems —or fracture—and that it is therefore a place where they can more easily escape the enforcement of judgments by UK courts. The Government should be particularly concerned about that, if there is an organised flouting of court orders that brings the whole process into disrepute. I am told that this has been going on for more than 10 years.

As I have said, there are now a growing number of cases—word gets round, people find out. In my experience, this is quite an unusual form of child abduction. It is going to a location with which the errant parent may have no connection. It is not, as is often the case, somebody taking a child back to their own country of birth, or where they have existing contact links or other family. This is about purely using a jurisdiction that is unlawful in the eyes of many countries, including the UK, in order to escape attention.

To be honest, it is not good enough for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to say that there is nothing that it can do about this, and, effectively, that is what it says. If we look up the TRNC on the FCDO website, we will see that there is a specific footnote to say that there is nothing that it can do in child abduction cases. That is not satisfactory. It may be that the Minister cannot give a full response today on what legislation or other steps would be needed, but I hope that this is at least the start of a dialogue that will look at that. I would like to hear from the Government what their thoughts are on this matter. I would also like the Minister’s agreement that we can go away and look at the cases of children taken to the TNRC specifically against the rulings of the courts in this country.

Perhaps I should add that there is some below-the-radar contact between the two jurisdictions. There have been examples in serious criminal cases of co-operation between the law enforcement agencies of both countries. I am told that we recognise the qualifications gained through the education system in northern Cyprus. I know that in this country property is advertised for sale in that area and, indeed, that many holiday companies in the UK will offer holidays there as well.

I understand the Government’s dilemma that they do not want to give plausibility or credibility to a country that has been illegally occupied for a number of decades, but the fact remains that it is in people’s humanitarian interests—and, it appears, in commercial interests, as well as, in some cases, law enforcement interests—for business to be done in that way. I would say that child abduction cases are certainly as serious a matter as commercial dealings and recognition of qualifications. It is clear that there are practical means, as well as some legal means, that can deal with this situation.

Before I conclude, let me suggest one or two other things that could be done. The first is that there is no legal aid available for non-Hague convention cases, which seems a double unfairness. Many parents fighting to bring their children home face huge pressures on their finances and, no doubt, some simply cannot afford to continue. Such proceedings can be ruinously expensive and can run on for years—often through deliberate delay in the courts. Unless there is some financial assistance—this should not be a matter of how deep people’s pockets are—it may be that some families will never be reunited and children will remain separated from their parents.

I would also like the FCDO to look at how we engage specifically with individual countries and jurisdictions on the issue. Clearly, there is not a one-size-fits-all answer. It would be useful to have a clear procedure that applies to the TNRC as well as to other countries where there are particular problems. It would also help if there were a more proactive role for Government to work with parents in that position to identify pathways for the return of their children. To prevent what happened in this case, the Government could consider the suspension of children’s passports during residence proceedings to limit the chance of children being taken abroad to avoid complying with court orders.

I will leave my remarks there. I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) says. What I am looking for from the Minister is an acknowledgment that there are particular problems with the TRNC and such countries, and that they are not being addressed now. I would like some idea of what the Government think can be done. If there are other matters that can be raised in correspondence after this debate, then so be it, but I would like to see a willingness to engage with myself and my constituent, as well as other people who have been affected in the same way, to address the issue.

The problem has been going on for far too long now. It has been put into the “too difficult” column because of political and jurisdictional issues. However, as a consequence, court orders made in this country are being flouted, and, more importantly, children are growing up without seeing parents because one parent does not like the judgment they have been dealt. I hope we can make some progress today, although I realise it is the beginning, rather than the end, of the matter.

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask Members to keep their remarks to around seven or eight minutes, then we can get everybody in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Cummins. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I warmly congratulate my London colleague, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), on securing this hugely important debate. It will not be top of the headlines today, but this issue is of high importance to many families across the country. When we talk about crimes, we describe some crimes as being high in number but low in impact and others as low in number but very high impact, and that is what we are talking about today.

It has been a pleasure to work with the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner on this issue. I hope this debate is a watershed moment for those parents suffering because of this injustice. I hope that it acts as a wake-up call to Government to right a wrong that was done—inadvertently, I believe—over the time of Brexit and can be put right.

We are talking about children who are settled in school, settled in their communities and with their families, including their wider family. I am here on behalf of a constituent who is a wider family member, not a parent. That shows the impact that child abduction has; it impacts not just the parents and the close family, but the wider family.

These children are seeing their mother and father on a regular basis in accordance with what the UK courts agreed and stipulated, but then, without the consent of one of the parents, the other parent suddenly, and illegally, takes the children, or the child, from that stable home and community, and relocates them in another country. Twenty-eight days pass and the children are still not home. At this point, under UK law, such actions become a criminal offence called parental child abduction. The parent knows where their children are and who they are with, and they know that a criminal offence has taken place and that their children have been taken illegally. They try all the legal procedures and remedies one by one, but they have been failed and let down by them, and then they are left without their children, without justice and without help and hope. I cannot imagine the despair felt by those families.

The sad reality is that, in 2021, over 1,200 cases involving child abduction were considered by the UK courts. That is not just a handful of children. But the core problem, and the reason why we are here today, is that Brexit left a gaping hole in the legal framework that is supposed to protect children and parents from this crime and ensure that children return to their settled homes. There is a human right to a family life—a human right to live with your family and, where this is not possible, the right to regular contact, which is being contravened by the situation at the moment.

Up until the withdrawal agreement, families could rely on the Brussels II regulation. That piece of EU law provided greater protection for victims of child abduction by ensuring the reciprocal enforcement of family court orders. In matters of child abduction, if the child is not returned under the 1980 Hague convention, the court in the country from which the child was abducted can make its own finding as to whether return is necessary, which is automatically enforceable in the other country. The process is generally quick and completed within a matter of weeks, and it enables that human right to be upheld, but this vital protection was stripped from the statute book after Brexit and has not been replaced.

The most frustrating thing is that, in the intervening years, the Government seem to have been tone deaf to the problem and have not yet worked out a solution, so I have been reading the views of the current Secretary of State in various pieces of correspondence. What he has said so far suggests that he has not really turned his full attention to the issue or worked hard to get a solution. For instance, he said that:

“The Government is satisfied that the 1980 Hague convention provides an appropriate mechanism to seek the return of children wrongfully removed from the country of habitual residence.”

However, I do not agree with that and neither do victims. It is not what we are seeing from families coming to us. It may be true of certain countries, but there is huge variation in how rigorously the convention is applied. The UK and Australia may be held up as examples of good practice in returning children swiftly, but some countries rarely return children promptly, if at all.

We have focused on Poland today, and I agree that Poland is a strong ally and a friend of our country. I have many Polish constituents who are a valuable part of our community, but Poland seems to be one of the problem countries in this regard. Estimates from Polish family lawyers suggest that less than 5% of all abducted children are returned, and a look at the latest publicly available data shows that the number of returns from Poland is consistently below the global average. Last year, legislation was passed in Poland that allows the return of a child to be suspended if the prosecutor general, the commissioner for children’s rights or the commissioner for human rights issues an extraordinary appeal to the Supreme Court. For whatever reason, there seems to be growing resistance in the Polish courts to return children under The Hague convention, which is why it is important to hold this debate now and to solve the problem before it becomes embedded.

It was very concerning to read the Secretary of State’s view that the UK must respect the jurisdiction and laws of Poland. I agree that we must respect those laws, but the Polish courts need to respect the decisions of our courts and the rights and welfare of British children who have been taken from their home. The Government may well argue that additional protections exist in the form of the 1996 Hague convention, which reinforces the 1980 convention by underlining the primary role played by the authorities of the child’s habitual residence in deciding on matters that affect the child in the long term. In short, it helps with enforcement, but there are big problems with this option too.

First, it is far slower, usually taking around a year to be processed. A year of young children’s lives is a year far too long. Secondly, the 1996 Hague convention allows the country to which children have been abducted to exercise discretion. The destination country may choose to ignore this on domestic policy grounds. Therefore, in certain countries, where there is resistance to returns, the return of abducted children may be near impossible, and that cannot be justice.

The main takeaway from this is clear: ending our participation in the Brussels regulations has left victims of child abductions and our own courts worse off. I end with some questions to the Minister. Why are the Government dragging their heels on reinstating the Brussels regulations? Can she provide any good reasons for their doing so? Will she recognise the serious pitfalls and inadequacies in The Hague conventions? What discussions has she had with countries with a low return rate, such as Poland, and will she recognise the fact that that is the situation? How can we ensure that their courts respect decisions made in our courts? Will she meet hon. Members who are here today, in this debate, to look at the particular cases that we are raising? I implore the Minister to show common sense and justice, and restore Britain’s participation in the reciprocal enforcement of court-ordered child arrangements under—

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

Order. This sitting will be suspended for 15 minutes for a Division in the House, or 25 minutes if two Divisions are expected.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

Order. The debate may now continue until 4.17 pm. I call Fleur Anderson to conclude her remarks.

[Fleur Anderson]

Thank you, Mrs Cummins.

To conclude, the main takeaway is clear: ending our participation in the Brussels regulation has left victims of child protections and our own courts worse off. There was a legal regulation in place, but that legal regulation now needs to be put into our own UK law. There were supposed to be Brexit benefits, not exactly the opposite. Back in 2017, the Justice Committee said:

“We recommend that the Government should seek to maintain the closest possible cooperation with the EU on family justice matters, and in particular to retain a system for mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments.”

That is exactly we are talking about now.

Surely no one intended the UK’s withdrawal from the EU to remove our country’s ability to protect British children from abduction. The absence of this protection from the withdrawal agreement is yet another oversight in a deal that was far from “oven-ready” and that has exposed families such as that of my constituent, and of the constituents of other Members, to the pain and trauma of abduction. That cannot be left to diplomatic fixes and to the whim of which ambassador will work with us in another country; instead, there must be a legal fix for justice to be seen. It can and must be fixed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

Thank you, Mrs Cummins, for the opportunity to speak in the debate. Like my colleagues, I believe that this is an important topic, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for securing the debate.

First, I welcome the supporters of the group Hague Mothers, who are attending the debate. As we know, the 1980 Hague convention was intended to ensure the quick and safe return of children removed from their primary carers and taken abroad by their non-custodial parents. In that regard, the convention is highly effective. Hague Mothers, however, points out that about 75% of the parents brought before the courts are mothers with the primary care of their children, most of whom are fleeing domestic abuse or trying to protect their children from abuse.

There are limited options under the convention for mothers to oppose orders for the return of their children, and in most cases the courts decide that the child must return. The only defence available under the convention that could apply to domestic abuse is the article 13(b) defence that provides that the court may not order return of a child if the person opposing return establishes that

“there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.”

The courts of most contracting states interpret what constitutes a “grave risk” very strictly. Most cases of domestic abuse are not considered to give rise to a “grave risk” or “intolerable situation” for a child. In particular, it is almost impossible for mothers to prove that coercive and controlling behaviour, which has rightly been a criminal offence in England and Wales since 2015, constitutes the basis for an article 13(b) defence. Despite the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 stipulating that children who see or experience the effects of domestic abuse are victims in their own right, those same children can be and are returned to the country and often the care of the abusive parent.

Mothers escaping domestic abuse across borders are therefore left in the terrible position of having to choose whether to return with their children or to send their children back on their own. Most mothers decide to return and face continued, or worse, post-separation abuse; sometimes, they face destitution, homelessness, isolation or even criminal proceedings. They frequently have little or no family, social, financial or legal support, which provides a perfect context for continued abuse.

I want to bring the attention of the House and the Foreign Office to the case of my constituent Nataly Anderson, who is appealing for assistance from the UK Government in bringing her twin boys safely to the UK from Croatia.

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

Order. I take it that the hon. Member is not referring to a live case in UK courts.

[Mr Lord]

It is not a live case.

Nataly Anderson says that her British-Croatian twin boys, who are now nine years old, were taken back to Croatia on the pretext of a holiday by their father in 2016, just as the family had been establishing their life in England, including schooling for the children. She requests that the British Government escalate her complaint about Croatia with the bodies of the European Union, and warns that parental alienation claims can be used to cover up child abuse, including child abduction, to award custody to abducting or abusive parents, and to stop mothers and children moving to locations where they would have more favourable living conditions. She believes that is what has happened to her and her children in Croatia. She believes, further, that mothers and children who are not protected properly from domestic abuse have a human and legal right to asylum in another country, and that those rights should be upheld and enforced. She asks that the phenomenon of mothers and children fleeing across borders to escape from abuse be considered a humanitarian crisis and advocates for the approach advanced by the Hague Mothers project, as one that could be easily implemented and would do much to support the safety and welfare of mothers and children in this situation.

In her own words, Nataly Anderson says:

“This is now a child welfare matter. These are vulnerable children and it is unconscionable that the Croatian authorities have been violating their rights, wishes and welfare needs for so long. I am appealing for the urgent assistance of the UK Government in bringing my children safely home.”

She requests that the British Government raise the question of her case with all the relevant bodies of the European Union.

I have been trying to help and assist my constituent. I am grateful to the Foreign Office and the Passport Office for correspondence I have received. I know how assiduous our Foreign Office, embassy and consular officials are and often can be, but I appeal to the Foreign Office Ministers to have one further look at this case. I will not take up any more time today, but this is an important debate and I have been interested to hear about the other cases that hon. Members have brought forward today.

Ukraine

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), and to hear such unity across the House. A year on, this war will leave lasting imprints on every Ukrainian and, indeed, on world history. This time, and this milestone, will mean something different to every person affected by the war. Here today, we know that this moment shows that history will stand on the side of the Ukrainian people.

International security and the stability of the world order were threatened when Russian Federation forces began their invasion on 24 February 2022. While the future appeared uncertain, through the indescribable bravery and resilience of the Ukrainian people, its military forces and its Government, Ukraine has exercised its power and turned what could have been a brief moment in time into an historic struggle for freedom.

I have spoken before in this place about the human impact of this war. In December, I visited Lviv, Kyiv, and the region of Kharkiv with the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). We joined the charity Siobhan’s Trust, whose humanitarian aid reflects our core British values. Its work in feeding over 4,000 displaced Ukrainians every day is to be both admired and applauded. Everywhere we went, the real power of the Ukrainian people was clear to see. Putin’s forces had inflicted horrific damage on their towns, cities and villages. I saw blocks of flats—people’s homes—gutted by missile attacks in Kharkiv, schools destroyed in Slatyne, and homes peppered with shrapnel in Ruska Lozova.

One soldier told me about the horror of removing the dead bodies from bombed out buildings—mostly homes. He showed me a photograph of a dead little boy laid out on a bench. He told me that the boy’s father had clung on to the boy with desperation and had had to be pulled from his son. In typical Ukrainian understatement, he said, “It’s hard.” He told me of his men who had found it too hard and had gone home and shot themselves. He worried for his men—men who urgently needed help in dealing with the impact of stress while still serving on the frontline. Despite the inhumanity of war, the Ukrainian people live with dignity and compassion as they fight on bravely towards victory.

I met with businesses that were working to keep Ukraine’s economy functioning in the most challenging of circumstances, under bombing and planned power cuts. Businesses such as the potato factory have, despite the war, kept their investments in Ukraine. That is their contribution to the war effort: to keep the economy going, to provide food for the nation and jobs for workers, and to pay taxes to fund Ukraine’s war efforts. Those people and businesses defy Putin’s best efforts to crush the free spirit of Ukraine. They are essential to success in the war, and when the time comes, they will continue to support Ukraine as it flourishes again as a peaceful and independent state.

Of course, we must continue to support Ukraine by providing it with the necessary military capabilities. Equally, we must support the recovery effort. I praise the upcoming Ukraine recovery conference, jointly hosted by the UK Government and Ukraine, because no matter when the war ends, we must begin laying the foundations for structural and economic recovery now.

To close, everywhere I and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green went in Ukraine the same message was delivered to us: “Do not forget us!” Ukraine can claim astonishing victories already. The war may well continue, but Ukraine has achieved what many had once believed was impossible. For the last year, it has firmly withstood a hostile invading force intent on bringing democracy to its knees. History is being rewritten. History is being written by Ukraine. Freedom will win. Slava Ukraini!

Oral Answers to Questions

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

We take an absolutely pragmatic approach to this and we use the best possible vehicle for getting the humanitarian aid through. I can tell my right hon. Friend that we will meet the target of £156 million that we budgeted for by the end of the financial year.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

T10. A UK Treasury official recently said of Japan’s attempt to co-ordinate a G7 response to China’s economic coercion that it is “more words than results”. Does the Minister agree with Japan’s Economy, Trade and Industry Minister that effective responses to economic coercion should be a major focus of this year’s G7 summit?

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)]

I was in Japan just a couple of weeks ago, and I spoke to Foreign Ministers. The focus they are bringing to their G7 presidency will ensure that economic security and all that falls from it are at the heart of discussions.

Lachin Corridor and Nagorno-Karabakh

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered closure of the Lachin Corridor and the humanitarian situation in Nagorno-Karabakh.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am very pleased to see such a strong turnout for a subject that many of us have struggled to pronounce, let alone spell. I declare an interest: I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Armenia, and in April I took a delegation there at the invitation of the Armenian Parliament. I am glad that several of my fellow delegates are here to speak.

This is not a new subject for Westminster Hall, but it has certainly become a much more urgent one as a result of the clear breach of the terms of the tripartite ceasefire agreed between Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia on 9 November 2020. It was a breach by Azerbaijan after it invaded the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, and it is now clearly intent on waging illegal, immoral and inhumane suffering on the Armenian population of this troubled corner of south-east Europe that borders Asia. That military conflict, and now humanitarian crisis, has gone largely unnoticed and unremarked on by the west—especially western media—and, regretfully, partly by our United Kingdom Government.

I will give some brief background to the long-running conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, which has always been an integral part of historic Armenia, and has a predominantly Armenian population. The conflict was largely supressed while those countries were part of the Soviet Union. In 1991, unprovoked, the Azerbaijanis launched war against Nagorno-Karabakh, with the help of Afghan mujaheddin, and Russian, Belarusian and Chechen mercenaries, and attempted ethnic cleansing by deporting more than 600,000 Armenians from the area.

After four years of conflict and 30,000 deaths, Armenia prevailed, and a Russia-brokered ceasefire was signed in 1994. After that followed 26 years of relative peace, helped by the oversight of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe Minsk Group, which ensured implementation of security measures. The OSCE Minsk Group, co-chaired by France, Russia and the United States, has been routinely obstructed by the Azeris, and there have been numerous ceasefire violations, including the targeting of civilian infrastructure across the border into Nagorno-Karabakh and even into Armenian sovereign territory, and the destruction of Armenian cultural heritage.

Those violations culminated in 44 days of war between September and November 2020, when with assistance from Turkey, sophisticated battlefield drone technology from Israel, the assistance of mercenaries flown in from Syria and a blind eye turned by Russia, the Azeris invaded, terrorised and occupied large parts of Nagorno-Karabakh, leaving an effective island of Armenian-populated territory linked to Armenia only by a narrow strip of territory known as Lachin corridor. It is literally a lifeline—it is known as the road of life.

On 9 November 2020, a rather one-sided ceasefire was agreed with Russian mediation, and terms were imposed on Armenia, whereby Azerbaijan kept all the conquered parts of Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as the Armenian towns of Hadrut and Shushi. Those regions were subsequently cleansed of their Armenian populations. Disgracefully, at the end of that war, the Azerbaijan Government issued a set of commemorative postage stamps that showed Azerbaijanis in hazmat suits eradicating the rodents or pests, as they tried to put it, from Nagorno-Karabakh. That was a representation of the ethnic cleansing of the Armenian population, very unsubtly portrayed on the postage stamps of that country.

The remainder of Nagorno-Karabakh was left isolated and surrounded on four sides by a deeply xenophobic state with a clear intent to eradicate or expel the population. A small detachment of 1,900 Russian peacekeepers, whose numbers may since have dwindled because of their attention being elsewhere, was deployed to maintain the ceasefire and patrol the 25 km Lachin corridor—the sole lifeline to Armenia for the Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh.

To repeat, it was an express obligation under the trilateral agreement of 9 November 2020 that

“the Republic of Azerbaijan shall guarantee safe movement of citizens, vehicles and cargo in both directions along the Lachin corridor.”

It could not be clearer than that. But in the two years since the ceasefire agreement, there have been constant infringements by the Azeris—firing artillery across the line of contact and hitting civilian infrastructure, including nurseries. In the middle of September 2022, 300 soldiers were killed in an early flare-up of the conflict. They have still not handed over some of the prisoners of war from the original conflict. Indeed, in October 2022, Human Rights Watch reported on the extrajudicial killing of Armenian POWs by Azeri forces, and some alarming and distasteful footage has been posted on social media of decapitated Armenian soldiers and others. The Azeri forces routinely use loudspeakers across the border into Nagorno-Karabakh, warning people to leave or else come to harm. This is a constant war of attrition and intimidation of an Armenian population in Nagorno-Karabakh who have every right to live there and to live in peace, yet have been denied that by the Azerbaijani state.

Those of us in the delegation I mentioned met refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh. We went down to the border town of Goris. Many came across from Nagorno-Karabakh to meet us, because we were not allowed to go into Nagorno-Karabakh. They gave us their first-hand testimonies of the appalling oppression that they had been suffering, and of course things have got so much worse since the blockade of the Lachin corridor.

On 12 December 2022, the Azeri Ministry of Ecology made a statement that suggested that natural resources were being illegally mined in Nagorno-Karabakh, and it asked Russian peacekeepers to monitor the situation. Before that could happen, a group of so-called environmentalists from Azerbaijan bypassed Russian checkpoints and set up tents on the main road, thereby blocking the Lachin corridor.

In fact, many of those “environmental protesters” have been identified as members of the Azeri military with Government backing. They are posing as civilians. Some of them are members of the Grey Wolves, an extreme fascist group. They have been brought in by the Azeri state, and their transportation and stay are paid for by the Azeri Government. The Human Rights Defender of Armenia report lists and gives photographs of many of the characters who have been identified as those so-called environmental protesters. The report shows that they are clearly

“representatives of Azerbaijani non-governmental organizations, which are directly and exclusively financed by the Azerbaijani government, or the Heydar Aliyev Foundation headed by the first vice president and first lady of Azerbaijan. Furthermore, evidence has been registered that representatives of the Azerbaijani special services are also amongst the alleged ‘environmental activists’ who are currently blocking the only lifeline”

for Nagorno-Karabakh.

I could mention a list of names—it will drive Hansard berserk—to give some examples. Telman Qasimov’s personal page on his social media network shows that he is

“military with strong anti-Armenian views for many years, who, according to some sources, is an officer of the military special intelligence service.”

There is a photograph of him protesting. Fuad Salahov,

“an officer of the special purpose unit of the Ground Forces of Azerbaijan, is one of the organizers of the action.”

Ruhiyye Memmedova is

“President of the Public Union ‘Support to the Elderly and Single Persons’; the NGO operates with the funding of the ‘Heydar Aliyev Fund’”.

Samir Adigozelli is

“Director of the ‘Center for Socio-Political Processes and International Studies’; funded by the Government of Azerbaijan”.

I could go on. There are photographs of all those people protesting. They are not environmentally conscious civilian protesters. They are put there, paid for and supported by the Azeri state and Government, and they should stop pretending otherwise. In effect, they are agents of the Azeri Government who are blocking the Lachin corridor. Together with the Russians, they refuse to do anything about it. Videos of the Azeri protesters posted by Azerbaijan show them side by side with Russian troops watching football matches while supposedly protesting as well. The Russians are not even turning a blind eye to this; they are in full sight of it. What an extraordinary contrast there is with protesters in Moscow, who only have to hold up a blank sheet of paper anywhere near a Russian police officer or soldier to be bundled off. But blocking a lifeline by pretending to be a protester is perfectly all right, as long as it is in the Lachin corridor.

The Azeri Government have orchestrated all of this activity, with the supposed Russian “peacekeepers” turning a blind eye. Only Russian and Azeri vehicles are allowed to pass through the Lachin corridor. As a result, 120,000 Armenian residents of Nagorno-Karabakh, including children, elderly people and disabled people, are effectively under siege. The blockade and isolation of many thousands of people has created a dire humanitarian situation and an existential threat for the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.

The humanitarian crisis there is worsening with each passing day. Amid brutal winter conditions, the people of Nagorno-Karabakh are being deprived of vital supplies of medicine, food and fuel from the outside world; the provision of healthcare and social services has been obstructed, causing human suffering and life-threatening situations; the shortage of food and other essential goods is becoming increasingly noticeable, because every day more than 400 tonnes of supplies remain undelivered; and the danger of malnutrition is becoming more palpable. In total, 41 nurseries and 20 schools have already had to close, with thousands of children being deprived of their right to education.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, first for giving way and secondly for securing this important debate. Given the unfolding humanitarian crisis, which is due to the closure of the Lachin corridor, does he share the belief that a United Nations or OCSE fact-finding mission should be established to assess the humanitarian situation on the ground?

[Tim Loughton]

I completely agree. If the Azeris are so intent on putting up this façade that there is a genuine environmental protest and nothing is amiss, why would they not want to allow independent investigators, backed by the UN or whoever, to go and ascertain that? They do not and they will not—that is the problem.

Russia’s Grand Strategy

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on securing this important debate once again. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), the Chair of the Defence Committee.

Russia’s second invasion of Ukraine on 24 February was a critical moment in our history. It firmly dispelled any myth that Russia was “misunderstood” or acting in the interests of its own territorial integrity. Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, and its land grab in Georgia, were clear warning signs of yet further aggression to come. In the past decade, Putin’s Russia has purposely sought to overturn current rules-based relations. It looks backwards, to a Russian-dominated Soviet bloc, which divided the European continent and sought complete control over the people. Although we must continue to address the geopolitical threat created by Putin’s regime, we cannot lose sight of the real-world human consequences of Putin’s war.

Today marks the 330th day of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Over the course of less than one year, the lives of Ukrainian people have been entirely transformed. What Russia sees as a grand geopolitical strategy has become a tragic daily reality for millions of Ukrainian people.

Before Christmas, I had the privilege, along with the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), of joining the British charity Siobhan’s Trust to provide humanitarian aid to the dispossessed people of Ukraine. David Fox-Pitt from Siobhan’s Trust joins us in the Gallery today. He is a shining example of soft power and British diplomacy—dressed in a kilt, with his three pizza ovens and volunteers from all over the world, he feeds over 4,000 people a day. Travelling to the newly liberated villages, which are sometimes without power and water, he provides pizza, hot drinks and cheer. His charity, his work and his volunteers are to be commended.

I went to the recently liberated region of Kharkiv and I saw first hand the brutality of Putin’s regime. But I also saw the Ukrainian people, brave and resilient, showing immense fortitude in the face of extreme adversity. “We will win—it will be hard, but we will win”, they told me. We know that Putin’s regime rightly fears the immense resolve of the Ukrainian people. It is for that very reason that Putin has chosen to hold his sham referendums. He is desperately trying to convince his own people that the invasion is in fact an act of defence. The attempt to drive this form of rhetoric is baseless and reflects the growing, not diminishing, strength of the Ukrainian people.

Putin’s desperation can be felt just as clearly in his attacks on Ukrainian national infrastructure. Over past weeks, energy infrastructure in the Kharkiv region and in Kyiv has been badly hit. As the Russian regime continues its offensive on civilian life, the evidence of mounting war crimes becomes clearer and clearer. When we visited Ukraine in December, I saw the sheer scale of the atrocities and destruction that simply cannot be translated on to TV screens or into print.

In Kharkiv, I saw the numerous blocks of flats gutted by missile attacks—people’s homes, targeted and destroyed. I saw the burnt-out Russian tanks in Tsupivka. The whole village was devastated; its churches and schools were bombed. People’s houses were peppered with the shrapnel from bombs and bullets, in newly liberated Ruska Lozova. In Slatyne, I saw the school destroyed by missile attack. There was a huge crater where part of the school once stood, with live missiles still visible in the frozen ground. The whole area was littered with land mines, left by the Russian army—so many that we were told only to step on the snowy tyre tracks or pre-existing footprints. For innocent Ukrainians, land mines planted by the invading forces will cause untold devastation and heartbreak for decades to come: Russia’s grand strategy laid bare as nothing more than barbarism.

I met a local volunteer infantry unit—men who, prior to the war on Ukraine, were just ordinary citizens. One volunteer soldier told me that removing the dead bodies was the worst: the people in the houses and buildings killed—murdered—by the Russians. He said that moving the bodies was very hard, and showed me a photograph of a dead little boy laid out on a bench. The boy’s father had clung on to him. The father would not let go and had to be pulled away from his son. “It is hard,” the soldier said. He told me about his men who had found it too hard—who had gone home and shot themselves. He told me that he was worried for his men and that help is needed for them now.

People told me time and again that Ukraine needs more weapons, more modern tanks, more effective missile systems and armoured ambulances. They desperately need more training for paramedics so that the wounded can be treated before they arrive, sometimes dead, in hospital. But what is clear is that the war crimes committed against these innocent people will be the true legacy of Putin.

The determination of the Ukrainian people cannot be overstated, but the humanitarian situation is critical. Temperatures in Ukraine over winter hover at minus 3° and can plummet to minus 20°. With the Putin regime targeting infrastructure necessary for basics such as cooking and the heating of homes, people are facing impossible decisions. Many are left with no other option than to flee their homes. Over 155,000 Ukrainian refugees have entered the UK so far. Putin relies on generating fear among the Ukrainian population. Standing side by side, both in this place and with our European allies, we must continue to provide the necessary support to those fleeing the war.

As Putin attempts to redefine the borders of Ukraine with illegal referenda, the UK must continue to aid Ukraine in its fight to maintain sovereignty over its own territory. Russia’s land grab is not just a matter of politics; it is a fight for freedom and the basic right to live free from tyranny and aggression. Preventing a victory for Putin is necessary not only for the people of Ukraine; it is vital to contain an expansionist, totalitarian Russian state.

International solidarity on this issue remains critical. Putin must understand that he is isolated—he is alone. The UK and my own Bradford South constituency stand proudly with the people of Ukraine. This House and the United Kingdom must continue to play its part. Slava Ukraine.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady]

I am happy to stand corrected on that. As far as I could tell from a search of Hansard, the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the British Indian Ocean Territory once in his career in this place, which was last year in a debate on AUKUS. His peroration probably gave us a sense of the real priorities behind this debate.

At base level, I do not disagree. The Chagossian community should absolutely be involved and consulted in the negotiations on the future of the islands—many of us who have been involved in the all-party group have been campaigning on that for many years. I say “good luck” to him getting the United Kingdom Government to recognise the sovereignty of a people and that their democratic future should be decided in a referendum on the future of their territory, because the UK Government are very clearly against that kind of democratic process. It is important that we find a way to make sure that the community are properly consulted.

I suspect that the issue will divert away from the specific question of sovereignty and to their rights and the future of their connection with the islands themselves. As the hon. Member recognises, the community is quite widely dispersed because of the historical actions of the United Kingdom Government. It is incredibly diverse as well, and different groups will have different views on exactly what a resolution should look like.

A mechanism that can include the diaspora would be welcome. It might be impossible, as he alluded to, but there is no reason that the Governments that represent them cannot put their interests at the forefront when they are at the table. He is right that there is a Chagossian community represented by the United Kingdom Government. There is a Chagossian community represented by the Government of Mauritius and a Chagossian community represented by the Government of the Seychelles, and there will be smaller diasporas elsewhere in the world. That is what parliamentary democracies are for and what democratic representation is for. That is what many of us would want to see achieved.

Human Rights Watch, which I am sure is an organisation that the hon. Gentleman engages with on a regular basis, has called for the inclusion of community voices, saying:

“Righting the half century of wrongs to the Chagossian people means full reparations – their right to return in dignity and prosperity; full compensation for the harm they have suffered; and guarantees that such abuses never happen again.”

That is where we ought to try to find some kind of consensus.

I come from a political tradition where sovereignty lies with the people; not with a Crown, not with a Parliament and certainly not with a Government. In reality, sovereignty always ultimately lies with the people. People have the fundamental human rights to freedom of speech, thought and assembly. Those are manifested in the right to live under the rule of law. Those rights can be denied, as they have been in the case of the Chagossians, but they cannot be taken away. That is why among all the negotiations are questions about the future of the base on Diego Garcia, which, incidentally—I wanted to ask about this in an intervention— probably took quite a lot of concrete to establish.

I am not sure if I completely understood the hon. Member’s argument. It appeared to be that in the 1960s it was okay for the United Kingdom to buy an island, militarise the south Indian ocean, pour lots of concrete on Diego Garcia and forcibly displace a population in doing so, but now it would be completely wrong for any other Government to consider such course of action.

The notion that we should tell other countries to do what we say and not what we do is not always the most conducive to building world peace and stability. In among all those questions, we have to put the interests of the community first. We as Members have a duty to scrutinise the Government and speak out on behalf of our constituents, whether they are members of the Chagossian community or—like those who contact me—committed human rights activists who believe that everyone in the world should enjoy the rights we too often take for granted here in the United Kingdom. I hope the Government’s movements on this issue will at last lead to some kind of equitable status that resolves the question of sovereignty in international law, but more importantly, achieves justice at last for the people of the Chagos islands.

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

I intend to start Front-Bench speeches at 3.30 pm, so I ask Members to keep their comments to around four minutes. I call Henry Smith.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

Thank you, Mrs Cummins, for calling me to speak. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for securing this debate. He said he was going to focus on self-determination in particular, which is important. As other hon. Members have said, what happened originally when the base was set up and what happened to the Chagossian people was outrageous and wrong, and we apologise for that. However, I am not going to focus on that. There are bigger issues than self-determination and sovereignty—global security and defence.

The base was set up in the 1960s for very good reason: to mitigate against the Soviet and Chinese threat. Those threats are greater and more complex now than they were in the ’60s and throughout the period of the cold war. It is unfeasible for the islands to be repopulated. I visited some of the outer islands, where there were lots of graves of small children, as people died very young. The business related to palms that sustained the islands was reducing even before the atrocity of the removal of the individuals.

On the main island, the base is absolutely essential. It is home to an airport from which multiple aircraft, including spacecraft, can be flown. There is hardstanding from which tens of thousands of troops can be deployed around the world. In a protected area, there are a large number of ships storing military equipment. It is perhaps wrong to call them ships. They are seven or eight-storey car parks. On each level, there is bulletproof machinery, diggers, tanks, and armoured personnel vehicles that drive off the seventh floor into the water and can then invade land. There are 350 places around the world from which to deploy and sustain that level of troop commitment. It is a massive facility for global security and the defence of the world. We need to consider that alongside legitimate sovereignty and self-determination issues.

There was originally a 50-year lease that was rolled over to a 20-year lease, and there is now talk of an offer from Mauritius of a 99-year lease. I urge the Government to think about Hong Kong. A 99-year lease seems a long time, yet we have seen what happened in Hong Kong with China. Whatever we do, the global community, which to be honest relies heavily on the Americans, needs that facility to protect global citizens. That should be at the forefront of the Government’s mind, while trying to protect and improve the lives of Chagossians here, in the Seychelles and Mauritius. I have met with all of them and there is a pragmatic understanding. There is a desire to move back, but there is a practical understanding that that would be very difficult, even without the American base and British sovereignty issues.

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

I will start speeches from Front Benchers now with Alyn Smith.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

On a point of order, Mrs Cummins. I have spoken to the Doorkeepers about this room. It is so cold you could hang dead people in here and they would not go off. The Doorkeepers have asked the staff to do something with the heating. They say the heat is turned on. I am not sure where it is, but it is not on here. Can I ask, Mrs Cummins, that you use your power as Chair to do something about that?

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. I know that the Doorkeepers are busy, and I am very aware of just how cold it is in here. I am sure that that will be on the record.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory.

Human Rights: Kashmir

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

I start by thanking my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for securing this important debate on human rights in Kashmir. As a Bradford MP, I am proud to represent a city with such close links to Kashmir. I share many of my constituents’ deep concerns for the situation unfolding in the region. We need a solution that protects the human rights of the Kashmiri people and establishes the democratic right of self-determination. I strongly believe that this Government have not done enough and must redouble their efforts and take a more active role in securing a safe and peaceful future for Kashmir. The issue is of international concern and demands an international solution.

The United Kingdom must stand firmly against human rights abuses wherever they occur in the world and must be vocal in support for those suffering from such abuses. It is our humanity that unites us, and human rights abuses should not and cannot be ignored. That means that we need more than just words of reassurance. With so many allegations of serious human rights, this is not just some faraway foreign policy, because an abuse of human rights is an abuse of humanity. An abuse of human rights anywhere is an abuse to human rights everywhere. It is what binds us, and it must not be what divides us.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend and many colleagues for so clearly setting out the case. Does she share the frustration and, frankly, the anger of my constituents that not only has this issue remained unresolved for so long, but it seems to be deteriorating? Justice and peace seem further away than ever, and Government action seems so limited and slow.

[Judith Cummins]

I absolutely agree, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue.

The unilateral revocation of article 370 of the Indian constitution, which granted special status to Kashmir, was an outrageous act which has undermined long-term efforts towards peace in the region. Following that revocation, in February last year, I visited Kashmir as part of a cross-party delegation of the Kashmir all-party parliamentary group to see for myself what was going on in the region. We had wanted to travel to India as well, but our chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, was famously denied entry and promptly deported, so we visited Kashmir and Pakistan, where we were granted unfettered access. We met many people, including the then President of Kashmir, Mr Masood Khan, and visited the line of control. I also visited the Gulpur refugee camp to hear directly from displaced people. There I saw at first hand the direct impact of the situation on those people—ordinary people, who told me of the injustices and abuses that they had endured. They wanted nothing more than for their children and loved ones to grow up safely.

The continuing injustices experienced by the people of Kashmir are unacceptable. They face oppression, threats of violence and imprisonment, and rape is routinely used as a weapon of war. The human rights that are considered a certainty in this country are still beyond the grasp of the ordinary people of Kashmir. I condemn these injustices, and I will continue to press the Government, and international partners, for action until the human rights that we enjoy are restored for the people of Kashmir, and until dignity and justice are secured for those people.

Syrian Refugees in Jordan and Lebanon

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Members are all attending physically, and I remind you to please clean your spaces before you use them and, importantly, before you leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the situation of Syrian refugees in Jordan and Lebanon.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins, and to have the opportunity to highlight the situation of Syrian refugees in Jordan and Lebanon. I want to try to put a human face on some of what I will speak about, and I will start by referring briefly to a constituent of mine, whom I will call Mr N. I will speak about him and his family.

The case of Mr N and his family represents so much that is brilliant about how the UK and the international community support Syrian refugees, but also so much that is awful about the gaps that there still are. Mr N, his wife and his younger children have found safety and a home here in the UK in my constituency, which is of course the brilliant bit. However, the family has suffered too much and many people, including me, would say that we can do more. Not all of what I would term as Mr N’s immediate family have made it here. His adult daughter, son-in-law and one grandson remain in Lebanon.

As I will come to, the situation for Syrian refugees in Lebanon is not good, and that has impacted on the family in the most heart-breaking way. There were previously two grandsons. One lost his life after illness at the age of three. Mr N explains that his grandson was initially refused admission to hospital in Lebanon. Even when he was finally admitted, he was left for seven hours without receiving treatment, which the family attribute to his status as a Syrian refugee. That accords perfectly with the evidence from the country, which I will come to.

Of course, the loss of the child has hit the family hard, with Mr N’s daughter and wife particularly badly hit. Mr N’s daughter had already been vulnerable to mental ill health after her husband had been detained and suffered ill treatment in Syria. They are currently residing in a garage on a farm in Lebanon, where they are working in exchange for accommodation. The family rely on the family here to transfer them money for food and basic essentials. A family reunion application for Mr N’s daughter, son-in-law and grandson has been refused, but given his circumstances, I hope that decision can be revisited and reversed. Although I appreciate that the decision is not the responsibility of the Minister’s Department, I would be incredibly grateful if he could persuade one of his Home Office colleagues to meet me to discuss the case.

The family’s grim existence in Jordan is far from unique. Millions of other Syrians across both Jordan and Lebanon are also suffering. That is a collective failure by the international community, because it cannot be left to those two relatively small countries to take an unbelievably disproportionate share of responsibility for those who fled conflict and persecution in Syria. The countries are trying hard. There is no doubt that we can ask more of them, but we should ask more of ourselves first.

I will briefly set out a bit more about the situation for Syrian refugees in those two countries and ask what the UK response is, in terms of both aid and taking refugees from the area. Of course, there has been good work in both of those areas, but the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I am deeply concerned about what cuts to international aid mean for the work that is going on there. I am also concerned about the end of the Syrian resettlement scheme, the gaps in the family reunion rules along the lines of those that have hit my constituent’s family, and the so-called new plan for immigration. My concern is that it is driving desperate people straight into the hands of people smugglers. I am concerned about what the cuts to aid and all the reforms to immigration will mean when they are added together.

Despite talks of crisis here in the UK or in Europe more generally, it is not our wealthy club of countries that is required to take responsibility for hosting those who had to flee Syria. As ever, that responsibility has fallen on countries such as Jordan and Lebanon. Since 2011, over 5.6 million refugees have fled Syria and sought safety abroad, not only in Lebanon and Jordan but in Turkey, Iraq, Egypt and elsewhere. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reports that refugee poverty and vulnerability is increasing and that the impact on host communities is growing. Funding for the humanitarian response is not keeping up with need.

UNICEF reports that among those 5.6 million Syrian refugees, 2.5 million children live in those same countries in camps, informal settlements and urban settings among host communities. The situation for those children is sometimes dire. UNICEF says:

“Major challenges remain in realizing the rights of refugee children. Due to the protracted situation and the covid-19 crisis, refugees are vulnerable to several protection risks, including psychosocial distress, child labour and domestic and sexual violence. Economic hardship has led some women and girls to resort to negative coping mechanisms such as child and forced marriage. The socio-economic impacts of covid-19 have also disrupted and reduced access to health care, vaccinations and learning, and increased food insecurity and child poverty, resulting in an overall decline in children's well-being.” 

As we have heard, Mr N’s grandson obviously struggled to gain access to healthcare, with devastating consequences.

Jordan has provided refuge for over 1.3 million Syrians, which is the third highest number of Syrian refugees that any country has taken in. Around half of them are registered refugees and around 126,000 of those live in refugee camps, while the greatest number have settled in urban and rural areas, mainly in northern governorates and Amman.

The Assessment Capacities Project’s humanitarian analysis programme reports that in Jordan

“almost 6 in 10 Syrian refugees of working age are unemployed. Amid aid cuts and the covid-19 pandemic, most Syrian families are relying on humanitarian assistance to meet their basic needs. Before the pandemic, Syrian refugees living outside of camps spent more than two-thirds of their monthly household budget on shelter, leaving few resources for food, health or education. They often resorted to negative coping mechanisms such as cutting meals, child labour, or early marriage. This is a rising concern as more urban refugees and host communities have difficulty accessing basic services and earning an income due to the covid-19 containment measures.” 

The UN calculates that 86% of Syrian refugees outside camps in Jordan live below the poverty line and that most of them rely on humanitarian aid to meet their basic needs. Although Jordan is not a signatory to the refugee convention, the Jordanian Government work closely with UNHCR. However, even before the pandemic Jordan was facing record unemployment and slow growth, and things are much worse now.

Before I move on from Jordan, I should also mention in particular the situation just over the border in Syria at the Rukban camp, where humanitarian workers are prevented from accessing 12,000 refugees who are stranded there. I understand that those restrictions have been contributed to by the Jordanian Government, as well as by the Assad regime and Russia. The presence of coalition forces in the area around the camp and border crossing means that they could be well-placed—they may even be required—to ensure that aid is delivered, and it would be useful to hear the Minister’s response on that.

Lebanon hosts more refugees per capita than any country in the world, including around 1.5 million Syrian refugees. Lebanon was already facing deep economic and financial crises before covid. Not only has the pandemic made things significantly worse, but so too did the explosions at Beirut’s port on 4 August last year. The UNHCR reports:

“The protracted nature of the refugee situation with limited self-reliance possibilities, coupled with the impact of these recent crises, have led to an exponential rise in extreme poverty among refugees. According to the 2020 Vulnerability Assessment of Syrian Refugees (VASyR), 89% of the Syrian refugee families are now living below the extreme poverty line, up from 55% in 2019. The situation is creating hunger, increased debt and mental and physical health problems, as well as increasing risks of evictions, exploitation, child labour and gender-based violence. At the same time, the percentage of Syrian refugees holding valid legal residency has further decreased, as the number of refugees able to pay for residency renewal has reduced and fewer fall within the criteria of the 2017 fee waiver. A lack of legal residency exposes refugees to the risk of arrest and detention. It also hampers their access to basic services like education, health care and social services, as well as to obtaining civil status documents such as marriage and birth registration. Non-Syrian refugees without legal residency are particularly vulnerable and at high risk of deportation to their country of origin”.

The scale of the problem with residency rights is huge. Human Rights Watch has suggested that only 22% of the 1.5 million Syrian refugees in Lebanon have the legal right to live there, meaning that

“the majority are living under the radar, subject to arbitrary arrest, detention, harassment and summary deportation to Syria”.

Refugees and other vulnerable groups are also being left behind in the covid response, with Syrian refugees dying from the virus at a rate that is more than four times the national average.

I turn now to the UK response. As I say, I acknowledge that some excellent aid work has been funded. The Syrian vulnerable persons scheme has been, on the whole, an absolute triumph. But the question is this: what happens now? Neither Jordan nor Lebanon are on the list of 34 countries that will receive bilateral overseas development aid from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in 2021-22. However, I fully appreciate that other Departments may spend money in those countries, that the UK may contribute to multilateral assistance, and that the list of countries might grow beyond 34. Nevertheless, we really need some information here and now.

The Minister provided a written answer at the end of April in which he talked about the need for aid to be

“more strategic and remain a force for good”.

However, he did not explain what the implications of that were for Jordan and Lebanon. The International Rescue Committee says its funding for protection work for vulnerable Syrians in Lebanon has been removed. Another programme in the same country, aimed at providing protection services to 107,000 people was cancelled before it could even begin. The Mines Advisory Group has confirmed that all UK funding to support its work there in removing and destroying land mines has been cancelled. That is probably the tip of the iceberg and as much as I could find in the time available. Surely now is the time to increase spending in Jordan and Lebanon, rather than cut it.

Meanwhile, the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Scheme has been closed, having achieved its 20,000 target over five years. A new global resettlement scheme has been announced and is underway, but we know little about its ambitions in terms of numbers or how many it will take from Jordan and Lebanon, the focus of the earlier scheme. If there is no target, how do we budget? How do partners such as local authorities plan?

In the grand scheme of things, the global community is not even beginning to scratch the surface of what needs to be done. As the UNHCR’s Ambassador in the UK has said:

“UNHCR estimates that 1.44 million refugees globally are in need of resettlement, but only 22,770 were resettled through UNHCR last year, with 829 arriving in the UK. These are the lowest numbers we have seen in almost two decades—just when refugees needs are extremely acute and rising”.

Turning to key asks, regarding the family I mentioned, if there is any way the Minister can encourage a Home Office Minister to meet me to discuss that specific case, I would be hugely grateful. Will he also comment on the issues relating to the Rukban camp and humanitarian access? More generally, what is the FCDO’s response to the deteriorating situation for Syrian refugees in Lebanon and Jordan? How can now be the right time to cut aid? What impact will that have on people who are forced to seek better conditions elsewhere? What work will he do with UNHCR to achieve its goals in supporting refugees there, including access to protection, to a legal status, to protection from arrest and forced return to Syria, and access to health care, work and support? Will he work with the Home Office to broaden family reunion rules, so that families such as the one I have highlighted can be reunited here? What are the targets for the new resettlement scheme? How many will come from this region? Does not this combination of cuts to aid and a flimsy regime of safe legal routes simply mean that all the more people will feel compelled to use people smugglers—something that none of us wants to see?

In conclusion, these countries may seem far away, but I think we all agree that every country, particularly wealthy countries such as ours, have a responsibility to play our role in supporting the victims of the war in Syria. That also, of course, has an impact here. Syrians continue to flee here, including on dinghies in the Channel. Most importantly, there is an impact on families, such as my constituents, who are already here and settled and who have seen their loved ones suffering in such a terrible way. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to put these points and the family’s case today.