Nagorno-Karabakh: Armenian Refugees

Debate between Julie Elliott and Stephen Doughty

Tuesday 19th March 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Elliott. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) for securing this crucial debate. We have heard typically powerful speeches from across the House, including from my hon. Friends the Members for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

With such an unsettled global landscape, we must be absolutely clear not to lose sight of enduring geopolitical hotspots with the potential to lead to further human suffering and risk the escalation of wider tensions. Tensions in the Caucasus are a key example of that, and I am pleased that we are able to debate that today.

The situation in the region remains very serious. I remain in regular contact with both the Armenian and Azerbaijani ambassadors to the UK, and I have met the Foreign Ministers of both Azerbaijan and Armenia in recent times. We all want to see peace and stability in the region. Any return to the full-scale conflict of recent years would be an absolute disaster for the region and for all peoples. It is fair to say, as we have heard today, that this has been a profoundly challenging year for the people in the region and more broadly.

Last September, Azerbaijan launched a military incursion into Nagorno-Karabakh, which, at the time, was home to an ethnic Armenian population of 120,000 people. That was preceded by the nine-month blockade of the Lachin corridor, leading to shortages of food, fuel, medicines and basic provisions, which completely undid the social fabric of the enclave and led the UN to declare a humanitarian emergency in August 2023. I have raised that issue regularly with the Minister, publicly and in debates in the House.

We saw gas supplies cut off and electricity and communications damaged; I know that that was a concern to Members across the House. Nagorno-Karabakh became unreachable to the world and the implications of that period of such unimaginable insecurity and uncertainty continue, understandably, to reverberate throughout the population, now displaced, with lives altered irrevocably. No people should have to live in such conditions.

Last September, Nagorno-Karabakh came under direct Azeri control, and the ethnic Armenian population has now had to flee into Armenia. Although the ICJ issued provisional measures in November 2023, ordering Azerbaijan to allow ethnic Armenians to return

“in a safe, unimpeded and expeditious manner”,

they remain in Armenia.

I am pleased that efforts have since been made by both countries and by global interlocutors, include the EU, the United States and ourselves, to find peace and normalise relations. The situation remains very precarious. Any further deterioration would only compound the suffering experienced by the people, especially the refugees located around Yerevan and Syunik.

From reports in recent days, peace seems closer than ever, publicly at least, but we have to remain cognisant that, given the recent history, we will have to go much further to bring tensions down and to ensure that the territorial integrity of both Armenia and Azerbaijan is maintained. We have heard powerful testimony from colleagues who went on the recent IPU visit, and we must remember that there is always a tragic human face to conflicts such as these.

As Action Against Hunger highlights, Armenia now faces an extensive refugee crisis. One in 30 people in the country is a refugee. More than half of those refugees are women and girls, nearly one third are children, and nearly one fifth are elderly. Their whole lives have been uprooted.

There is a mental health crisis, too. Nearly 22,500 of those refugees are estimated to be living with a mental health condition. Clearly, it is beyond the capacity of any one Government to manage this crisis. Despite the many global crises we face, which we debate regularly in this place, including in the main Chamber, we cannot allow the Armenian refugees to endure the challenges of 2024 without adequate support and without a clear means of beginning to rebuild the lives that they lost in September last year.

I have a number of questions to the Minister, and I hope he will be able to provide some clarity. First, will the UK Government continue to play a constructive and substantial role in brokering lasting peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan? What recent discussions has he had with counterparts from both countries and other interlocutors? What were the outcomes of those discussions?

What discussions has he had with French and American officials, particularly about dealing with the impact on individuals who have been displaced from Nagorno-Karabakh? How can we work together to provide critical support to those refugees? We simply cannot return to the violence of 2020, when more than 6,500 people lost their lives and civilians had to live under the perpetual threat of conflict and violence. We need to work, of course, with European and regional partners to secure a return to dialogue more broadly and a peaceful settlement.

I hope that the Minister can provide some further clarity on the funding issues that colleagues have raised. In September last year, he and the Government announced £1 million for the ICRC to support its humanitarian response for those refugees. The FCDO said in February this year that it continues to liaise with the UN, ICRC and other NGOs to assess humanitarian needs in the region.

What have the results of those assessments been? What has that money been spent on? Indeed, has it all been spent? Is it the view that the £1 million payment is sufficient? In comparison, France announced in December that it was taking its total contribution to emergency appeals to €27.5 million. The EU has provided €17.5 million in humanitarian aid to assist those displaced in Armenia. I hope the Minister can provide clarity on the sufficiency and the assessments that have been made of our support.

An important issue was raised around the protection of cultural and religious heritage, not only in Nagorno-Karabakh but more broadly. What assessments of that has the Minister made? what discussions has he had with the Azeri authorities and with UNESCO and other bodies? The issue is of critical importance, and reference has been made to Armenia’s critical role, particularly in the history of Christianity.

Nagorno-Karabakh and the wider region may seem remote to many, but I am afraid that it contains men, women and children who have been successively let down for years, and they need and deserve our focus and support. Will the Minister say a little about alleged extrajudicial killings, torture and abuse of prisoners of war? What assessment has he made of the individuals who are still held in prisons? Has he discussed the issue with his counterparts in Azerbaijan and elsewhere?

Will the Minister set out a wider strategy for the Caucasus, spanning diplomacy, aid and trade, and, crucially, atrocity prevention, humanitarian support and the upholding of human rights? Also, what assessment has he made of UK corporations in the region? That is an important point. We have a significant presence, and with that come particular responsibilities in relation to ethical practices.

We are clear, and I think there will be unity in the House on this, that Russia should have no place in the region’s future and that it would actively seek—indeed, it is actively seeking—to impede progress towards peace, security and good governance. The last few years have demonstrated that Putin’s vision for the region is for one that is less secure, less cohesive and weakened so that it remains in Russia’s sphere of influence. What assessment has the Minister made of Russia’s engagement in the region, and what steps are being taken in concert with our partners to counter Russia’s malign influence?

I note that Armenia has frozen its membership of the CSTO and is apparently considering leaving. What is the UK Government’s view on that? Also, how can we support all countries in the region, and indeed across Europe, that are seeking to extricate themselves from Russia’s malign influence? Finally, what is the official UK Government position on the right to return for ethnic Armenians removed from Nagorno-Karabakh? I referred earlier to the ICJ provisional judgments. I hope he can provide a clear answer on that issue.

The people of Nagorno-Karabakh cannot be forgotten. They are the human face—the huge human face—to this tragedy. The impact on individual lives, which many hon. Members here have heard about directly, has been immense. I hope the Government will continue to support those people in their plight, as well as working to bring about a lasting and enduring peace in this troubled region. The view of the official Opposition is that the UK has a critical role to play in the Caucasus, and I hope the Government can demonstrate that they are ready to meet the challenges.

[Julie Elliott (in the Chair)]

We are now back on time. I call the Minister.

Trade Union Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Julie Elliott and Stephen Doughty

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend makes a very clear point about the problem the Bill seeks to solve. We have heard that again and again. I am pleased that the Minister said he will ask the ONS to look at the issue of indirect impact. It will be helpful for the House to have that information. I suspect it will confirm many of the views that have been expressed by Opposition Members and many of the witnesses. It is disappointing that some witnesses, including the CBI and others, made grand statements about the need for the Bill without being able to justify it. Even without ONS statistics, there are other ways of making the case clearer, but they have been unable to do it.

[Julie Elliott]

On whether bits of the Bill are legal and whether they will end up in the courts, the evidence presented last week by legal experts Stephen Cavalier and Professor Keith Ewing confirmed that the measure would end up in the courts. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Stephen Doughty]

I certainly do. I am not a lawyer and I do not have experience of testing such things in the courts, but a significant amount of legal opinion suggests that the Bill is potentially in breach of a series of international conventions, let alone the devolution settlement and existing domestic legislation, and it questions whether many aspects of the Bill are enforceable in the courts.

Going back to the necessity of the measures in the Bill, the Minister has said that he accepts that there are historically low levels of industrial action in this country, and yet the Government have repeatedly extrapolated a sledgehammer from a limited number of examples. We can debate at length the rights or wrongs of any individual strike or industrial action, but we are making legislation for the whole country, all forms of industrial action and all trade union members. The legislation will affect every single trade union member in this country and every single dispute. It simply cannot be right to extrapolate and make general points on the basis of a few examples that the Government have used to back up their case.

Trade Union Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Julie Elliott and Stephen Doughty

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Doughty]

We have already touched on aspects of clause 3, but there is a more substantive debate to be had on it. As Committee members will know, the clause seeks to introduce a requirement that in “important public services”, 40% of those entitled to vote must vote in favour of industrial action, and that there must be a 50% turnout. In certain important public services, that will mean that if 50% of members participate in the ballot, 80% of those voting must vote in favour in order for a strike to take place. For example, if 500 members are balloted, at least 250 members must vote in the ballot and 200 must vote yes for industrial action to go ahead.

As I have said, if the Government were serious about increasing participation, whether in important public services or anywhere else, they would be taking the measures that we are proposing. I certainly believe, and I am sure my fellow Opposition Members would agree, that the Government’s real agenda is to prevent public sector workers in particular, on whom the legislation will have a significantly greater impact, from raising legitimate grievances and opposing changes to their pay, pensions and rights at work planned in this Parliament. One might even suspect that the Government had such plans in their agenda for the months ahead.

While politics are clearly at the heart of the Bill and this clause in particular, the Government have other legal obstacles to manoeuvre. As I outlined in the debate on the last clause, many legal experts believe that treating abstentions as “no” votes for industrial action is undemocratic and potentially illegal, and conflicts with international standards. International supervisory bodies such as the International Labour Organisation state that only votes cast should be taken into account.

The next hurdle for the Government will be of particular interest to noble Friends and Members in the other place when they read the debates we have had on the Floor of the House and in Committee. The Conservative manifesto in the 2015 general election referred to making provisions regarding only “essential public services”. That was also the specific term used in Her Majesty’s most Gracious Speech, delivered on 27 May 2015:

“My Government will bring forward legislation to reform trade unions and to protect essential public services against strikes.”

In a previous life, I was involved in drafting a line in Her Majesty’s speech. Obviously, it was subject to Her Majesty’s approval, and I am glad she delivered it. A great degree of rigour and attention is paid to the specific wording, so that Her Majesty feels confident with it and it reflects the Government’s intent very clearly. That is an important point.

“Essential” is the word used in International Labour Organisation conventions, and it has a very narrow legal definition. To quote an ILO general survey, the definition is restricted to services

“the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population”.

Transport services, public transport, public education, port authorities, postal services and others all fall outside that category. Given that, I very much suspect—perhaps the Minister can enlighten us when he gets to his feet—that the Government realised that the legislation was poorly drafted and that using those words would leave it vulnerable to serious legal challenge, so they sought to row back, instead changing the wording to “important” public services, as we now see in the Bill. Disturbingly, those public services are to be defined by the Secretary of State in as yet unseen secondary legislation.

A number of categories of services are referred to in the clause using very broad terms, such as “health services”. There is

“education of those aged 17 and under”,

which we discussed in the devolution debate; I do not want to go over old ground, but that causes particular issues for differing education systems across the UK. “Fire services” are referred to, as are “transport services”—in a very general sense, and we have already heard how those are excluded from the ILO definition. There is

“the decommissioning of nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste and spent fuel”,

and “border security”.

Those provisions, alongside the consultation document, are so wide that they could apply to nearly every area of publicly funded activity. One might think that the Government have taken their chance not only to ensure that they can potentially avoid legal challenges—although I think this could still be subject to one—but to draw the definition as wide as possible so that everybody would be forced into the 40% threshold. What assessment has the Minister made of whether it is predicted that the other place will still feel bound by the Salisbury convention, given that the clause clearly breaches a Conservative manifesto commitment, let alone the specific text that was in the Gracious Speech?

What assessment has the Minister made of the effect that the proposals will have on women? We have discussed that at length already, but TUC research suggests that nearly three quarters—73%—of trade union members working in important public services, as defined by the Government, are women. I imagine that Committee members will vote on the proposals shortly; does the Minister think it is appropriate that they do not yet know for certain to whom they will apply? We have to take our responsibilities as legislators in this place very seriously. We do not know what this secondary legislation is, but the Government are again saying, “Trust us, trust us. We’ll be all right. We’re going to put this stuff down and you’ll be fine with it.” That is not acceptable. The Bill has been scheduled for some time; the Government have had plenty of time to introduce the regulations and they have not. What we know for certain, as I said, is that the proposals will impact on public policy areas that are wholly devolved, and that will have the implications we have discussed.

At this stage, it is also important to challenge one particular myth that is being peddled by those in favour of the Bill. It is a particular favourite of the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) who, on Second Reading, suggested that unions are required to meet a 75% threshold in Germany. For the record, that is not accurate. Some German trade unions have adopted rules requiring 75% support for industrial action among members, but those are decisions taken by the union within its own democratic structures, not imposed by the state.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that many trade unions in this country also have internal procedures whereby they will ask for a higher threshold on certain ballots for strike action in order to make sure that the result is overwhelming, and well beyond what is legally required?

[Stephen Doughty]

I agree absolutely. I think that sits alongside the comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West that the unions want to have a high turnout and that they want to be able to have as much confidence as possible among their members, because of the fact they cannot sanction members for not taking part in the industrial action as agreed. It is important to look at the German example, because statutory thresholds, as proposed by the UK Government, would actually be unconstitutional in Germany. We heard about international comparisons in the oral evidence, and the Bill, in so many respects—this is yet another one—puts us in a very serious place in terms of the international league of whether these measures restrict or infringe on long-established rights. Therefore, we will oppose the clause, because we think it is ill thought out, partisan, open to serious legal challenge, breaches the devolution settlement and will not do anything to better industrial relations.

Amendment 4 is a probing amendment that provides that the 40% threshold should only apply to those who are normally engaged “solely” in the provision of important public services or ancillary activities. We need to discuss this very important issue, and I hope that the Minister can enlighten us on it. The amendment is designed to highlight the problems that unions will face when trying to determine whether the 40% threshold applies. It is not clear whether individuals who spend only part of their time providing important public services will be covered by the 40% yes vote requirement.

Let us take, for example, education unions planning to ballot staff in a school with a sixth form, where they might be involved in the provision of education to young people of different ages. Trade union officials will find it very difficult to assess whether staff who teach both pupils aged under 17 and those in years 12 and 13 are “normally engaged” in providing “important public services”. That will be particularly problematic where teachers’ work schedules vary during the academic year. It is just one of the many implementation problems that I do not think the Government can have seriously thought through if they intend to proceed with the Bill as drafted.

Amendment 5 is also designed to encourage debate. It provides that the 40% yes vote requirement should apply to those employed in the provision of “essential public services” rather than “important public services”. As I have said, the Government’s proposed restrictions extend well beyond the definition of “essential services” recognised by the ILO. The Government claim that the proposed thresholds are justifiable because they do not introduce a complete ban—some would beg to differ—on the right to strike in “important public services”. They therefore argue that the ILO standards do not apply.

However, the Employment Lawyers Association warned the Government against introducing thresholds to services not covered by the ILO definition of “essential services” in its response to the BIS consultation on balloting thresholds. The response continued:

“ELA cautions that if the provisions”—

in the Bill and any accompanying regulations—

“are not drawn as narrowly as possible then the Government runs the risk of a challenge on the basis that the imposition of the raised thresholds infringes Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Any restrictions on the right to strike must not be greater than necessary to pursue a legitimate aim and…necessary in a democratic society.”

That is why it is important that we look at the ILO definition. It is very tightly defined, referring to public safety and so on. It is very clearly defined in terms of where things would be problematic. The Government are going well beyond that boundary. The ILO has criticised Governments who have introduced thresholds for industrial action ballots. The ILO committee on freedom of association has concluded:

“The requirement of a decision by over half of all the workers involved in order to declare a strike is excessive and could excessively hinder the possibility of carrying out a strike, particularly in large enterprises.”

The ILO has called on Governments who have imposed statutory thresholds to amend their national laws to bring them into closer conformity with the principles of freedom of association. Dare I make some international comparisons? The countries that it has gone after include Bulgaria, Honduras and Nigeria. Does this country really want to be in that territory? Not only are we going well beyond what a near neighbour in the EU—Germany—believes would be unconstitutional, but we will be putting ourselves in the league of countries that are being criticised by the ILO, such as Bulgaria, Honduras and Nigeria. That simply is not good enough.

I come now to amendment 6. The 40% yes vote requirement will apply not only to individuals directly involved in the delivery of important public services, but to individuals normally engaged in

“activities that are ancillary to the provision of important public services.”

As a result, hundreds of thousands of union members working in large parts of the private services sector are likely to be caught by the 40% threshold. The amendment would therefore delete the reference to ancillary activities. Again, it will be very hard to define and identify who is involved in such activities. The Government are clearly trying to apply the provision as widely as possible and certainly well beyond what the ILO would expect.

Further to amendment 5, amendment 9 would define essential public services in line with the ILO definition. We want the wording to mean

“services the interruption of which would endanger the life, personal safety or health of the whole or part of the population”.

We have some very serious issues for the Minister to explain. He needs to explain how these passages will be implemented. When we look at international legal comparisons, the potential impact of the measure, the breach that I referred to and the risk of legal challenge, we are experiencing many of the same challenges as we discussed under the last clause, and I hope that the Minister can explain his position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead makes a very good point. Also, as I said, the amendments encourage some clarity from the Government on the issue of timetables. I think the Minister said that—surely, they have in mind a plan. Actually, most trade unions operating in a dispute are trying to find a resolution from the start: industrial action is a last resort. We have to say that again and again. I imagine that in many circumstances there is no plan—they are hoping that management or Government, whoever it might be, will come forward with a reasonable solution through means other than industrial action to solve a dispute.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole premise of the Government’s argument about this part of the Bill comes from a belief that the unions are very top-down, imposing what is going wrong in the workplace, or what workers have a problem with? Whereas actually, the reality of industrial disputes is that problems arise from the bottom, from something that union members are not happy with, which the union officials are trying to sort out and resolve. If that fails, it is the union members that pressure for industrial action, often as a result of consultative balloting in the first place.

[Stephen Doughty]

That is exactly the point. Indeed, as with many other parts of the Bill, it looks like it has been drafted by people who simply do not understand how trade unions operate in a modern industrial setting. It is based on assertions, ideas and myths that have been created, often by the Minister’s colleagues. I remember the Minister for the Cabinet Office using some very colourful language in this area. It does not reflect actual practice and I hope, given that the Minister is trying to set out the case for this, that he will explain whether the Department has received widespread, conclusive evidence of ignorance, with people writing in saying, “We don’t understand what’s going on, the Government must legislate”. Where is the demand for this legislation, other than in the theoretical towers of Victoria Street?

With that, I seek the Committee’s view on amendment 14 and the wording of disputes on a ballot paper. Also, in the spirit of wanting to encourage the Government to foster negotiation and allow the maximum time to achieve resolution of disputes, I wish to press amendment 19, which would remove the requirement for timetables altogether, to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Trade Union Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Julie Elliott and Stephen Doughty

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Doughty]

You have not requested the Bill?

Julia Manning: No.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

Q 121 You just said that your organisation has a strong record on representing patient interests. In what way do you engage with patients? How representative are you? Are you represented across the country? How do you conduct that information-gathering exercise? How can you validate what you are saying in terms of representing people? Representation is a strong word.

Julia Manning: I agree, and right from the start it was something that we thought seriously about in terms of engaging not just with the front-line people who are doing the job and delivering services, but with those who receive them as well. The way in which we engage in all the research we do is that we have steering groups. We engage with the relevant charities. We do polling. We do a lot of one-to-one interviews with people who are either on the receiving end of services or involved in delivery. There is a lot of dialogue with people who know what they are talking about, either from a position of being at the front line of delivering services or of having received treatment.