Israel and Gaza
Justin Madders Excerpts(7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend the former Chairman of the Defence Committee is right about the malign influence of Iran through its proxies—Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis—on the situation in the middle east. We hope that Iran will cease to disrupt in the way that it does through its proxies. It may well be that the events of the weekend offer an opportunity for a reset.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
As I understand the Government’s position on the International Criminal Court, it is because Israel was not a signatory to the original treaty and because Palestine is not a sovereign state that the Government do not believe that the ICC has jurisdiction. That leads us to a place where anyone can opt out of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court at any time. That is a terrible place for the Government and for us as a country to be. If the Minister does not agree with that, will he at least agree that the letter from the 12 United States Senators to the ICC, where they said,
“Target Israel and we will target you”
and that they would ensure that
“all American support for the ICC”
is withdrawn, is not a place that this Government will ever be in?
Mr Mitchell
Of course, the Americans are not a member of the Court, whereas the United Kingdom is. The point the hon. Gentleman makes is an important one because, in this debate about these terrible events and the appalling consequences resulting from them, it is important that everyone chooses their language with care.
China
Justin Madders Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Rees. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing the debate and on his excellent, wide-ranging opening remarks. He set out the challenges we face as a country, and presented a pretty dystopian vision of the future, if we allow it to happen. I hope that we are able to collectively rise to the challenges he laid out.
The hon. Member raised a number of matters that I will touch on. I start with the refreshed integrated review, published by the Government last year, which stated:
“China…poses an epoch-defining and systemic challenge with implications for almost every area of government policy and the everyday lives of British people.”
I consider that a welcome revision to our approach. It is a pretty serious, broad statement of where we are and what we need to do. We need to recognise China’s size and influence, alongside the risks that it brings. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight made the point very eloquently that our reliance is one of those risks, alongside China’s greater aggression, its human rights record and the strengthening of its partnership with Russia; they are all potential existential threats.
In many respects, the news emerging this week on both sides of the Atlantic is a stark reminder that these challenges are here and now, and that care needs to be taken. I will take one very clear example from my own constituency, which feeds into the wider picture that has been painted today. There is a Stellantis plant in my constituency. It announced yesterday that it will be selling Chinese-made electric vehicles in Europe from the autumn, and in the UK from next year. We have a very proud history of manufacturing in this country, and indeed in Ellesmere Port, at what is commonly known as the Vauxhall motor plant, which is now owned by Stellantis. A lot of work was put in to secure the investment needed to move to electric vehicle production, which is very important for the plant, for the constituency and for the whole UK automotive sector.
I had hoped that we could lead the way in the sale of new electric vehicles, as the plan was always to expand from where we are now—from the production of vans into the domestic car market—so it is a concern that the owners are already turning to cheaper Chinese electric vehicles. It is too soon to understand the impact of that on domestic production, but surely it is not going to help. That is not to say that I want to insulate the UK from competition, but there has to be fair competition, and there has to be one eye on the future.
There is no doubt that the move to an all-electric vehicle country is going to be expensive and we should be looking at how we keep costs down, but if major manufacturers are already concluding that the best way for them to meet that challenge is to turn to Chinese imports, we are never going to have the domestic manufacturing capacity to meet domestic demand, never mind being able to continue to be the proud exporter to the rest of the world that we have always been.
As we have heard, yesterday President Biden announced he was introducing a 100% tariff on electric vehicles made in China, as well as tariffs on lithium batteries, critical minerals and semiconductors. That is a move designed to prevent cheap, subsidised Chinese goods from entering the US market. The decision was taken after a four-year review, and there are similar moves across the EU to assess the impact of Chinese imports. Since October, the EU has been investigating whether local subsidies have been helping Chinese car manufacturers undercut European-made vehicles. The investigation is due to report shortly.
I am not aware of a similar review being undertaken here. It was reported in February that the Government were contemplating commissioning the Trade Remedies Authority to undertake an investigation into subsidies, but three months on we have silence. Is the Minister able to confirm whether the Government are still looking into that and whether they will look at what the EU says if conclusive evidence of subsidies is found? We risk putting ourselves in a very exposed position. Our manufacturing capacity would be reduced, probably permanently, and we would be kidding ourselves about the race to net zero if we were reliant on Chinese imports.
Cars are just one example of our potential exposure; steel, energy, fibre optics, semiconductors, rare elements or any number of parts of our infrastructure are part of this discussion. We cannot allow ourselves to be at the mercy of one country, especially not one like China, which has what I would consider to be a ruthless focus on economic dominance. As we have heard from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, that could lead us into a very dark place indeed.
Clearly, we benefit from Chinese investment in this country. Life sciences is a sector that it is investing in heavily. After what the hon. Member has said, that needs to be looked at very carefully as well. The fact is that I could go down any street in this country and see things that have Chinese ownership: pubs, shops, restaurants, cinemas. That is probably fair enough in a global economy, but what about water companies, energy companies and nuclear power plants? I wonder how we have managed to get to the point at which our critical infrastructure is so open to influence by Chinese investors. How have we got to the point where China is a part owner in Thames Water and has significant debts to at least two Chinese state-owned banks? I think we can all see where that might lead us if international tensions rise.
Away from manufacturing, as the hon. Member mentioned, issues in cyber-security have been well documented. Indeed, there was a debate here yesterday on the dangers of social media. I absolutely agree with what the hon. Member said about the differences between TikTok and its Chinese equivalent, Douyin. From a child’s perspective, in China it certainly has a lot more educational content. In 2021 the Chinese Government enacted a law that called for the
“creation and broadcast of online content conducive to the healthy growth of minors”.
That can of course be seen as part of the wider attitude to free speech in China, but it is of interest that they obviously see that some of the content on these channels might have a detrimental effect on a child’s development, but they are more than happy for that stuff to be pumped on to our own children’s screens.
Neil Coyle
When my hon. Friend says “they”, he is talking about the Chinese Government. Does he welcome the distinction that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) made at the start of the debate between the Government of China and the people? As someone who lived in China for two years, may I make a personal statement?
(The Member continued in Mandarin.)
For those who do not know any Mandarin—I appreciate that mine is rusty—that translates as: “I like the country and I like the people. It is the Government who have caused the concerns that are the focus of the debate today. It is the politicians and the political leadership of China that is the challenge.”
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He makes a very important point—the bits of it that I actually understood. He must have seen my speech because I am about to make the very important distinction—
Justin Madders
Not in Mandarin, no—in English. There is a very important distinction that we would all make between the Chinese people and the CCP. There is no doubt that the CCP is the malign influence in all this.
On the question of social media, there is a concern that there may be an imbalance between what we see in this country and what is seen in China, and there may be deliberate reasons for that. We should certainly look at that and at the dangerous anti-western, conspiracy theory, democracy-undermining stuff that comes out from all around the world, and in particular from China.
I echo the comments made by the director general of MI5 in 2022. He said that it would be wrong for us to cut ourselves off from one fifth of the world’s population, and that we should continue to engage and work with China in a way that is consistent with our national security. But I do not think we have the balance right. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, that balance will be consistently and constantly reviewed. We need greater international resilience to international incidents. The analogy with what happened in Russia is very important, because that is a real threat that we could face in the next few years, and we do not want to leave ourselves overexposed.
As has been said, many western countries have begun to understand the risks that we face, have taken action against firms such as Huawei, and have limited the use of such technologies in sensitive and critical infrastructure. In that context, questions must now be raised about our reliance on supply chains that are controlled by China and have such a huge impact on our infrastructure.
It is clear that China holds a dominant position over global supply chains that are critical to the net zero transition. It controls a significant proportion of the rare metals necessary for lithium-ion batteries, wind turbines and solar photovoltaic modules. On the lithium-ion battery chains, China is responsible for 80% of the supply of spherical graphite, refined manganese, anodes and electrolytes, so we clearly need a co-ordinated response to that.
It feels as though we are at a very important point in global politics. We must work across the globe to deal with the many challenges that the planet faces, while at the same time protecting our national security and long-term economic interests. Taking a cautious and proactive approach to risks is central to protecting our country and its citizens. I believe that the way we approach China will be a central feature of our lives for many years to come. On every occasion that we deal with it, the question of security, economic or otherwise, must be the very first thing we ask.
Several hon. Members rose—
Global Ocean Treaty
Justin Madders Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Ms Vaz. The contributions today have been excellent. I was beginning to question my life choices when my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) started talking about whale poo, but he explained in great detail and breadth why this treaty is important and why it is rightly getting attention today. After decades of campaigning and about a decade of negotiation, it was a landmark moment when it was agreed, and there is no doubt that it will have a positive impact when it is finally ratified.
The hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) said that we need 60 countries to ratify the agreement, and as we heard, it will provide a legislative framework for the first time. That is a crucial step if we are to achieve our 30 by 30 goal of protecting at least 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030. All hon. Members present are committed to that, which is a rarity; there is great unanimity about the need for us to get on and ratify the treaty.
I have many constituents, as other hon. Members do, who asked me to take part in this debate, because they understand the importance of the ocean for protecting not just the diverse ecosystem in there but the wider planet. We have seen the effects of the failure to protect our environment in this country alone. A report from the House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee published last year noted that, in the UK,
“41 per cent of species have decreased in abundance since 1970 while 15 per cent of species have been classified as threatened with extinction.”
The fact that the Government support the treaty and are undertaking the groundwork is welcome, but there are concerns about some wider aspects of Government policy, such as the progress of the Offshore Petroleum Licensing Bill, which comes into potential conflict with the ambitions behind marine protected areas. New oil and gas beds can inflict serious harm on the marine environment. Exploration can cause oil spills, which harm marine wildlife and ecosystems. Underwater noise pollution from surveys also causes severe harm to marine mammals, commercially important fish, and invertebrates. There is also direct destruction of habitats such as deep-water sponge and cold-water corals, which form an important part of the natural cycle of our oceans.
Exploration can have a wide-ranging impact on marine life and ecosystems. The treaty is meant to limit those kinds of harms, so it is surprising that some policies seem to conflict with MPAs. Will the Minister comment on how that contradiction will be resolved? Questions ought to be raised about the place of MPAs in UK waters and the commitment to restore 70% of designated features to favourable conditions by 2042. It would be useful to know exactly what measures will be brought in to ensure that that is delivered.
We are short on time, so I will end on a positive note. The treaty is a step in the right direction, which has been decades in the making; we do not want to see more decades go by before we see the results. There are many reasons to be optimistic about where we are heading. The consensus that we have heard today is encouraging, but we have to be aware of wider Government policies. There is a lot of evidence that much more needs to be done to protect our seas—let alone the rest of the planet’s oceans. With 71% of the Earth covered by oceans, we have to pay as much attention to what is going on there as we do to dry land.
Last year, we saw record temperatures in the oceans. We cannot ignore the influence that has on the climate. The oceans absorb heat and carbon dioxide. Importantly, they drive weather patterns, the impact of which we are seeing regularly. Warming oceans also contribute to the increasing melting of ice, which causes sea levels to rise. Everything is connected. It is clear that with every passing year, the battle against climate change becomes a little harder to defeat. Protecting the oceans is a key part of that. Ultimately, it will determine whether we continue to survive as a species on this planet, which is why we really must get on and ensure that the treaty is delivered and begins to produce results.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I intend to call the SNP spokesperson at 2.58 pm.
Israel and Gaza
Justin Madders Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mitchell
The remedy for what the hon. Gentleman so eloquently describes in his question rests with Hamas and the negotiators in Qatar. If they release the hostages and a pause is agreed, that will lead to the resolution of all the points that he has so rightly made.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I have heard what the Minister said about not releasing legal advice, which is clearly disappointing for Members in this House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) has already said, the Government have issued legal advice in the past, and this is a matter of great interest to my constituents. If a country took offensive action contrary to a UN resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire, I would not need to see the legal advice because that would clearly be a breach of UK arms export licences.
Mr Mitchell
I note that the hon. Gentleman is disappointed that we will not release the advice, but I can only point to the precedent to which I referred earlier—one that has been strongly endorsed on both sides of the House.
Gaza: Humanitarian Situation
Justin Madders Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Leo Docherty
The hon. Lady makes a good point about disease. It is why a large portion of the tripled humanitarian fund of £60 million, channelled through the three UN agencies, will be focused on the prevention of contagious diseases.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
We all want the killing to stop, and if we get to a point where there is an end to the violence on a long-term basis, what guarantees can we obtain from the UK Government that the many people who have been displaced will be allowed to return and that there will be sufficient infrastructure in place to ensure that they have something to return to?
Leo Docherty
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about post-war reconstruction and the return of civilians. Of course, the UK will be at the heart of the international response that will attend to that.
Occupied Palestinian Territories: Humanitarian Situation
Justin Madders Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mitchell
In spite of the hon. Lady’s very generous comments, I cannot agree with her, for the reasons I have set out, about calling now for a ceasefire, but I hope she will feel that the intention of the Government, along with our partners, in respect of humanitarian pauses is moving in the right direction.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I understand the need for Israel to act to free the hostages and deal with Hamas, although the images we see and the number of children who have been killed can sometimes seem a very distant way away from those objectives. On the latter of those aims, in relation to Hamas’s capacity, I would like to know how the UK Government will judge whether that objective has been reached and whether we have reached a point when we say to Israel that that is enough?
Mr Mitchell
I recognise that the hon. Member is being supportive in saying that the purpose of the Israeli Government is to free the hostages and deal with Hamas. I am sure this will not be the only occasion when I come to the House to give a statement about both the humanitarian position and also the position throughout Gaza.
Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response: International Agreement
Justin Madders Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Sharma. This debate is incredibly important. It raises issues about sovereignty but also delves into far broader issues that we have touched on already.
I am under no illusions as to why the petition has received such a large number of signatures: because of what has been suggested could be in the treaty. While doing research for this debate, I found a broad range of concerns, some of which are entirely reasonable and others that are completely absurd. On the absurd side, a narrative has been created that the World Health Organisation is a body intent on world domination. Borrowing tropes from conspiracy theories, I found one website referring to the WHO as “globalists” that
“drain our resources, serve our enemies, and continue working to establish a global dictatorship over everyone and everything.”
That sentiment is clearly ludicrous, as is the reference to the WHO being owned by Bill Gates or the Chinese Government.
The reality is far more mundane than the narrative spun. The first key point to remember is that nothing has yet been agreed. The treaty is being negotiated as we speak by, among others, representatives of the United Kingdom. It cannot be viewed as being imposed on us when we are helping to develop it. It is also important to note that it was our Prime Minister at the time who was one of the signatories to the statement of intent to instigate the discussions.
Steve Brine
As a former health Minister with responsibility for the WHO, I worked with the organisation. It is supranational, but it is 100% driven by its members and we, as the second largest donor and one of its founding members, are one of the most respected members round the table, so we are designing the process. We should be proud of that. We are at the heart of that and we should submit it to scrutiny by us in this House. Does the hon. Member not agree?
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, who has a great deal of experience in this area. As a country, we are leaders in the field. We should be proud of our role in creating the WHO and fighting the pandemics that have happened in recent years. It is also the case that, as with all treaties, there is an opportunity for parliamentary intervention. That is already established, and the Government have committed that any subsequent domestic regulations would need to be passed before the treaty was ratified.
As we have already heard, we can, if we so decide, opt out, so there is no question that this is something that will be done to us. As a sovereign nation we have the opportunity to say no. Given the amount of time that this House has spent debating questions of national sovereignty over the past five or six years, would we do something that would give away sovereignty? There are important principles about parliamentary accountability that we need to bear in mind. It would be unfair to allow some of the wilder conspiracy theories to overshadow legitimate concerns about any potential infringement on our sovereignty and democracy.
On the specifics of the treaty, as I have said already, the key point to note is that it has not been finalised yet, but we do know the broad parameters of negotiations set out in the latest “zero draft” published in February. From that we can see that the guiding mission is:
“to prevent pandemics, save lives, reduce disease burden and protect livelihoods, through strengthening, proactively, the world’s capacities for preventing, preparing for and responding to, and recovery of health systems from, pandemics.”
I would be very surprised if anyone objected to that as a set of guiding principles, but it is reasonable to ask what the definition means in practice, what the procedure is for declaring a pandemic, and what safeguards will be in place to ensure individual liberty and rights are protected.
Those questions and that ambiguity have been seized upon by those who want to undermine global co-operation. They state fears that the treaty will restrict freedom of speech to the extent that dissenters could be imprisoned, that it will impose instruments that impede on our daily life and that it will institute widespread global surveillance without warning and without the consent of world leaders. In other words, some of the hallmarks of totalitarian Governments are to be combined with supercharged lockdown measures, which are all, of course, already in the power of the Government under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. Under this treaty, those things will apparently be done without our Government having a say.
If those claims had any basis in fact, we would all be rightly concerned, but they do not stand up to scrutiny. Fact checkers have consistently stated that the WHO would have no capacity to force members to comply with public health measures. A WHO spokesperson said:
“As with all international instruments, any accord, if and when agreed, would be determined by governments themselves, who would take any action while considering their own national laws and regulations.”
The idea that we would allow our citizens to be imprisoned by a third party for expressing an opinion on something in this country is absurd. It is just not going to happen. We live in a liberal democracy and I know that Members from across the House are determined to keep it that way. It is those nations that want to undermine western liberal democracies and to create disarray that are pushing the narrative that there is an unaccountable, unelected, global group of people seeking to take control of our lives.
We can both protect our values of freedom and democracy and work more closely with other countries in the face of a global threat. Those two aims can be entirely consistent with one another. Creating a global treaty is an entirely reasonable and responsible course of action. One of the most important messages to emerge from covid-19 was that we need to be better prepared for the next pandemic. We have learned that global co-operation is crucial to success, whether that is by co-ordinating measures to suppress transmission or conducting vaccine roll-outs. It took the world far too long to understand that in a pandemic no one is safe until everyone is safe.
To my mind, the question is much more about whether this Parliament and this Government are up to the task of dealing with another public health emergency in a way that ensures that democratic accountability and public confidence are maintained. As someone who spent many hours dealing with public health regulations during the covid pandemic, I think there is much to be done to improve Parliament’s role. We know that, at times, decisions had to be taken quickly, but far too often covid regulations were debated weeks or even months after they were introduced. As the pandemic progressed, I felt that no effort was being made to ensure that regulations were debated before they came into force. On numerous occasions, there was no objective reason why that needed to be case. Indeed, sometimes the rules were made publicly available on the Government website only minutes before they became law. Trying to obtain clarity about which measures, individually or collectively, were considered likely to lead to an increase or decrease in transmission rates was mission impossible.
When we were able to see the minutes of meetings of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies—in the early stages of the pandemic, we were not—there was often very little correlation between them and the measures being debated. Sometimes, there was no statement in the explanatory memorandum that the measures being put forward in the regulations had even been considered by a scientific adviser. Often, there were no SAGE minutes that stated that these matters had been considered either. Often, what SAGE recommended did not even make it into regulations.
I am sure that many of us can remember the contradictions and the confusion about some of the measures: around why an area was in a particular tier, the lack of clarity about how areas moved in and out of tiers, the decision to close pubs—
John Redwood
I am glad the hon. Gentleman agrees that we needed better parliamentary scrutiny and more options for the handling of the pandemic but, given that that is the case, how on earth does it make sense to give away powers to an international quango, which will then instruct future Ministers to do these things, with Parliament being told that it has no right to talk about it or to vote on it?
Justin Madders
If that was how it was going to proceed, I would agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not believe that is the case. Any Government Member concerned about parliamentary sovereignty and scrutiny would not have voted for the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, which has put thousands of laws into the hands of Ministers without any parliamentary accountability.
Let me return to the question of how the last pandemic was dealt with. There were other examples of decisions being made seemingly without any evidence to back them up—the decision to close pubs at 10 o’clock is a good example—and there was also the lack of coherence about why people were allowed to meet in groups of not more than six and why certain establishments could reopen and some could not. It was a fast-moving and unprecedented situation but, given the draconian nature of the regulations, we needed to be better at parliamentary scrutiny than we were. The release of the WhatsApp messages of the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), has certainly given me food for thought. Perhaps not all the decisions were made on a scientific basis.
If we find ourselves amidst another pandemic in which measures that affect people’s daily lives are proposed, this place’s ability to openly scrutinise and question Government on decisions before they are made, as well as its access to the full scientific advice, will be vital. If decisions are taken transparently and—dare I say it—if everyone is seen to be following the rules, we stand a much better chance of maintaining public confidence that the measures are necessary.
There has been a bit of talk about vaccine harms today. I do not want to be seen as unfairly critical of those who have raised those concerns. I understand that sometimes there is a deep desire for a rational explanation for the sudden loss of a loved one. I also believe that we should be able to ask legitimate questions about vaccines: it is perfectly reasonable to debate who should receive a vaccine and how often they should receive it. It is also legitimate to scrutinise Government decisions, particularly ones that impinge on individual liberty. But there is a world of difference between doing that and descending into the dark world of conspiracy theories that suggest that vaccines do more harm than good. That risks pushing people away from potentially life-saving interventions and, over the long term, damaging the public’s perception of the importance of a tool that has been used to eradicate diseases that frequently ruined lives. From smallpox to tuberculosis and polio, vaccines have saved millions of lives over the years. We cannot now abandon the importance of that work because of a few videos on YouTube. We need to be able to challenge and question, of course, but we should not ignore what decades of experience have shown us about the value of vaccinations.
The treaty has nothing to do with Bill Gates, and it is not the first step in creating a world-dominating authoritarian state. I do not believe that it will even impede our sovereignty. It will enable the combined efforts of our brilliant researchers, medics and scientists jointly to tackle the increased threat that we face from pandemics. We achieve far more as a species when we work together. The far bigger risk to our continued existence on this planet is not the so-called great reset, but a descent into paranoia and distrust, such that we avoid using our brightest and best, they end up working in silos, and they do not share their knowledge and efforts collectively. We want to avoid that. From pandemics to climate change and eradicating global poverty, we face many challenges as a species, some of which are existential. If we do not seek to work together to meet those challenges, we will ultimately all be the worse off for it.
British Council Contractors: Afghanistan
Justin Madders Excerpts(2 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Vicky Ford
The 4,600 people who have been supported to leave Afghanistan and are either coming to the UK or, sometimes, moving to third countries—sorry, Mr Speaker; I should have been clearer on that point—includes people under both ACRS and ARAP.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
What assessment has the Minister made of whether all those who might be eligible can safely and securely apply online for permission to come to this country? If they cannot do that, there has to be a fall-back position, has there not?
Vicky Ford
The hon. Gentleman is right that in certain parts of Afghanistan it is particularly challenging. That is part of the reason why we are giving a window.
Sanctions
Justin Madders Excerpts(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right. The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is looking closely at the activities of social media companies.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I am pleased to hear that the Foreign Secretary will not be cowed by letters from oligarchs’ lawyers. She will know that, no matter how distasteful we might find it and how damaging it might be to those law firms’ reputations, even oligarchs are entitled to legal representation because that is part of what makes us a free and democratic society. Does she agree that the best way to deal with these issues is to ensure that the laws are watertight in the first place? Will she assure us that she has got the best, most expert lawyers available to ensure that no loopholes can be exploited?
Elizabeth Truss
The Foreign Office is currently full of lawyers working through precisely that point.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe
Justin Madders Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Charles. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on securing today’s debate, and on the relentless tenacity she has shown in highlighting the injustice of Nazanin’s incarceration at every opportunity. I of course wish to pay tribute to Richard Ratcliffe as well: I have had the privilege of meeting him on a number of occasions, and each time he has been a picture of calm, dignity and resolve. Goodness knows what he must be feeling inside, yet despite that unimaginable torment, he has always conducted himself in a way that is a credit to himself and to Nazanin. To have gone on hunger strike for three weeks, having done so previously and suffered the agonies of it already, and knowing the damage it can do to a person, shows the level of desperation he must feel at a seemingly intractable situation in which hope can be cruelly snatched away. That must be the hardest thing of all to take.
Many of my constituents have been in touch to register their support for the release of Nazanin. Understandably, they have been moved by the plight of a mother separated from her husband and child, but they have also been motivated to contact me because of what they see as a failure of the UK Government to take decisive action. We all know that diplomacy is a fine art and that nuance is required, but there is no room for doubt here: this is an injustice and an intolerable situation, and every opportunity should be taken to right this wrong. Many of my constituents believe, as I do and as we have heard today, that more can be done. We have heard some examples of what that might look like.
The entire history of this situation does not need repeating, but it is worth repeating that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has been imprisoned for crimes that she did not commit. I use the word “crimes” with a heavy caveat: we should resist talking about this situation in terms of crimes committed, because this is not a criminal justice matter but a political one. She is a victim of the long-standing dispute between Iran and this country over the £400 million it says is owed by the UK Government. It seems to me that until we have a public acknowledgment that that dispute lies at the root of this situation, we shall struggle to move forward, so will we get such an acknowledgment today from the Minister? Will that then lead to an approach based on Nazanin effectively being a hostage, for whom a ransom is sought?
We can be in no doubt that the Government’s approach thus far has been ineffective, and in some instances counterproductive. I noted with interest that the Government will not disclose how many dual nationals currently find themselves in the same position. One can probably conclude from that fact that there are others, which prompts the question: where does this end? How many more innocent people could find themselves pawns in a game that they have no control over, and which their own Government seem unwilling to take steps to resolve? I also ask the Minister what efforts are being made to gather international support, and what other diplomatic and financial levers can be pulled to bring about a satisfactory resolution, because we cannot accept that no more can be done. We cannot accept that this is just the way it is, or that such a gross injustice can be tolerated, and the support that we are seeing from Members today shows that this Parliament does not accept that nothing more can be done.