Recognition of the State of Palestine

Khalid Mahmood Excerpts

Thursday 24th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) for securing this important debate. To have a two-state solution, we need two states. That is exactly the point of this debate. It is not a prerequisite for negotiation but a duty on the United Nations, which has ensured by a huge amount of votes that Palestine has been recognised as an observer member in its proceedings. Yet we are unable to follow the vote that was taken here in 2014 to recognise the state of Palestine, where we voted 274 to 12—a majority of 262—in favour of recognition.

In a debate in 2021, the right hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), the then Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, rejected all calls for recognition. He stated:

“The UK Government position is clear: the UK will recognise a Palestinian state at a time when it best serves the object of peace.”—[Official Report, 14 June 2021; Vol. 697, c. 21WH.]

Peace is always there for us to recognise, but we can only do that when we are able to sit down together at the same table with the same status as each other. That is what is important, and that is what we are talking about here.

It is the duty of the United Nations to look at this issue. Conservative Members have talked about the issue of elections for the Palestinian Authority and what is going on in relation to how we expedite them, and that is also an obligation on the United Nations. Until we have stability in a place, we cannot have such elections taking place, and the United Nations needs to fulfil its peacekeeping role to provide the stability for that to happen.

Finally, I will make a point about the Abraham accords, which the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) mentioned. There is no threat from any Muslim country to Israel. Therefore, it is time now for us to recognise Palestine, to recognise our responsibility and to recognise what is important, and the most important thing we have to do today is to recognise that peace can be made only when we have two people of equal status sitting at the same table.

Islamophobia Awareness Month

Khalid Mahmood Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to serve under your stewardship, Mr Dowd. Although I do not agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) has said, I thank him for securing this debate.

A huge number of people, identities, cultures and heritages celebrate their day, week, month or whatever—in particular, the black community celebrates Black History Month—which is about the achievements they have made in communities and society. I want Islam to be recognised as a positive religion. I want us to look at the holy Prophet, peace be upon him, whose message had a profound effect and changed the entire Arabian society from warring tribes into people in the worship of God. He preached moderation and social reform. He advocated social reform on many levels, including gender and racial equality, religious freedom and education for all. His efforts to this day have allowed Islam to prosper. A huge number of people were the best medical advisers. For many years, Europe used the scriptures from Islamic scholars to base modern medicine on, so there was a huge advantage in what has gone on in terms of what Islam does.

In my local community, we have fantastic mosques that have provided food banks and events to support the local community. Also in my constituency, a very good friend of mine, Raja Khan, has delivered more than 250 tonnes of food to communities. This is about promoting positive Islam. If we are to get away from people who are anti-Muslim, we must show them what is positive about us and the positive things that we do. That is really what this debate should be about. We are not here to promote negative issues or go into victimisation mode. We need to be positive. We are no lesser than anybody else. We are British citizens and we are Muslims, and we are here to stay.

Human Rights: Kashmir

Khalid Mahmood Excerpts

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I will endeavour not to be so passionate as the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). I declare my interest as the co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for India and, I believe, the last serving Member of this House to visit Srinagar and interact with the people of Jammu and Kashmir directly.

I begin with the simple premise that in 1947, the late Maharaja ceded the entirety of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir to India, so the illegal occupation by Pakistan of part of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir should cease, its military operation should go home, the line of control should be removed, and all the terrorist bases that exist on the Pakistani line of control should be ceased and dismantled.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

Can the hon. Gentleman please tell me who it was that went to the United Nations to ask for a resolution on the plebiscite for Kashmir?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for securing this Backbench Business debate.

As a son of Kashmir, with parental heritage from Kashmir, I should have been really happy that my hon. Friends had secured this debate, but when I looked at what we would achieve, I was not at all pleased. The reason I am not pleased is this: we are here for this debate on a Thursday afternoon for a couple of hours; we have just three minutes to speak because of the time that is available; and then there is the interest that is being shown on this very issue by other parliamentarians. I am not pleased because, today, there is no Whip. When there is no Whip, there is no vote. When there is no vote, we have a discussion between ourselves. The discussion has no real meaning in our proceedings. When we get up to speak on important issues such as this, it is important for us that we actually have a purposeful debate. We need to put a vote before the Government to show the strength of feeling from all of parts of this House and to show what the issue of Kashmir means to us.

I intervened on the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and asked him who took the issue of Kashmir to the United Nations. It was Pandit Nehru, the Indian Prime Minister. He did so because he knew that when Maharaja Hari Singh had to abdicate from the post, he had not acceded to either one of the countries. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) might laugh, but that is accurate.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene on him. Does he not accept that the Kashmiri Pandits, in any type of vote or plebiscite, should have the right to be considered as part of Kashmir and, therefore, those refugees who live in Jammu and the rest of the world should also have that right? Who then determines who would participate in a plebiscite?

[Mr Mahmood]

The plebiscite would be determined by the United Nations. Every Kashmiri, whether a Pandit, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh or Christian member of the heritage of Kashmir, has a right to vote in that plebiscite. Every Kashmiri of any religion, faith or creed is a Kashmiri by nature. It is important for all of us to recognise that, which is why I wanted to make that point. That is why it was important to keep article 370 and 35A, because that is what the United Nations had pushed for. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned tourism in his speech. Fantastic! Can I go to Kashmir as a person of Kashmiri heritage? My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth tried but was not allowed.

Following the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali), I think all of us should apply to the Indian High Commission for a visa to go to Kashmir. When all of us do not get a visa to do that, we should then put forward a motion to Mr Speaker and to the Lord Speaker to ensure that the Indian high commissioner is not allowed in this place at all. This is about people who continue to be subjugated by an armed force—more than half a million armoured people—in their land. Those forces subjugate the rights of women, using rape as a form of collective torture. That is not acceptable in any form of society and we should not accede to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

At this critical time in the region, with the US and UK withdrawal from Afghanistan, it is right that people understand the connections between democracy, pluralism and human rights, and the equally strong connections between fundamentalism, terrorism, insurgency and the loss of human rights.

Over the years, Pakistan has harboured Taliban leaders, and the ISI—their security service—has provided other forms of support to them and to other terrorist organisations. As Secretary of State Blinken said in a recent congressional hearing, Pakistan has “harboured” members of the Taliban, including the Haqqanis.

[Mr Mahmood]

Are we talking about the Kashmiri people or about Pakistan? This debate is about the Kashmiri people and the abuse of their human rights.

[Barry Gardiner]

Indeed, it is. I will try to ensure that the connections are apparent.

Of course, it is no coincidence that the last hideout of Osama bin Laden was in Abbottabad, scarcely a mile away from—and, some would say, under the protective shield of—the Pakistan Military Academy in Kakul. Abbottabad is just 20 miles as the crow flies from Muzaffarabad, the capital city of Azad Kashmir. As a constitutional entity—constitutional self-determination has been mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) and for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne)—the so-called Azad Kashmir, which is better known to the world as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, is not just strange, but unique. It has been given the trappings of a country, with a President, Prime Minister and even a legislative assembly, but it is neither a country with its own sovereignty nor a province with its own clearly-defined devolved authority from the national Government.

Under section 56 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir interim constitution of 1974, the Pakistan Government can dismiss any elected Government in AJK, irrespective of the support they might have in the legislative assembly. Strangely enough for an entity that purports to be a country, the constitution bars anyone from public office and prohibits them from participating in politics unless they publicly support the principle of Kashmir acceding to Pakistan. Imagine that: a country all of whose politicians can be politicians only if they say they do not want to be a country. It will therefore come as no surprise to colleagues when I say that the major civil and police administrators’ positions in AJK are held by Pakistani civil and military officers. It may also come as no surprise to them to find that the putative country has no representation in the Parliament of Pakistan. The territory’s local representatives are excluded not just from the Pakistan Parliament but from even those Pakistani bodies that negotiate intra-provincial resource allocation and federal taxes. So much for “No taxation without representation”.

Government Support for India

Khalid Mahmood Excerpts

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We stand ready to provide support in whatever form it comes. That is why we are talking to the Indian Government, asking them what support they require. We need to do that not only to understand what they require, but to ensure that what they require and what we supply are in lockstep. Given this spread of the pandemic, we are working closely not only with our Indian counterparts, but with other countries to ensure that we can co-ordinate and support those with the most urgent need.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) [V]]

I commend the support that the Government are providing promptly to the Indian people during this devastating covid surge, and my thoughts and prayers are with all those affected. Realistically, in order to tackle this issue, do we not need to start providing licences particularly for those countries on the subcontinent, where in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh there are almost 2 billion people who could be dealt with by giving them the ability to produce vaccines themselves and therefore better look after themselves and help to reduce the effects of covid very quickly? Will the Minister look at supporting the people of Kashmir, who have been under lockdown because of the situation in India for the past 18 months, so that they receive their fair proportion of the aid and the vaccines that we are supporting them with?

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We are providing support to the Indian Government, but it is for the Indian Government to decide and not for us to dictate where that support goes or how it is rolled out. Of course, as he will know, India is one of the largest manufacturers of vaccine, and those supplies are under pressure, as they are with all manufacturers. However, we will continue liaising with the Indian Government to find out what they require, and if we can match their demands we will supply it.

Press Freedom and Safety of Protesters: India

Khalid Mahmood Excerpts

Monday 8th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) [V]]

Thank you for your stewardship of this first hybrid meeting of Westminster Hall, Mr Stringer. We are addressing a critical issue. This is the largest trade dispute in the world at the moment, and it is not just about people having a deal to be able to survive; it is about their livelihoods.

Huge numbers of farmers have committed suicide. Those with small shareholdings of up to five acres will suffer hugely under this law change, which is not about looking after the welfare of farmers in India, who are by and large one of the most downtrodden communities across the whole of Indian culture, because of the work that they do with their hands and the fact that the whole family has to be involved. When they have sought a peaceful change to the legislation, the Indian Government have abused them and delivered lathi charges—charges by the police with batons of wood. They hit elderly people and women, not seeing who was there. By and large, the farmers have been peaceful. Some individuals from outside the movement have tried to instigate violence, but that has been condemned by the farmers’ unions.

The dispute is about livelihoods. It should not be treated in a way that disregards all of the issues that the farmers wish to raise in Parliament. The dispute could have been finished quite easily. It did not need to go on for the 100 days that it has gone on for now. The Government must listen, but they have chosen not to. They should work with these poor farmers, but they have chosen not to. They have taken a belligerent attitude towards a community that provides crops for the whole of India, a community whose livelihoods support the people to eat. Some of the most impoverished people in India can get support from agriculture and the work that the farmers do. The Indian Government—

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Theresa Villiers.

Counter-Daesh Update

Khalid Mahmood Excerpts

Thursday 4th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend that it is very difficult to see a scenario where Syria returns to peace, stability and some kind of normalcy with President Assad at the helm.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) [V]]

I also pay tribute to all our armed forces, who are doing some brave work in the region. The Secretary of State has said that he is aware of fighters returning to the UK. May I ask him—if he does not have the information, he can write to me—what numbers are being charged, what numbers are under control orders and what their status is when they come back?

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. I am happy to write to him about the numbers. Obviously, anyone who returns from Syria or Iraq who poses a threat to the UK is very carefully monitored by the authorities and appropriate action is taken. Prosecutions are highly dependent on the evidence that can be gleaned, but I will write to him with more detail.

Recent Violence in India

Khalid Mahmood Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent violence in India and the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.

[The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)]

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will respond to this urgent question as the Foreign Secretary is in Turkey today.

The British high commission in New Delhi and our extensive diplomatic network of deputy high commissions across India are monitoring closely the recent violence in India and developments around the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019. The events in Delhi last week were very concerning, and the situation is still tense. The death of one protester is one too many. We urge restraint from all parties and trust that the Indian Government will address the concerns of people of all religions in India. We also condemn any incidents of violence, persecution or targeting of people based on religion or belief, wherever it happens in the world.

India has a proud history of inclusive government and religious tolerance. Its secular constitution, which guarantees equality before the law, has been an exemplar of inclusive democracy. After his re-election, I note that Prime Minister Modi promised to continue this under the guiding principles of

“together with all, development for all and trust for all”.

These shared strengths and values are central to the governance of both our countries. It is a central message of our foreign policy that societies are stronger and safer when we embrace our diversity rather than fear it.

Related to this, many people have made it clear that they have concerns about the Government of India recently signing into law the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, which expedites the path to citizenship for Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsis and Christians, but notably not Muslims or minority sects. The UK Government also have concerns about the potential impact of the legislation. It is because of our close relationship with the Government of India that we are able to discuss difficult issues with them and make clear our concerns where we have them, including on the rights of minorities.

Most recently, my ministerial colleague Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon raised these concerns about the impact of the CAA with a senior member of India’s Ministry of External Affairs on 25 February. Officials from the British high commission in New Delhi also raised our concerns about the potential impact of the CAA and the police response to the protests with the state government of Uttar Pradesh on 7 February. Our former high commissioner in New Delhi, Sir Dominic Asquith, also raised the issue with the Government of India in January, as did Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials with the Indian high commission in London.

More broadly, the UK engages with India at all levels, including union and state governments, and with non-governmental organisations to build capacity and share expertise to promote human rights for all. We will continue to follow events closely and to raise our concerns when we have them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mahmood]

I find the hon. Gentleman’s words rather facile. We have brought him to the Dispatch Box. I raised the issue with the Leader of the House on Thursday, and the Minister is here now. This urgent question concerns the sickening violence against Muslims that we have seen in India in recent weeks following the proposals in the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019. The CAA enables undocumented migrants from neighbouring countries to seek Indian citizenship, provided that they meet one condition: they are not Muslim. This is the first such law to have been passed in India since its independence. Next will come a national register of citizens, and undocumented Muslim migrants will automatically be excluded, held in concentration camps and identified for deportation.

Through such laws, Prime Minister Modi is turning a hateful nationalistic slogan into brutality. He recently said, “Hinduon ka Hindustan,” which is literally translated as, “India for the Hindus.” The CAA has generated nationwide protests by Muslims and secular Hindus, prompting politicians from the ultra-nationalist Bharatiya Janata party to demand that the sectarian hate mobs hit back. Recently in Delhi, more than 40 people were killed by mobs that attacked Muslim homes and families, but the authorities took no notice. As a result, in recent weeks, dozens of Muslims have been dragged out of their homes, burned, or beaten to death in the streets by mobs. Thousands of people have lost their livelihoods. All the while, the Indian police look on passively, and Modi cynically counts the benefits of electoral success.

For those who support India and want to see it take its rightful place as one of the global leaders of the 21st century, with a place on the United Nations Security Council, it is sickening to see such a descent into hatred and mob rule. What are the Government doing to take India off this path and to provide protection for its Muslim population? Has the Minister raised the issue with his Indian counterpart, and has he threatened to raise it at Commonwealth and UN level? If India behaves like a state with no regard for human rights, the rule of law or freedom of religion, it must urgently be made to face the consequences of its behaviour.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Syria: Security Situation

Khalid Mahmood Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I thank my right hon. Friend for those points. I was pleased that he, too, attended the Munich security conference, where I met representatives not only from the Syrian region but from the wider international community, which, as he says, takes the situation in Syria incredibly seriously. I very much regret the targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure by the regime and by Russian forces.

My right hon. Friend mentioned the history—the League of Nations. On Russia’s veto at the United Nations, there is of course countervailing pressure. It is better to have as wide representation at the United Nations as possible. The veto is part of the mechanisms put in place in 1945 at the creation of the UN to ensure that as many people as possible could be around the table, but I do not think that anyone at the time envisaged the veto being used to protect regimes such as Assad’s, which has been regularly targeting civilians and their infrastructure.

The United Kingdom is part of the small group on Syria, which includes Egypt, France, Germany, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United States of America. It is particularly important that Arab nations be represented on that small group that discusses the situation in Syria. There is a challenge, of course, in balancing the UK taking what my right hon. Friend might describe as a more active role, and the need for a sustainable solution that is agreed both by the protagonists in the region and by the surrounding nations, but we are certainly making sure that the UK voice is heard on the international stage, and that our actions are felt on the ground, particularly on the humanitarian front. Since 2011, we have been one of the largest bilateral donors, and we remain at the forefront of the humanitarian response. To date, we have committed £3.1 billion in response to the Syria crisis—our largest response to any single humanitarian crisis.

The UK is, and will remain, a powerful and passionate voice calling internationally for a ceasefire and the de-escalation of conflict in the region, both at the UN and through the small group on Syria.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I also thank the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), for securing it. I welcome the Minister to his position.

What is happening today in Idlib fills us all with horror and dismay, but it should also fill us with frustration, because it was clear that this stage of the conflict was coming. Seventeen months ago, in response to another urgent question, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), the shadow Foreign Secretary, warned us of

“the terrible bloodshed and humanitarian crisis that is looming in Idlib,”

and spoke of

“the urgency for all sides to work to find some form of peaceful political solution to avert it”—[Official Report, 10 September 2018; Vol. 646, c. 466.]

We have not seen that urgency from the international community, and now we see all the terrible consequences of that. Hundreds of thousands are being forced to flee their home; innocent civilians are being targeted by Assad’s airstrikes; there is indiscriminate bombing of jihadist-held towns and cities; and Turkey is being drawn ever deeper into the conflict—the number of its casualties continues to rise. Those are just the immediate consequences.

What does the Minister expect to happen once the Syrian Government forces are in full control over Idlib? Does he expect, as many analysts do, that the jihadists of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham will give up on their campaign of territorial control and open battles and instead commit to a long-term campaign of terrorist insurgency and guerrilla warfare? How will he and the international allies respond to that development? What action has been taken on an international level to respond to the fresh humanitarian crisis in Syria, and to ensure that the innocent civilians fleeing for their lives and from the regime’s onslaught on Idlib at least have some safety and shelter to flee towards?

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman invites me to speculate as to what might happen. I am uncomfortable doing so. This is a complicated and difficult situation, and rather than speculating, Her Majesty’s Government are trying to prevent the worst of what is already a terrible humanitarian crisis from becoming even worse. I have already mentioned the actions that we are taking at the multinational level, both in our position on the UN Security Council and within the small group on Syria, and I do not think there is much more I can add to my statement on that.

With regard to what we are doing specifically in response to the humanitarian crisis, as I said, we have already committed £3.1 billion to this. Since 2012, across Syria and the region, we have provided over 28 million food rations, over 18 million medical consultations and over 12 million vaccinations. Our aid provides life-saving support to millions of Syrians, supporting refugees to remain in the countries in the region, and enabling the host communities to accommodate them. I think there is almost certainly unanimity across the House that we need a ceasefire and de-escalation, and for the regime forces, backed by the Russians, to stop targeting civilians so that a sustainable political response can be negotiated. That remains our position, and that is what we will continue pushing for on the international stage.

Oral Answers to Questions

Khalid Mahmood Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

The 22-member Arab League and the 57-member Organisation of Islamic Co-operation have both rejected the so-called Trump peace plan, because they recognise that it has no benefit for the Palestinian people, so why do the British Government continue to support it?

[Dominic Raab]

We support it along with—the hon. Gentleman failed to mention this—the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Omanis and Qatar. They have all given statements saying that it is a first step on the road to negotiations that can resolve the conflict. [Interruption.] They put out two statements. I heard the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) chuntering from a sedentary position. The reality is that rejectionism—the vacuum that currently exists—will only make matters worse. We want to see a negotiated two-state solution. That will happen only if both parties come to the negotiating table.

Sanctions Policy and Implementation

Khalid Mahmood Excerpts

Thursday 3rd October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure, Mr Davies, to serve under your stewardship.

I thank my friend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), for raising this important issue. Since he has been the Chair of that Select Committee, he has been studious and worked very hard. Even through the so-called Prorogation, I know that he was here most of the time—I have come in and he has been here. When the Prorogation was deemed illegal, he was one of the first people in the Chamber. I congratulate him on the effort and the energy that he has brought to his work; being a Select Committee Chair is really hard work, particularly in the Foreign Affairs Committee, which has a hugely important function. I am pleased that he heads that Committee, and he does so excellently.

The UK adopts sanctions primarily through the UN and the EU, and two thirds of its sanctions regime has been driven through the European Union. Leaving the European Union will thus bring about a seismic shift in how the UK adopts, imposes and implements economic and financial sanctions. For this reason, Parliament passed the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, which provides the legal foundation for an autonomous UK sanctions policy. Since the Act became law in May 2018, the Government’s activity on sanctions has been focused on ensuring that the UK will be legally able to maintain existing EU sanctions under UK law, even in a no-deal Brexit scenario.

As the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee said, the Committee conducted an inquiry. It is important that we understand the issue of sanctions and how and where we deem them fit to apply to specific countries. Part of the sanctions framework is the use of a Magnitsky Act, which I will come to later. Both types of legislation should be applied together, as individuals are coming through international loopholes as well as using national mechanisms. We need to be able to address the individuals who have been placed under sanctions by the United Nations or the European Union, or will be placed under sanctions by us. As he quite rightly says, such people interfere with the normal wellbeing of our financial economy; they distort it. It is important for us to understand and deal with the effects on financial institutions. The hon. Gentleman has clearly explained Magnitsky powers and it is important to recognise these issues. Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian lawyer; for his efforts, he was tortured by the Russians.

As we place financial sanctions and travel sanctions on certain individuals, we must understand how such powers work and how they should operate. The hon. Gentleman also pointed out the problem of people being able to circumvent the sanctions policies that we might apply, and how they might be able to do that. The report recommends the appointment of an officer to monitor the situation, which I think is much needed, because, at the moment, we do not really think about the process of how to apply sanctions and we need to do so in a joined-up way. We need a senior responsible officer bringing the laws together and addressing the issues—considering how people use their immigration status or their financial wealth, from which country they are operating and what secondary operations are related. There must also be a clear trail examining the input into our finances; such individuals distort our finances and make it difficult for the people of the United Kingdom who are trying to behave properly to have a proper regime around what they are doing. We must look at and deal with that situation. We need to take a serious cross-Whitehall approach, as the hon. Gentleman recommends. If we do not, how we deal with sanctions and money laundering will remain fragmented.

It is also important to look at what the Labour party wants to do. Sanctions can certainly be an effective and useful tool for achieving policy objectives. For example, they can apply pressure on states and individuals that are carrying out human rights violations to alter policies and behaviour. I mention that in reference to Myanmar; the hon. Gentleman mentioned Russia. I would also add India’s current situation—I declare an interest, as I am a Kashmiri. There are issues going on there and it is important for us to be able to look at that and see how those policies affect a nation that is bringing people into subjugation. As the hon. Gentleman will understand, we have to look at where human rights and civil liberties are being abused day in, day out. We cannot allow abusers to engage in international markets via financial circumvention.

I will cut down my speech because we all need to keep to a similar length of speaking time, but I will question the Minister. Three years after the referendum, little thought appears to have gone into the consideration of the UK’s strategy and policy approach to co-operation with EU sanctions. What progress has been made in the development of a plan for post-Brexit co-operation with the EU in terms of sanctions? If the Government claim to take seriously the actions of human rights abusers, why have no individuals accused of human rights abuses been sanctioned? Sixty-six individuals have been sanctioned by Lithuania and 49 by Estonia—both countries are EU members. Will the Government set out a clear position on whether the UK can independently sanction human rights abusers while it is still an EU member state? Does the Minister agree with the Foreign Affairs Committee report that the Government would benefit from having a senior civil servant who is accountable for sanctions policy implementation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am grateful for the Minister’s speech, which recognised not just many of the ideas that I raised but many of the ideas that the Foreign Affairs Committee has debated. That demonstrates that, despite having been Chair of another Committee, he was assiduous in following the work of ours, even before he became a Foreign Office Minister.

I am also grateful to my friend the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood), who has been of invaluable support in many projects that I have done outside this place. His kind words supporting the Committee’s work and recognising the challenge that we all face, on whichever side of the House we sit, are extremely well received; I thank him for them.

The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) spoke extremely well on behalf not just of his party but of the House. He recognised many areas in which we all face similar challenges; one area that he did not mention, but could have, was the UK Government’s responsibility with respect to Scottish limited partnerships, on which he and his party have assiduously led the campaign. His speech reminded me that one reason why we are in this position in the UK is that we have the legacy of a very unusual political and economic system of absentee landlords that lends itself to foreign oligarchs in a way that many other economic systems do not.

I am particularly grateful to the Minister for speaking about the rule of law, because it is the economic underpinning of the United Kingdom. It is fundamental, and highlighting it is extremely important. That leads me on to an area that none of us mentioned, but that perhaps we should have—the challenges in places such as Hong Kong, where the human rights abuse of individual citizens could easily raise questions about Magnitsky implementations. It may also raise questions about the position of British judges on the Court of Final Appeal. After all, at what point is the defence of commercial justice reliant on civil justice? At what point does the undermining of civil rights in a territory undermine the ability of any judge affiliated to the UK—certainly a former UK High Court or Supreme Court judge—to deliver justice? At what point is that no longer possible? Maybe that is a question for another day.

The fundamental point is that the UK’s reliance on its economic markets is essential, as we know. We therefore need to look at whether the markets are not just open and fair but properly regulated with rules that are properly enforced. In the same way that the Minister’s ancestors on Her Majesty’s men of war—like their counterparts on Her Majesty’s frigates and destroyers today—implemented the rules of the sea and fought the evils of the slave trade and so many other forms of tyranny in the pirate wars from 1600 to about 1900, there is a place for a new red ensign to fly over our financial markets. Everyone should know that the people who put their money here and invest through London, Edinburgh or the UK’s markets, and the businesses that use those institutions, cannot be the human rights abusers, thieves and oligarchs who enrich themselves in places such as Moscow by raping and pillaging the people. They should know that because our markets have the best sanctions regimes to prevent any such crimes.

[Mr Mahmood]

I congratulate the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee on mentioning the Navy’s fight against slave traders. It is very important to point that out, particularly now that we are in Black History Month.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman raises that issue. It is also worth mentioning that today is the anniversary of the death of Alan Henning; I do not know how many hon. Members remember him, but he was a taxi driver with a huge heart and enormous courage who took aid to Syria. His abusers probably enriched themselves in ways that we can only imagine. One very encouraging thing that the Foreign Office is doing—forgive me if it is not quite in the sanctions line—relates to the work of the British Museum in fighting the vile trade in historic artefacts. It is clearly connected to the sanctions issue, so I hope that the Foreign Office will pick it up, although the Committee did not cover it in our report.

I thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and all hon. Members present. I particularly thank the Clerks of the Foreign Affairs Committee, whose work has been exceptional, on this and many other subjects.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered sanctions policy and implementation.