UK Telecommunications

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for giving me advance sight of it.

I am pleased that the Government have finally set out the conclusions of the telecoms supply chain review in relation to high-risk offenders after far too long a period of dither and delay. As the Intelligence and Security Committee made clear in July of last year, this debate has been unnecessarily protracted and damaging. A decision was required urgently so that everyone concerned can move forward. Our telecoms sector, businesses and households need clarity and certainty to move forward; leaks, rumour and confusion on this simply cannot continue.

The safety and security of our critical national infra- structure is crucial. Robert Hannigan, the former head of GCHQ, has said that decisions about providers should be made on

“technical expertise and rational assessment of risk”,

and I agree. It is for the Government to consider the best expert security advice they are given, and act upon it. Ministers should have robustly investigated the risk posed to our critical national infrastructure. I appreciate the confidentiality of National Security Council meetings, but I hope the Foreign Secretary can provide a firm assurance that that is the case.

Guarantees about the safety and security of the network going forward are now absolutely crucial if Huawei is to be involved in building the 5G network. It is for Ministers to make decisions in our national interest now and going forward, and never to be held hostage by shifting transatlantic geopolitics. A rush by the Government to throw themselves into the arms of President Trump to secure a trade deal must not govern everything they do. There is a wider point here. As we assess potential risks to our critical national infrastructure, whether from Huawei or anywhere else, we should ensure that the UK network is constructed in such a way that it is in the best possible condition to withstand attacks, wherever they come from. Resilience in the network is essential, irrespective of this decision or decisions about any other 5G provider. I hope the Foreign Secretary will provide reassurance on that.

Huawei is already embedded in the 4G network, but there is a wider question. After a decade of successive Conservative Governments, we do not have our own capacity to secure our critical national infrastructure and security, rather than relying on other countries. As I think the Foreign Secretary conceded, the UK has been left to choose between just three 5G vendors. What will the Government do to support local manufacturing and our own tech sector in growing businesses that can secure our critical national infrastructure? I have heard his words today about market diversification, but they are not enough. The Government need to act.

5G will have an extraordinary impact on our day-to-day lives. It is transformational, with faster data speeds, higher capacity and faster responsiveness. The majority of our constituents now have access to a large number of smart devices. Every year that number is growing, and the 5G network will have the advantage of being able to cope with that growing capacity. 5G will shape the economy of the future. Innovative technologies of the future rely on its development, and it must progress speedily.

The Government’s original announcement that the UK would be a global leader in 5G was back in 2017. The Government also set a target of the majority of the population being covered by a 5G signal by 2027. In his statement, the Foreign Secretary committed to securing national coverage of gigabit-capable broadband by 2025. Those targets have to be met. The UK is already way too far behind in its digital infrastructure, and we need to act fast. In September 2019, about 10% of premises in the UK—3 million premises— had access to full fibre. In France, 38% of households have access. In Spain, it is 77%. In Portugal, it is 70%. It is simply not good enough. It is letting all our constituents and businesses down, and the Government have to do more.

Moving forward, I would be grateful if the Foreign Secretary responded to the following points. Given the concerns expressed by our Five Eyes partners, if Huawei is to be deemed a high-risk vendor, will the Foreign Secretary again be as transparent as he can be and make clear how the decision will not bring about risk to communication channels that are used for intelligence sharing? Will he explain how the controls on how high-risk vendors are deployed will work? How durable is the barrier between core and periphery in the 5G network, and how will that be overseen? He mentioned the Huawei cyber-security evaluation centre oversight board, and more detail on how that will work would be appreciated.

The Intelligence and Security Committee’s statement on 5G suppliers of July last year set out that the Government must assume all worst-case security scenarios and protect the network accordingly. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that such contingency planning is taking place? Finally, will he also confirm when the world-leading regulations he talked about will be brought before the House?

The public deserve a durable, secure and reliable 5G network for the future to ensure that our economy moves forward. The Government’s decision today is a small step in a very long process. They can be assured that we will hold them to account on the delivery of a secure, world-class service for all our constituents.

[Mr Speaker]

Just before the Foreign Secretary answers, and so that Members know where we are, let me just say that I will be running the statement up to 4 o’clock.

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the considered questions he raises. He is right to do so. We have looked at this issue very carefully. He expressed concern about delay, but I think it was absolutely right that, on such a sensitive decision with such a range of complex considerations, from commercial and infrastructure to security, we took the time to get this right. He called for an objective and rigorous analysis; that is precisely what has gone into this decision through the telecoms supply chain review, the analysis of the National Cyber Security Centre, and the other work that has been done, including by the Huawei cyber security evaluation centre oversight board. As a result, we have a greater level of insight into the challenges and the opportunities relating to 5G—in particular the challenges in relation to high-risk vendors—than any jurisdiction in the world.

The hon. Gentleman asked about intelligence considerations. GCHQ has confirmed categorically that how we construct our 5G and full-fibre public telecoms networks has nothing to do with how we will share classified data. Intelligence sharing will not be put at risk—and will never be put at risk by this Government. It is worth saying that high-risk vendors never have been, and never will be, in our most sensitive networks. He will have heard the public remarks by Andrew Parker, the head of MI5, who said that he has no reason to think the UK’s intelligence-sharing relationship with the US will be impacted, and that the Five Eyes intelligence relationship was the strongest they have ever seen.

The hon. Gentleman asked a range of other questions. The reality is that the decision we are taking today allows us to build on what will be one of the toughest regimes in the world, protecting, and providing the right balance on the protection of, our 5G infrastructure. As I set out in the statement, the Government recognise the imperative to diversify supply. That will involve UK operators making sure that more challengers can come into the market place. It could well involve—this is something we will want to look at—international co-operation with like-minded, close partners, so that we avoid ever having that shortfall of competition and diversity of supply in this country.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the ambitious delivery of the 5G network and full-fibre broadband. That is precisely why we had to undertake rigorous analysis and take the time to get the decision right, and why it is so important to take the right decision, which is what the Government are doing today.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about enforcement. The initial approach will be through guidance, as I explained in my statement. We are committed to bringing forward legislation as soon as possible, but we will make sure we have the robust enforcement to go with the rigorous regime that I set out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I mentioned the approach that the Government will take in relation to the regulatory approach, but the figure of 35%, which will be set down in law, will be able to be amended and revised, so the Government will always have the tools to allow us flexibility to address the risks to 5G and to our infrastructure more generally.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Imran Ahmad Khan.

[Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)]

I was going to ask a question that has now been asked by another hon. Member.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call David Morris.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

When we go to China, we are told by the Foreign Office that if we take a phone with us, it should be a burner phone that we can get rid of afterwards, because it will be hacked. We are also told to do that by the embassy in China. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that we are utilising Huawei’s technology but not its services, whether clandestine or otherwise?

Iran

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She raises a very important point. The reality is that the international norms that reflect, recognise and call for the safeguarding of peaceful protest apply across the board. We do make those points to our Iranian partners, but, of course, there is a very clear obligation under the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations about the way that ambassadors and diplomatic staff are treated. This is crucial, not least because if we cannot have confidence that our diplomatic staff and missions are respected, we cannot engage in the kind of diplomacy that we need to charter a peaceful way forward.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Sir Iain Duncan Smith. [Interruption.] Sir Iain?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Sorry, I did not hear you, Mr Speaker. I will not give up that opportunity.

First, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) on securing this urgent question, and my right hon. Friend at the Dispatch Box on his calm and reassuring manner throughout this period? Notwithstanding that, I would like to ask a question. From the moment that we negotiated that deal and the west offered an olive branch to Iran, our expectations have never really been met. Iran shows the face that it wishes to show to the west, but underneath it, it has gone on not de-escalating, but escalating the violence. Whether it is in Syria, all the way down to the Houthis, it has done nothing else but use its money to provoke violence and escalate trouble and war. My question to my right hon. Friend is this: at which point do we really get the idea that this regime is not displaying a peaceful nature and is not going to give up on any of its opportunities and that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, like many others, is being held as a hostage? When do we decide that, actually, the people of Iran do not want this organisation any more and that we want to support them?

Oral Answers to Questions

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Stephenson]

May I thank the hon. Gentleman for the tireless work that he does for his constituency and for the family in question? We are not always able to resolve cases as satisfactorily as we have resolved this one, but we will always try everything that we can to help British citizens in trouble abroad.

[Mr Speaker]

Can we have three quick questions?

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I, too, welcome you to your place, Mr Speaker. My constituents, Julie Pearson and Kirsty Maxwell, died abroad. They were taken far too soon in suspicious circumstances. I have asked questions of two Prime Ministers and met several Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers, and I could not get them the help that they needed, so I set up an all-party group on consular services and deaths abroad. Sixty families gave evidence in hours of harrowing experiences. Ninety two recommendations were made. It is clear that there is a cultural problem stemming from lack of funding. The officers who are trying to help these families abroad do not have the resources or training. Will the Minister read my report and, most of all, will he apologise to the families that we have met across all our constituencies who have been let down by the FCO?

[Andrew Stephenson]

I am reading the hon. Lady’s report, and, unfortunately, I find it rather one-sided. I know that my predecessor agreed to meet the all-party group, but the meeting never took place because a date was never arranged. That was not because my predecessor did not try to get that arranged. I have agreed with the hon. Lady to meet the APPG, but, again, that meeting has never happened, so rather than publishing one-sided reports, I wish that she and the members of that APPG actually worked with the Foreign Office, which has some incredible staff, dealing with some very serious incidents across the world. Last year, there were 4,000 deaths of British nationals overseas. We will always look at what more we can do and implement many of the Victims’ Commissioner’s recommendations and work with other non-governmental organisations to improve our service for people who die abroad. I only wish that we could have a more constructive approach from the all-party group.

[Mr Speaker]

Two short questions and two quick answers.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Llongyfarchiadau, Mr Speaker—congratulations. May I be the first to say that to you in Welsh?

I thank the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa for the efforts he has made on behalf of my constituent Luke Symons, who is held captive by the Houthis in Yemen, where no consular services are available—for obvious reasons. I urge the FCO not to take its eye off the ball during the election period, and to continue all efforts to get his release.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Questions are now over, but may I tell anyone standing that their name will be down for next time as a matter of urgency? Let us get the priorities working correctly.

Intelligence and Security Committee Report on Russia

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Commons Chamber

[Christopher Pincher]

As ever, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, though he will appreciate that I cannot be responsible for the paranoid fantasies of Opposition Members. I can only say that the report was received by the Government on 17 October. It is not unusual for such reports to take six weeks to turn around or for a Government response to take anywhere between three and four weeks. Given the circumstances—given all the other things going on—I am not surprised the report is taking a little time to turn around. That does not mean it is being suppressed or withheld in any way; it simply means it is being properly considered.

[Mr Speaker]

I call David Hanson.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—and congratulations.

As a Labour member of the ISC, I support the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the Chair of the Committee, and share his concerns. The security services have cleared our report, the Cabinet Office has cleared our report, and we have made recommendations to the Prime Minister. Since receiving the report, has the Prime Minister read it, and has he submitted any redactions? I do not need to know what they are, but has he read it and has he submitted redactions? If not, why does he not publish today?

--- Later in debate ---

[Christopher Pincher]

I do not think the Government are being bullied. Certainly we are not prepared to be bullied. We want to make sure the report is given proper and careful consideration and that any further changes to or questions of it can be addressed. Then a properly balanced report can be published.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Stella Creasy.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—it has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it?

We all in the House will know from our email inboxes that one of the challenges facing our current politics is that people watch too much Netflix and so are convinced that there are many conspiracies. That said, given that, as ISC members have said, many foxes have been set loose—reports about Sergey Nalobin, about Dominic Cumming’s security clearance, about Alexander Temerko’s friendship with the Prime Minister, about the use of the Lycamobile offices; given that the security agencies say they are happy to see the report, which the Government have had since March, published; given the cross-party support for it to be published; and given that Earl Howe in the House of Lords yesterday said it is the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister alone who needs to publish it, does the Minister recognise that the best way to kill the conspiracy theories is to put it out in the open? Former Prime Ministers have told us that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Why has this Prime Minister closed the blinds?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Last, but certainly not least, representing the safest seat in the country I call Stephen Timms.

[Stephen Timms]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and many congratulations to you.

The Committee Chair reminds us that if the Prime Minister is unable to respond within 10 days he is required to provide an explanation for that failure. He has not provided an explanation, which, we understand, is unprecedented. Why has the Prime Minister not complied with the requirement placed upon him?

Britain's Place in the World

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer]

Let me be clear about my position. If we go down the road of having a referendum, I think that it must be between a negotiated deal and remain. When I say “negotiated deal”, I mean one that the EU would actually sign off, because I do not think it is fair to people to offer an option to leave that is not a proper option. I would go further. I would advocate that this House actually passed the implementation legislation, subject to a coming-into-force date or something like that, to show that it could be done straightaway. We would have to show that the deal had been secured with the EU and could therefore be delivered, and also that we had already put in place the means to deliver it in this place so that we could actually resolve this situation—one way or the other—within a short period of time. I now think that that is the only way to break the impasse.

I am now going to make some progress because I have taken a lot of interventions. I have outlined Labour’s approach, and it is our approach because we believe in international co-operation, upholding international law, and that we need to work alongside our closest and most important allies. Let me take just one example of that: climate change. I listened very carefully to what the Secretary of State said. This Queen’s Speech has 22 Bills—yet what was there on climate change? One mention, in the final paragraph. The climate emergency should be the issue around which our politics evolves and revolves. It is the foreign policy challenge of our time and the defining issue of global security. It should be the focus of the UK’s diplomatic and development efforts, and it, not Brexit, should have been the centrepiece of this Queen’s Speech. The fact that it got just one mention is a measure of the Government’s lack of leadership on this central issue.

This Queen’s Speech was entirely unnecessary. It is packed with Bills that the Government know are never going to get passed. It fails to recognise—let alone tackle—any of the huge challenges we face, and shows that the Government are oblivious to the need for radical change. Frankly, it is the weakest defence imaginable for the decision to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, which was unlawful and obviously unnecessary.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

There is now a seven-minute time limit on speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I agree that we should be looking forward to voter ID, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to it. People should not be scared of it, because people have to show their driving licence or some other form of ID to open a bank account. Voter ID has functioned well in Northern Ireland. We have not entirely eliminated electoral fraud in the Province, but we have gone a long way in doing so.

We are committed to the democratic process, we are committed to voter ID and we are committed to supporting the Government on the majority of their far-reaching proposals. We look forward to engaging with Ministers—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

Persecution of Christians Overseas

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There is a four-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. I ask Members to be very strict about this; otherwise, some are going to drop off the list and I do not want that to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O’Hara]

I will not give way, because of the time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

No, you will be all right. You will get an extra minute.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Okay. I will give way.

Department for International Development

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Law]

The hon. Gentleman is misinformed: the amendment was not about blocking spending on development. Furthermore, I shall develop the point—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I should just say that the amendment was not selected, so we do not need to worry about it. That might help us.

[Chris Law]

As I further develop my argument, the House will find that one of the two Conservative party leadership candidates does not share the view of the hon. Member for Stirling, although he and I do share the same view on the 0.7% target.

Let me put this into perspective: that 0.7% is 7p in every £10, as we have heard several times, or 70p in every £100. That is our commitment. When I visit schools and ask children, who are a great litmus test of where society is, to disagree with that spending, none of them raise their hand; in fact, they often suggest that we should spend more. Why, then, do the leadership candidates for Prime Minister support such brutal and callous action? For example, the one-time leadership candidate the right hon. Member for Tatton (Ms McVey) said that the UK should halve its aid spending, and blamed the Government’s failure to fund the police on their aid commitment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin]

Indeed. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of—and, I am sure, champions in Strangford—the opportunities that come through Connecting Classrooms. We will all have been lobbied by the wonderful “send my friend to school” campaign, which my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash mentioned. I love that campaign, and I wish I were in a position to announce more than the fact that we will continue our championing of the important work that is being done on education in difficult areas and refugee camps.

Another theme that came up was the importance of our being able to help with tax revenues. Experts within Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs have been able, via spending through another Government Department, to deliver huge increases in tax revenues in some countries. That is proving to be one of the very best ways in which we can spend the overseas development budget. In addition, there is the work that we have done through funding posts within the International Trade Department and the National Crime Agency. We are seeing some real benefits, with money going back to developing countries for them to spend on their priorities. Some really valuable contributions are being made.

A number of Members mentioned the CDC and the amazing number of jobs that it has created. It is important to point out that it has not invested in any new coal projects since 2012, although it does have some investments in fossil fuels. When it is making its policy, it examines whether that is the right thing to do going forward. Obviously, it will make that decision independently. We need to recognise that a lot of the developing world lacks access to energy, which is sometimes an important part of their being able to develop.

We heard about the Scotland Malawi Partnership. I always love paying tribute to that, because it is such a rich partnership. The hon. Member for Glasgow North made a sensible point about trying to map the range of different ways in which civil society links with the developing world.

My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell made a moral point about development. He mentioned UK Export Finance and some of its support for fossil fuel. He may want to raise that with the Department for International Trade with regard to some projects.

I can tell the House—I do not think this got anywhere near the media coverage that the Global Fund announcement got—that the Prime Minister also announced at the G20 that in future all our overseas development assistance will be deployed in line with our Paris commitments. That is a really big announcement that did not get much coverage, so I am pleased to be able to mention it from the Dispatch Box.

A range of other important points were made today. We heard about malaria and work against AIDS, and the number of people whose lives will be saved. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling mentioned the Chinese belt and road initiative. We do take a different approach to development—there is no question about it—but we find that there are some occasions when our development priorities may overlap, and we are open to looking at those occasions when they arise. We spend a lot of time encouraging the deployment of development assistance from China in the same kind of way that we would deploy it, for example, to multilaterals such as the Global Fund—specifically, at the moment, with the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo, it would be wonderful to see a bigger contribution to the World Health Organisation from Chinese development assistance.

If I may, I will take just a couple more minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker, but you are giving me that look, so—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Just to help the Minister, we all agreed to 10 minutes each. I have no problem with that, but the list for the education debate has just been added to, and that is what I am bothered about. I am just trying to make sure that we get equal time.

[Harriett Baldwin]

In that case, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will be very brief in summing up.

Our annual report is going to be published next week, on 11 July. That will be a very good way in which we can summarise all the different ways in which the 0.7% commitment is saving lives, making a difference to our world, and giving our children and our grandchildren a brighter future. We do this very proudly as the UK, with deep expertise and a real commitment not only morally but in statute to continue to lead in this important area.

Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54(4)).

Yemen Peace Process

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 23rd May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely) and other experienced Members around the Chamber for their comments. There is obviously a huge amount of knowledge about Yemen in the House. I hope the Minister is in a position to listen to the comments that have been made today and to act on the good suggestions that we have heard.

My starting point is that the humanitarian crisis in Yemen is one of the greatest tragedies of our time. Can the UK do more to alleviate the dreadful humanitarian situation in that country and that region?

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for supporting this debate in Yemen Week. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) on securing the debate and on the assiduous way in which he has pursued such a complex issue through the all-party parliamentary group on Yemen, which he chairs with the support of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who sadly cannot be with us as she is on manoeuvres elsewhere. All Members share their passion for peace and prosperity in Yemen, both in the short term and in respect of its long-term success.

The pressure that the APPG has brought to bear over the past four years has been something to behold, particularly the number of parliamentary questions that have been put down by our members and the number of early-day motions that have detailed every twist and turn of the process. As the bombs have rained down on the people of Yemen; as food, water and medicines have been in exceptionally short supply; as the humanitarian crisis has deepened; and as the Government have blatantly ignored our calls to stop UK-built weapons being exported to Saudi Arabia, the APPG has been there, influencing, making the case and highlighting the deficiencies of the Government. We have praised the good work that has been done where we can, but overall we have been hugely frustrated by the slow progress that has been made over recent times. The APPG has worked assiduously with the non-governmental organisations that have a presence in the country. We keep ourselves as well informed as we can. We keep in contact with Yemeni groups here in the UK and those who work every day to bring some sense of normality within the country itself.

The biggest thing for the APPG has been to support the work of the UN envoy, Martin Griffiths, and the peace process that he has put in place. Despite some setbacks, we wish him well in all his efforts, because the only solution in this dreadfully war-torn country will be a political solution. I look forward to those issues being discussed in Edinburgh and Glasgow at the inter-parliamentary conference on 20 June, which follows a similar event at the French National Assembly in Paris last November. Most of all, I look forward to Martin Griffiths’ efforts being successful. I doubt there is even one Member of this House who does not want that peace to be won for the people of Yemen and the security of the region.

I will say a bit more on the peace process later, but I will begin by looking at an issue that some other hon. Members have veered away from: the sale to Saudi Arabia of arms that are subsequently deployed in Yemen. I believe that those exports still play a significant negative role in the humanitarian crisis in Yemen. By continuing with this policy, the UK is now “out of step” with the rest of the EU member states and its position is

“becoming ever more absurd, to the point where Jeremy Hunt claimed at the end of March that it would be ‘morally bankrupt’ not to sell weapons to the Saudis.”

So wrote Anna Stavrianakis in a recent article for The Guardian.

Agreeing licences for arms sales is not the good news the Foreign Secretary thinks it is; it is a blot on our reputation. When Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Rights Watch UK are supporting a legal appeal brought by the Campaign Against Arms Trade, and when we know that many of our European counter- parts have not fallen into the arms trade trap, it is clear that a serious message on arms sales is not getting through to the most senior levels of our Government—a Government who have the power to stop or suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia until Yemen is firmly on a path to peace and stability.

There is an even stronger warning from Amnesty International’s extensive and credible report, which has

“demonstrated that British-made weapons have been repeatedly used—and continue to be used—to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law, including possible war crimes.”

That is a dreadful legacy for any Foreign Secretary and, indeed, any Government to leave to those who come after them. Someone, someday will have to be around to clear up the mess that has been left behind.

The Netherlands, the Flemish part of Belgium and Greece have all suspended arms sales to Saudi Arabia, and Austria, Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland have put restrictive measures on exports to Saudi Arabia. In the aftermath of the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi, several EU states announced that they would suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia, including Germany, Norway, Finland and Denmark. I hope that the Minister accepts in his response that many of the countries I have just mentioned are our friends and allies. Why have they seen the light, and why is the UK out of step with them?

The Government have said many times that they are friends with the Saudi regime and that they have influence in the region. In a good friendship, sometimes one has to be a critical friend. I therefore hope that the Minister will listen to the views that have been expressed in this House and explain to his Saudi counterparts that many Members of the House are unhappy with the arms sales and the way in which British arms are being deployed by Saudi Arabia in Yemen.

Many hon. Members have highlighted the dreadful humanitarian crisis affecting Yemen. Women and children are on the frontline of that crisis. Their difficulties have been well documented by UNICEF, Oxfam, Save the Children, Islamic Relief and the Red Cross. Some of the statistics that we read are chilling: 80% of Yemenis are in need of humanitarian aid; 50% of children between six months and five years old are chronically malnourished; half the population, or 16 million people, wake up every day hungry; there have been, to date, 17,000 UN- documented civilian casualties, 10,000 of which are attributed to Saudi-led coalition assaults; 85,000 children have died of starvation; and 20 million people do not know where their food will come from in the next week.

Those are just numbers, and it is easy for them to trip off our tongues as Members of Parliament, but the House must recognise the lives, the families, the education and the wellbeing of those who lie behind them. While we are the fifth-largest contributor to aid to Yemen, which is to be welcomed, we are the second-biggest arms exporter to Saudi Arabia. It might be a start if the those two areas were transposed and we started putting more into aid and much less into arms sales—if, indeed, we are to have arms sales at all.

The peace process is of course where much of our hope for the future lies. As I said, I think the whole House is united in our support for the work of Martin Griffiths and Sir Mark Lowcock, whom many hon. Members have met in recent months. The UK is the penholder for Yemen in the UN, which means that we have a special role—a significant responsibility to the people of Yemen to help to lead them to a situation where they live in a peaceful and prosperous country. We support UN resolutions 2451 and 2452. I thank the Foreign Secretary for travelling to Stockholm to engage in these peace talks, but we need to do more. I also thank the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), for everything that he did in this area and the way that he kept Members informed. I hope that the new Minister will step seamlessly into his shoes and do an equally good job.

There are five areas critical to peace where the UK could do more. We need to do much more to apply pressure to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to bring about an end to this conflict and to secure peace and a lasting ceasefire. The special relationship must be made to work towards peace and stability. I would like to hear the Minister’s views on how he is working towards that. We ask that the UK stops, or at least suspends, arms sales to give a really strong signal that we are serious about a ceasefire and bringing peace to the region. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) made a good point about allowing us to find some space to rethink what our position is on arms sales. We should send a message that we want to bring peace and stability to the region. This is not a long-term position that the Government need to adopt; we just need to provide a bit of space to make sure that progress can be made.

Having a diplomatic presence in Sana’a would give a clear message that we are serious about the long-term future of the country and help to focus the international efforts to bring about an immediate and lasting ceasefire. I do not know if there are any plans to do that or if it has already been done, but it would send a very strong message to people on the ground that the UK was playing a major part and respecting our penholder status.

I hope that we can listen a lot more to the people of Yemen on the ground—particularly women—who have a crucial role to play in the future of their own country. The solutions must be found by the people of Yemen and not just done to the people of Yemen. I hope to hear from the Minister about how he would hope to encourage that sense of inclusion across communities and groups that currently operate in Yemen. I look forward his response.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I recognise that the Front Benchers usually speak for about 10 minutes, but as this is such an important debate and we do not have time pressure, I suggest 15 minutes for both sides.

Exiting the European Union (Sanctions)

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Again, the purpose of this debate is not to look at the way the sanctions are working; it is merely to set up the legal framework in which they can be allowed to work under our autonomous regime.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I do not think we are straying too far. I think it will help people to make up their mind and make a good judgment. Just opening the envelope a little does not take anything away from what we are trying to achieve.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I am not as keen as you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to open the envelope quite so far, because I do not actually deal with Burma. However, if the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) has a really good question on Venezuela, I can give her chapter and verse. The responsibilities of Ministers are geographical in some respects and thematic in others. As she knows, I am in charge of sanctions law, rather than the operation of all geographical sanctions. I do not want to risk in any way giving the House information that is inaccurate or ill-informed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

It would not be helpful to go along with American calls for, or the suggestion that there might be, military intervention. I suspect, although I do not know because I have not discussed this with the Mexican embassy, that Mexico was reacting adversely to the hints that were being given by the American Government in the last few weeks.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister specifically on the sanctions, but he might need to write to me, because I think that the way in which the debate works means that he does not get another go at the Dispatch Box. May I seek your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker? Does the Minister get another opportunity to speak in this debate?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Sure. If we have time, we will allow him to come back—of course we will—but it is in your hands as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. An accusation—a very serious accusation—has been made by the hon. Gentleman about the Government Front Bench, and, indeed, about Conservative Back Benchers: that we have gloated at the suffering of the people of Venezuela. If he is going to make such a statement—an outrageous statement—he should at least back it up with evidence, or withdraw it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I think that the hon. Gentleman has made the point that he wished to make.

[Peter Grant]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Hugo Swire]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman may well wish to move on, but he has just changed what he originally said. Can you inform the House how we can stop the Scottish National party making these wild accusations and get the hon. Gentleman either to substantiate his wild claims or to apologise to the House?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman has put forward his view and corrected the statement. The fact is that it is up the hon. Gentleman to decide whether to withdraw the comment; he has chosen not to and he wishes to carry on.

[Peter Grant]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will move on to the plight of Guinea-Bissau, which we have heard described as one of the world’s poorest countries. It is not actually a poor country. If we look at the value of drugs trafficked through that country each year, we see that the GDP per person is massive. Unfortunately, that money comes from a trade that causes havoc and distress everywhere else. Guinea-Bissau is ranked 178th out of 188 countries according to the UN human development scale, making it one of the poorest and least developed countries in the world. The average male life expectancy is now just 47 years, in a country that was once seen as a beacon for the future of African development. It has been beset by attempted military coup after attempted military coup; almost no Head of Government has held office for more than a few years before being removed, sometimes forcibly.

The European Union, with the United Kingdom’s support, has made strenuous and sustained attempts to help Guinea-Bissau sort out its economic and governance problems, but all too often those efforts have had to be abandoned because it was simply not possible to ensure that aid was going to the correct people and places, because governance had collapsed to such a degree. That is particularly tragic for a country that is already one of the poorest in the world. It is impossible to apply sanctions that do not have some knock-on effect on citizens, but we have to support the imposition and continuation of those sanctions. The sanctions themselves are not enough. They are a necessary part of what has to be a much more concerted and ongoing attempt to give the 2 million people living in Guinea-Bissau at least a decent standard of living. In the 21st century, we do not want to see life expectancy continue to be just 47 years.

I fully support many of the comments that have been made about Iran. Not that long ago, there seemed to be grounds for optimism. It looked as through that country was moving towards greater openness and democracy, with participation by all citizens, but over the past few years the situation has gone backwards very severely indeed. Iran has now gone back to the old days on human rights abuses, some of which have just been catalogued for us. We know of the desperate plight of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who has now been in prison in Iran for a number of years, and her treatment there has been utterly shocking. We can only guess at the plight of who knows how many other Iranian citizens who do not have Members of Parliament or Government Ministers, either here or elsewhere, to speak on their behalf. It is worth remembering, however, that until the 1970s Iran had a brutal dictator with whom the United Kingdom was quite happy to trade.

I want to finish by saying that although we support the use of economic sanctions in these countries, there are other countries with similarly appalling human rights records but for which to date there has been no suggestion that sanctions will be applied. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) can chunter away from a sedentary position, but I am not making a party political point, because this has been a characteristic of successive Governments of all parties. Saudi Arabia has the death penalty for homo- sexuality, yet the United Kingdom trades arms with that country. Israel, according to the UK Government, is in breach of international law, yet there is no proposal for sanctions against the Government of Israel.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. These other countries are not part of the debate. I have allowed the debate to be opened up a little, but I cannot allow us to go on a world tour.

[Peter Grant]

I conclude simply by saying that we support the continued imposition of economic sanctions against those countries that would oppress their citizens and deny basic human rights to the citizens of Myanmar, Venezuela, Guinea-Bissau and Iran. We would also like to see the UK Government applying similar sanctions and restrictions on those who oppress their citizens in other countries with which the United Kingdom seems quite happy to trade arms by the billion.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

I rise to support the Government’s statutory instrument on sanctions on Venezuela. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Latin America, and as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy for a number of countries, including Colombia, I have seen at first hand the brutality and human rights abuses that the Maduro regime has inflicted on its own citizens. Some 3.6 million of them have now fled, largely to Colombia, Peru, Chile and Argentina. I have visited all those countries over the past 12 months and seen at first hand people living in abject poverty.

I take real exception to the claim made by the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) that Conservative Members have in some way celebrated the misery of the Venezuelan people and the human rights abuses taking place in that country, which is a grotesque and untrue allegation. It is grotesque and untrue because Members on the Government side of the House know the need for this sanctions regime—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I think that the point has been made, but we need to get back to the debate. A very good point has been hammered home, but we now need to move on.

[Mark Menzies]

Let us move on with the need for sanctions against Venezuela. That regime has not entered hardship as a result of the oil price collapse; it has entered hardship because, not just under Maduro but under Chávez—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) shakes her head, as though it is all down to the oil price collapse. It is not; it is down to the fact that Maduro and Chávez played fast and loose with the constitution. They both abused their positions in order to suppress opposition, including within the press. To suggest that all this misery has been brought about by the oil price collapse is to be economical with the actualité.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Following the intervention the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), a fact that I find most harrowing is that aid lorries are now being turned away from the Venezuelan border because the Government are worried that they will lose their grip. That and the point he made exactly define an absence of humanity.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I just remind the House that we have quite a lot of other speakers?

[Mark Menzies]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hear your guidance and I know that there is much pressure on our time.

I encourage the Government to enact this statutory instrument on sanctions for Venezuela and to ensure that, while we are still a member of the EU and while we have reach through the United Nations, we ensure that the sanctions regime targets those in the military and the senior members of the Maduro and Chávez regimes who have stolen billions from Venezuela, in order to get that money back to the people where it belongs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman has virtually stolen the words out of my mouth. He is absolutely right, but my anxiety is that when we are no longer in that room, it is going to be much more difficult for the UK to secure the outcome that we want in relation to Nord Stream 2. I hope that the Government will manage to find some means of establishing a strong relationship with the European Union in that regard.

I also worry about the Magnitsky process. I hear what the Minister is saying, but I have heard two Ministers speak on this subject since the House unanimously passed measures that the Government did not really want to include in the legislation—[Interruption.] I know that the Minister put them in in the end, but I am not sure that he was the most enthusiastic Member to adopt them. He can puff out his chest as much as he wants, but he is still not going to persuade me that he was quite there with the rest of us. The point is that we still do not have those measures in place. As he has referred to the Magnitsky process, I hope that we will now manage to sort this out very quickly, not least because Bill Browder has today been told that the Russians intend to press a seventh charge with Interpol—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I did say that we could open the envelope, but I did not mean that we had to open every page of what was inside. Today’s debate is not about Russia. I have allowed a little bit of movement, but we need to get a lot more speakers in.

[Chris Bryant]

You are quite right, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am very close to finishing.

In making my last point, about Venezuela, I want to defend my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). The hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) and I agree on nearly every aspect of our relationship with many different countries in Latin America, including Venezuela. That country is perpetuating poverty for its people and its politicians have completely let the people down. They are also risking civil war and war across the whole Andean region, which is dangerous. However, in all honesty, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland was agreeing with the hon. Gentleman, not disagreeing with him, so I very much hope that they will kiss and make up later. With that, I shall finish.

UN International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We have six speakers, so may I suggest they each take around five minutes to ensure we get on to the Lords amendments in time and are not interrupted?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kerr]

I have incurred your displeasure, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I apologise for taking too long.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I did say that there were five minutes each. We are now running on to eight minutes. I am very concerned about other speakers. I do not want to introduce a time limit, but if Members cannot stick to five minutes, I will make sure they go to the bottom of the list in future. I do not want to have to do that.

[Stephen Kerr]

I will just conclude by saying that an attempt to diminish any one of us diminishes all of us.