Afghanistan: FCDO Update

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Dominic Raab

Monday 6th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

These have been a painful and sobering few weeks. Had it not been for the heroic efforts of the armed forces as well as the brave diplomats and civil servants involved in Operation Pitting, many more lives would have been lost and many more people left behind. They reminded us what courage looks like. I want to put on record my thanks to them and to all those who have served in Afghanistan over the last two decades, and also to add my condolences to the families of all those killed in the horrific bombing at Kabul airport.

If more lives are not to be lost, we need some urgent clarity today. What, specifically, is the advice to people trying to leave? Should they stay put and be hunted by the Taliban, or should they make their way to a border and risk being turned back?

Could the Foreign Secretary take care of some basic issues? The Home Office phone number provided for Afghans asks people to hold on for hours, and it is still chargeable. That is pretty easy to fix. Could he have a word with the Home Secretary and get it dealt with? He was not able to tell us how many British nationals are still there, but I imagine he must know by now, so can he tell us? We know that only one security guard from the embassy got out, so what is his plan for the rest? I did a quick check before I left my office today; there are still hundreds of unanswered emails from MPs, and many of them raised that question with the Prime Minister this afternoon. How many staff are now working on this in the Foreign Office, and why has it not been dealt with? If those Members are to get an answer by this evening, can the Foreign Secretary assure us that it will be a real answer and not just a holding response?

Can we have some clarity about who is actually eligible, especially under the ARAP scheme—it is welcome that the Secretary of State for Defence has stayed for the statement—because without clarity about who is eligible, people cannot risk heading to the border? It would be useful to have a much tighter idea of who the eligible people are, particularly the special cases. What is the assurance about safe passage that the Foreign Secretary believes that he has from the Taliban? Does it apply to all those with documentation, or just to the British nationals?

I understand that the technical problems at the airport have now been overcome, and that is welcome, but can the Foreign Secretary tell us a bit more about the diplomatic progress that has been made? How, for example, does he intend to square the circle to comply with the Taliban’s refusal to allow a foreign military presence, while also ensuring that those technicians from Turkey or Qatar, or whichever other country is chosen to oversee that operation, can be safeguarded? I very much support his view that it would be wrong to recognise the Taliban as a legitimate Government, but that presents a practical challenge to the countries that are considering stepping in to oversee the airport in respect of how guarantees can be upheld.

May I just say to the Foreign Secretary that the co-ordination between the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence, despite some very hard-working civil servants on the ground who are working round the clock, is still appalling? My office is in touch with a small number of Afghan workers, for example, who have been attached to intelligence and to MI6 in recent years. They are being treated as special cases under ARAP, and many of them have been waiting for months. I want to place on record my thanks to the Secretary of State of Defence, and also to the Minister for Afghan Resettlement, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who have made themselves available to many of us at all hours and at short notice to assist with some of these cases. Their personal intervention has made a difference, although that is no substitute for a system.

Could the Foreign Secretary also clarify some comments that he made to the Select Committee? He suggested that those who had been cleared to travel as part of Operation Pitting would now have to undergo security checks before being accepted on to ARAP. Were those checks not initially done, or is he now reneging on his promise? I have to say that both those scenarios concern us greatly. These are practical issues that are within the Foreign Secretary’s gift, and the fact that they have still not been dealt with sends a strong message that he has been more focused in recent days on keeping his job than on actually doing it. I want him to prove us wrong, because a lot rides on this, including the lives of many Afghans who assisted us.

Will the Foreign Secretary say a bit more about how the UK is going to get aid into Afghanistan to those who need it? I have been in touch with aid workers on the ground, many of whom are female and who have been banned from working by the Taliban. Those aid agencies are understandably saying that they will not operate with those conditions in place, but that means that they are not operating at all. On the refugee crisis, I say to him gently that countries in the region are not hugely impressed by the Home Secretary’s decision to cap the number of refugees that the UK will accept at 5,000 when they are dealing with a far greater refugee crisis. A bit of generosity from the UK would go a long way to helping to resolve the issues at the borders.

These are immediate concerns, but we are also concerned that for a generation of young Afghans, the future that they had expected is unravelling in front of their eyes. Can the Foreign Secretary say something about how the rights of the LGBT+ community will be upheld, as well as those of religious minorities? Can he outline the measures that he intends to take to set conditions for the Taliban regime, particularly that the situation of women and girls will be the cornerstone of any future engagement?

Our intelligence has been downgraded, our diplomats and troops are no longer on the ground and the Prime Minister appeared to say in his statement just now that the risk posed to the UK was unknown. The Foreign Secretary has suggested in a media interview that we would rely on open-source intelligence. Could he say some more about that, and about the possibility that we might be in a position where we are sharing intelligence with countries such as China and Russia? Given the significant national security implications of that, the House has a right to understand the Government’s strategy on it, if there is one. This has been nothing short of a disaster, so I ask him now to turn with humility to the world and to start to repair some of those broken relationships, trashed alliances and broken promises that have reduced us to a position where we are reliant on the Taliban for permission to safeguard our own citizens and negotiating with China and Russia in our own interests? In the cold, hard light of what has unfolded over this summer, surely it is time for him to rethink his approach to the way that Britain engages with the rest of the world.

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady for what she said about the efforts of our UK forces and the cross-Whitehall teams who have delivered the biggest evacuation in living memory. She asked for specific advice, but she will understand that I am a bit reticent about giving personal advice generically. However, the travel advice that the FCDO is putting out is very clear. It has been changed to reflect the situation on the ground, and it is the right point of reference for constituents and for hon. Members around the House.

The hon. Lady asked about phone calls into the FCDO crisis centre. Since 11 August, it has handled more than 44,000 calls and we have surged 45 members of FCDO staff and 35 staff from other Departments. Since 19 August, we have answered well over 90%—93%—of the total number received, and on every day since 24 August, our call handlers have answered more than 94% of the calls that were made. Just to give the hon. Lady a sense of this, since 20 August the average wait times have been less than a minute.

The hon. Lady also asked about correspondence. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear, we will have replied to all MPs’ emails received by 30 August asking for an update by today. That will signpost them to the specific advice relevant to the particular case that they are raising. We will also respond to all the other emails that we have received from members of the public. She also made the point, as have other Labour Members, about putting them all in together, but these are different cases. The eligibility for nationality is different from the resettlement scheme, which is different from ARAP, so it is right that they are triaged to the proper decision maker. That is the point of the exercise that we are engaged in.

The hon. Lady asked about the details of the ARAP scheme. They have been published, so the details are there—[Interruption.] If she is concerned about any particular aspects of it, she should of course approach the relevant Minister. She asked about safe passage and—[Interruption.] We cannot answer her questions in the abstract to give effect to the circumstances of the cases she is referring to. She asked about safe passage. The Taliban have given us an assurance that those nationals and those who worked for us and want to leave will be allowed to leave, but like a range of other commitments they have made, we will have to hold them to that. These will form one of the early tests for the Taliban, and they will be judged by what they do rather than by what they say. The hon. Lady talks about influence, and that was the reason that we passed the United Nations Security Council resolution—we led this with the French and the Americans—that reiterated, affirmed and applied the international community’s imprimatur on that demand of the Taliban. We will now have to see whether they can pass that test.

Kabul airport is not up and running yet, but there are ongoing efforts to deal with not only its operational and technical capacity but its security conditions. For most cases, whether British nationals, ARAP or special cases under the resettlement scheme, it would be most straightforward if we can safely see Kabul airport up and running. If not, we will have to look at third-country routes out, but of course many third countries in the region are very nervous. We have had conversations with all of them, which is why I was in Qatar and Pakistan, to look at the practical arrangements for delivery.

Of course we will make sure that we check the eligibility of those who want to come to the UK, so that seats on planes go to those we want to come, those who are eligible to come and those we need to come, and we will also make sure that the security checks are in place so that we avoid the wrong kind of people coming to the UK.

The hon. Lady asked how we can ensure that the aid going into Afghanistan gets to where it needs to go. As I announced last week, we have provided £30 million for neighbouring countries to deal with refugees in the region precisely because it is better for refugees to be dealt with closer to their home, but also because we recognise the burden that will be placed on the region.

On aid more generally and the rest of the £286 million, this is another of the early tests for the Taliban. If they want to avoid the collapse of Afghanistan’s social and economic fabric and if they want aid to continue flowing, they will need to provide a safe operating environment for the UN and other agencies. I spoke to the UN Secretary-General’s special envoy, Jean Arnault, about that.

We have further meetings this week with the G7+, and I will have further conversations—I am sure I will be travelling to the region. The UK has issued a G7 paper setting out the key priorities, from counter-terrorism to the humanitarian lifeline, and it has been very well received. Working with our partners, we now have to operationalise that paper.

The hon. Lady asked about non-G7 partners. The reality is that, if we want to influence the Taliban in the most effective way possible, we need a broader caucus, particularly with regional countries that have a relationship with the Taliban, to exercise the maximum moderating influence, and that is just what we are doing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 20th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) [V]]

We have watched as the situation has deteriorated in Hong Kong and as genocide is committed in Xinjiang. The Foreign Secretary has issued statements and introduced sanctions while clinging to the absurd prospect of boarding a plane to Beijing next year to participate in a public relations coup for the Chinese Government. He is asking the royal family and senior politicians to stand by while journalists are rounded up, pro-democracy protesters are arrested and 1 million Uyghurs are incarcerated in detention camps. In October, before he was overruled by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, he said that there comes a point where sport and politics cannot be separated. When is that point?

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Lady knows that the participation of any national team in the Olympics is a matter for the British Olympic Association, which is required, as a matter of law under the International Olympic Committee regulations, to take those decisions independently. We have led the international response on Xinjiang, and also on Hong Kong. Of course, as we have said, we will consider the level of Government representation at the winter Olympics in due course.

[Lisa Nandy]

While the Foreign Secretary continues to duck the question, the Chinese Government have raised the stakes. Yesterday, he admitted that China was responsible for the Microsoft Exchange hack, which saw businesses’ data stolen and hackers demanding millions of pounds in ransom. He said that the Chinese Government

“can expect to be held to account”.

He might want to have a word with the Treasury, because just two weeks ago, at Mansion House, the Chancellor said that it was time to realise

“the potential of a fast-growing financial services market with total assets worth £40 trillion”.

While the Foreign Secretary is imposing sanctions, the Chancellor is cashing cheques. How does the Foreign Secretary expect to be taken seriously in Beijing if he is not even taken seriously around his own Cabinet table?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady, but she is wrong on two counts. It was yesterday that the UK, along with our EU, NATO and US allies and Canada, Australia and New Zealand, publicly attributed the Microsoft Exchange server attacks to the Chinese; it was not then that they took place. She is also wrong in her characterisation of the Mansion House speech. Of course, we have made it clear right across Government that we will hold the Chinese Government to account on human rights, but also on cyber-attacks or other nefarious activities, while also seeking a constructive relationship.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 15th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is right to point to the precarious situation in Afghanistan. We had long, detailed talks not just with the United States at Carbis Bay but with other allies. We had the NATO summit as well, which has been an opportunity to reinforce the need to stand by those who have stood by us in the way that my hon. Friend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee described, and to ensure that we encourage a political dialogue to avoid the spectre, or the risk, of civil war and that we bank not just the security gains from all the blood, sweat and tears that have been spent in Afghanistan, but a more inclusive Government.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the tributes paid to the brave workers of the HALO Trust and put on record our unequivocal condemnation of the targeting of a BBC journalist outside Parliament yesterday. Press freedom is under attack around the world; we must defend it here.

Yesterday, NATO recognised China as a systemic challenge to our security and the values that underpin it for the first time. While we welcome the reference to forced labour in the G7 communiqué, the failure to agree concrete measures in relation to Xinjiang was a missed opportunity to send a clear message that the world stands against genocide and anyone who seeks to profit from it. Can the Secretary of State assure us that he and the Prime Minister supported the stronger language and tougher measures that President Biden made it clear were needed, and that, despite the failure of the G7 to agree them, he will continue to do so?

[Dominic Raab]

I agree with much of what the hon. Lady said. Of course, she will know that there are varied views at the G7, including among our European partners, about quite how robust to be with China on some of these issues. She will know, because of the stance that the United Kingdom has taken in the Human Rights Council, the UN General Assembly, the United Nations and other forums, and indeed from the statements that we have put out and the sanctions that we have imposed in relation to Xinjiang, how importantly we take the issue, but the reality is that in relation to China, on this and many other issues, we need to be able to carry a broader group of like-minded countries with us. That is why the Prime Minister invited India, South Korea and Australia to join the G7 as guests, and why it is important to engage with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in the way that we have been doing.

[Lisa Nandy]

While I welcome that, if we want to carry a broader group of like-minded countries with us we need to lead by example. Does the Secretary of State regret whipping his MPs to support preferential trade deals with countries that commit genocide? Can he tell us why, last week, his Government turned down almost every single recommendation made by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee to get tough with China over forced labour in Xinjiang, and why the Minister for Exports, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), told parliamentarians last week:

“China offers more opportunity for the UK economy than perhaps any other market”?

The sheer incoherence of that approach is what, time and again, causes the Government to come up short. It gives us the absurd spectacle of Ministers standing up for human rights in the morning and then defending trade deals with countries that commit genocide in the afternoon. Will he please get a grip on that across Government, because who in the world could rely on a Government who cannot even rely on themselves?

[Dominic Raab]

I think the hon. Lady is a bit confused. Can she name a single country with which the United Kingdom under this Government is engaged on FTA negotiations that has committed anything close to genocide? Of course it is unthinkable; of course we would not do it. [Interruption.] Incorrect. What we have done—[Interruption.] She is chuntering from a sedentary position because she knows what she is saying is bereft of substance. We have imposed—we led the way in imposing—sanctions on Xinjiang. We have raised it at the G7 level. It is absolutely inconceivable that the UK would do a trade deal with any country that has engaged in genocide. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is chuntering again. It is absolute nonsense.

It is right, though, to say that we want a constructive and positive relationship, where that is possible, with China across the piece. In areas such as climate change, the hon. Lady talks a good game but does not seem to understand the elbow grease that needs to go into it. We need to have a conversation with China, because it is the biggest emitter and the biggest investor in renewable technologies, but we have demonstrated time and again that we never shrink from standing up for our values. She talks a good game; we do the business.

Belarus: Interception of Aircraft

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Dominic Raab

Monday 24th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his support for the actions that we have taken today. He is absolutely right about the threat posed to all of us as users of civil aviation and, indeed, to the international community at large, not least given that the ICAO regime is one of the most well-supported international instruments dealing with a common good that we have in the international community. He is right about the ICAO, and the UK has led the calls for an urgent meeting of the council.

I welcome my hon. Friend’s action among parliamentarians around the world. He rightly raised overflights, and he will have seen and noted the decisions that we have taken today. He also raised sanctions, and we will urgently consider further possibilities with our partners. The right thing to do is to co-ordinate to maximise our approach. He will know that we have already imposed targeted sanctions on 99 individuals and entities since the election in August 2020 and we very much led the way at that time. He also mentioned Nord Stream and other possibilities. We will consider and consult with our partners and see what further action they are willing to take.

Finally, I agree with much of my hon. Friend’s characterisation: on the face of it, the Lukashenko regime engaged in a particularly calculating and cynical ploy to force a civilian flight to land under the threat of a MiG fighter and under the hoax of a bomb alert, behaviour that is as dangerous as it is deceitful, and a flagrant violation of international law.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

After yesterday’s acts of modern piracy, it is clear that Lukashenko must now be recognised as an international threat—a danger not just to his own people but to the citizens of other countries. For a state to hijack a civilian airliner flying between two NATO allies in order to arrest a journalist is an assault on the freedom of the air and on freedom of speech. Unless the consequences are swift, robust and co-ordinated, it will create an extraordinarily dangerous precedent that will put journalists, dissidents and activists from the UK or anywhere else at risk every time they board a plane. I therefore very much welcome what the Foreign Secretary said today and, in particular, that he has summoned the ambassador and demanded the release of Roman Protasevich and other political prisoners. Those in the Belarusian pro-democracy movement are owed our solidarity and support as they fight for the right to determine their own future through free and fair elections.

I was pleased to hear the Foreign Secretary’s response when the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) asked about working with allies in NATO and the EU and through ICAO to ban flights through Belarusian airspace, to suspend Belarus from ICAO and, in particular, to block BELAVIA from operating in and out of the UK and to suspend direct flights.

I was interested to hear the Foreign Secretary say he was considering how best to ramp up economic pressure on the regime. In the space of 12 months, the Lukashenko regime has stolen an election, employed brutal repression against its own people and hijacked a civilian airliner, yet fewer Belarusian entities are sanctioned now than were in 2012. Will the Foreign Secretary now bring forward sanctions against state-owned enterprises, some of which continue to have UK subsidiaries, such as BNK (UK)? What steps will he take to stop the Belarusian Government using the London stock exchange to raise finance and sustain Lukashenko’s grip on power? Will he ensure that the UK is no longer a soft touch for corrupt elites from Belarus or elsewhere seeking to store their funds and assets, and will he consider targeted sanctions against individuals such as Mikhail Gutseriyev?

Given the apparent presence of Belarusian KGB agents on the flight, will the Foreign Secretary tell us what assessment he has made of the threat to Belarusians in exile and what can be done to disrupt any Belarusian agents who may be operating in the UK, Europe and NATO allied countries?

Some of these things are easy, and others are much more difficult, but all of them are necessary to stand up for our values and to defend our national interest. If the Foreign Secretary chooses to take a stand on this matter, he can count on our support.

Global Anti-Corruption Sanctions

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Dominic Raab

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

We warmly welcome today’s announcement. We agree that corruption is a global scourge. It costs the global economy billions every year, it sustains rotten Governments, it protects the dishonest and the criminal, it tilts the playing field against businesses that do the right thing and it denies people around the world money that belongs to them and that should be spent on our shared prosperity, our healthcare and our opportunities. As I told the Foreign Secretary last June, the absence of measures on corruption left a huge hole in the global human rights sanctions. If we want to crack down of human rights abusers, we have to follow the money, so we are really pleased to see the Government following the standard set by the USA and Canada in plugging this hole today, and we will study the regulations and the policy note carefully.

However, I hope the Foreign Secretary can assure the House today that there will be resources to support investigations and enforcement, because the current rate of prosecutions for economic crime is woefully low, as he knows. To put it bluntly, if he is serious about what he is saying today, he needs to put his money where his mouth is and ensure that agencies such as the National Crime Agency have the resources they need, allow Parliament to put forward names to be considered for designation and, as I pressed him to do last year, allow parliamentary scrutiny of who is and, crucially, who is not designated, to ensure that there is no prospect or suggestion that big money can corrupt our politics and influence the decisions that are taken. That last one really matters, because while I welcome his words today, the mass of revelations that have come to light in the last few days alone have shown a tangled network of financial interests and cosy relationships at the heart of Government that appear to send a green light to many of the very regimes that he has mentioned in his statement. We need to know that this announcement it is not just a gloss on the surface of a grubby system that underneath signals business as usual.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Saudi, but may I ask him what message it sends to the Saudi regime when he sanctions officials implicated in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi but we then find that all it takes is for the Crown Prince to WhatsApp the Prime Minister to tell him that relations will be damaged between our countries unless the path is cleared for him to buy a key economic asset in the UK, and that instead of standing up to it, he deploys his top aide to investigate? The Foreign Secretary mentioned sanctions against Chinese officials engaging in genocide in Xinjiang, but what message does it send to the Chinese Government when on Saturday we learned that a former Prime Minister could simply message the then Chancellor to ask for Chinese investment into the UK in areas of critical national infrastructure, such as energy, and could gain access, despite having been only 15 months out of office and despite this being in clear breach of the rules?

And for all the Foreign Secretary’s admirable words about Sergei Magnitsky, the UK still acts as a haven for the dark money that sustains the Putin regime, with more than £1 million in Russian-linked donations to the Tory party since the Russia report was handed to the Government, but not a single recommendation acted upon to safeguard our country in all that time. Surely the Foreign Secretary can see the problem. He signals an intent to crack down on corruption and human rights abuses by causing economic pain to those responsible, but just down the road those very same regimes can call up the Prime Minister to advance their own interests, even when those interests are at odds with the interests of the British people. The Foreign Secretary has used very strong words today, but while he is rightly pressing ahead with sanctions, he is either turning a blind eye to the real power relationships in Government or he is being played. We deserve to know which it is.

[Dominic Raab]

Let me start by welcoming the hon. Lady’s support for both the legal regime and the designations we have made today. I agree with much of her analysis on the damage wrought by corruption around the world, and I think we are at one on that. She raised the issue of the international corruption prosecutions, on which she made an interesting point. Of course, criminal prosecutions are done on the criminal standard of proof, whereas sanctions are done on the civil standard —[Interruption.] Well, she is shaking her head, but that is just a fact. One challenge we have with international corruption is with gleaning the evidence in relation to it, and one advantage we have with the sanctions regime is that it gives us more flexibility and agility to address to the hole, to which she rightly refers, that we are plugging.

The hon. Lady also asked about Parliament feeding in its views, and I think there is a role for not only hon. Members in this Chamber, but relevant Select Committees. As with the human rights regime, we are entirely open to views and evidence. Indeed, we will have to rely on that evidence in order to look at further designations in the future. She mentioned Saudi, but I am afraid that she rather confused herself, because the sanctions relating to Khashoggi were imposed by this Government and remain in place under this Government. That roundly rebuts and repudiates the point she tried to make, which was that somehow the Saudi Government were seeking to undermine the robust approach we take by political influence. [Interruption.] She makes some good points about corruption, but I am afraid she tarnished her statement with a range of political mudslinging.

I do, however, wish to address this issue relating to the Government’s response to the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report, which was published back in July 2020. It sets out multiple actions we have taken and are taking against the Russia threat, some of which I mentioned in the House today. We take action on cyber activity. We have introduced a new power to stop individuals at UK ports and the Northern Ireland border area to determine whether they have been or are involved in hostile state activity. We are introducing new legislation to provide the security services with additional tools to tackle the evolving threat. That Bill will help to modernise the existing offences. We have already implemented the National Security Council-endorsed Russia strategy and have established the cross-Government Russia unit, which brings together all of our intelligence, diplomatic and military capabilities to have maximum effect. This sanctions regime that we are introducing today on corruption is an additional tool, and we will be—[Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 20th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Russia has amassed 100,000 troops on the border with Ukraine, Alexei Navalny lies deteriorating in a prison hospital, and a NATO ally has come under attack from the same hands as those who used chemical weapons on the streets of the UK. Yet in the 18 months since the Foreign Secretary was handed the Russia report, the UK has remained a safe haven for the dark money that helps to sustain the Putin regime, the Conservative party has taken £1 million in donations from Russian-linked sources, and oligarchs are welcomed with open arms. Seriously—I have asked him this before—what accounts for the delay in implementing the Russia report? Is it repercussions from Russia that he is worried about, or is it repercussions from his own party?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady, but I have to say that that is a pretty weak attempt to weave in partisan political considerations in what is a very serious international issue. On the Intelligence and Security Committee report: we have already taken multiple actions against the Russian threat, exposing the reckless cyber activity—we have done that and she is aware of that; we have introduced a new power to stop individuals at UK ports to see whether they represent a threat as part of the hostile state activity; we are introducing new legislation to provide the security services and law enforcement agencies with additional tools to tackle the evolving threat from hostile states; and, as she knows, I will shortly be introducing an extension of the Magnitsky sanctions in relation to corruption.

Just in relation to Salisbury, it was not that long ago that the hon. Lady was campaigning for the leader of her party at the time to be Prime Minister—someone who backed the Russians against this Prime Minister who, as Foreign Secretary, galvanised the international response to the appalling attacks on the streets of Salisbury.

[Lisa Nandy]

The difference between the right hon. Gentleman and me is that I stood up to my former party leadership when they got it wrong on this issue. It is pathetic that he cannot do the same given the gravity of the situation that this country currently faces. He has had 18 months since the publication of a report that his own Prime Minister tried to block. We have had no action on golden visas, no powers to sanction corrupt officials. Up to half of all the money that is laundered out of Russia comes through the United Kingdom and, in three years since the Salisbury attacks, it is still not illegal to be a foreign agent in this country. Meanwhile we have seen the oligarchs and kleptocrats who have profited from the Putin regime funnelling money to the Conservative party. [Interruption.] He shakes his head, but it is £5 million since David Cameron became leader. His own Minister, the Minister for Asia, has had multiple donations from a former Russian arms dealer who described himself as “untouchable” because of his links with the Kremlin. If the Foreign Secretary wants to clear this up, he can clear it up once and for all: implement those recommendations from the Russia report; defend the security, the democracy and the integrity of this country; stop the gross negligence; and give us a date by which all 23 recommendations will be implemented in full.

Human Rights Update

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Dominic Raab

Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

There is no question but that this is a welcome step, and I welcome the moves by the EU today and other partners. I am sure the whole House will stand in solidarity with our fellow European parliamentarians who have been sanctioned by the Chinese Government in response. This is an unacceptable attack on democratic lawmakers simply for highlighting the horrific evidence from Xinjiang.

However, the Foreign Secretary has just read out the evidence that we have known about for years. He rightly called it barbaric, but when it has come to taking concrete steps, for years he has not listened. He did not listen to his hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) or his right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). He did not listen to us. He did not listen to the Board of Deputies. He did not listen to the World Uyghur Congress. Yet suddenly today the Foreign Secretary has discovered a new-found sense of urgency about the desperate plight of the Uyghur, despite that mounting evidence over several years. The truth is that the timing is grubby and cynical; it is designed to send a signal first and foremost not to the Chinese Government but to his own Back Benchers. It is motivated primarily by a desire to protect the Government, not the Uyghur. For all the talk of being a force for good in the world, it is only when this Government are staring down the barrel of defeat that they discover a moral centre. Only now that the US and the EU have acted has the Foreign Secretary finally moved to take this step.

I urge all Members, especially those brave and conscientious Conservative Members, to think carefully before accepting that this signals a change of approach from this Government. This week we learnt that, despite his protestations, the Foreign Secretary has been talking up a trade deal with China in private at gatherings with Beijing officials. This week, the Prime Minister launched his global Britain policy, signalling a closer economic relationship with China. Members had eagerly awaited details of the Indo-Pacific tilt; we did not dream for a moment, from the talk over the last year, that it would be a tilt towards China.

Today is perhaps the most acute example of the Government’s decade-long incoherent, inconsistent approach to the Chinese Government. On the day the Foreign Secretary finally announces sanctions on some of the officials responsible for human rights abuses in Xinjiang he is also pulling every trick in the book to stop Parliament gaining the power to block any bilateral trade or investment agreement with China based on a determination of genocide.

I ask hon. Members to pause and ponder: if this is about co-ordination, why has it taken so long? The Government could have taken co-ordinated action with the United States when it brought sanctions in July last year, or if they felt so strongly they could have moved independently from the EU, as they have done in sanctions on other countries over the last year. Where are the sanctions on officials in Hong Kong when the US took that step this week? We should be taking a leadership approach given our historical commitments in the bilateral treaty, which China is in breach of. We are signatories to the joint declaration, not the United States. Where is the tougher sanctions regime that brings corruption into scope? Why did the Foreign Secretary say at a private gathering earlier this month that he had no reason to think that we could not deepen our trading relationship with China? Why did the Prime Minister say last month that he was committed to strengthening the UK’s ties with China

“whatever the occasional political difficulties”?

If this signals a change in approach, why on earth on the same day as the Government are announcing these sanctions are they twisting the arms of Back Benchers who want to support the genocide amendment?

Today I urge all parliamentarians to stand firm: to stand with the public, who overwhelmingly support a principled stance on genocide; to stand with their consciences; and most of all to stand with the Uyghur people. After a decade of rolling out the red carpet for Beijing and turning a blind eye to human rights abuses, this is the moment when we will finally force a change in Britain’s foreign policy, live up to our values as a country and be a force for good in the world.

[Dominic Raab]

I think the hon. Lady welcomed the step, notwithstanding everything she said that followed, but let me correct some of the—frankly—false statements she made. First, she said I talked up a free trade agreement with China—

Counter-Daesh Update

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Dominic Raab

Thursday 4th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of the statement. I hope this marks the return to the quarterly updates that we were used to. It has been seven months since the last statement, and as he has shown in his update, a lot has happened since.

I want to start by restating our support for the ongoing military operation against Daesh. In particular, I pay tribute to our armed forces, who continue their brave work to defeat Daesh, train and support Iraqi forces and create the conditions for the Iraqi people to rebuild their lives and their country in peace. They deserve our full support. Given the key role of the specialist support that the Foreign Secretary just outlined, can he confirm that, when the Government bring forward the integrated review that we expect imminently, there will not be a cut in numbers to our armed forces?

Yesterday, 10 rockets targeted an Iraqi military base—the Al Asad airbase hosting coalition troops. One contractor, sadly, died in the attack and 10 British personnel were, thankfully, unharmed. What discussions have the Government had about this incident and what assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the ongoing threat to British and coalition forces?

The fight against Daesh is not simply a military conflict; it requires all the tools of our statecraft to counter extremism, to rebuild communities and to support development. The Foreign Secretary has just told us that the humanitarian response forms part of our security objectives; if he believes that, how does he square it with plans to drastically cut the development budget? UK aid is vital, and I would say indistinguishable from the security threat we face, in rebuilding Iraq to pave the foundations for lasting peace and prosperity, as well as in providing crucial humanitarian support in Syria. That is why we are so concerned about the effects of the Government cuts. The Foreign Secretary said a great deal in his statement about the important contributions that the UK has made in recent years and currently makes, but he said very little about what he plans to do over coming years. We already know that the Government’s cuts include a reduction of around £0.5 billion to the conflict, stability and security fund, which includes programmes such as the counter-terrorism programme fund and extensive activities in Iraq designed to reduce the probability of future insurgencies. Can the Foreign Secretary explain to the House why he thinks these cuts are in the national interest and how they will affect the fight against Daesh?

A record 12.4 million people in Syria are struggling to find enough food to eat and to access healthcare, with more than 80% living below the poverty line, while an unprecedented 3 million Iraqis have been forced to flee their homes due to violence, half of whom are children, and nearly 7 million are in need of humanitarian assistance. We must tackle the social and economic challenges facing people if we are to defeat Daesh, so can the Foreign Secretary today rule out cutting aid to Iraq and Syria, as he has done in respect of Yemen, and can he tell us when the replacement refugee resettlement scheme will begin?

Can the Foreign Secretary also tell us what the Government plan to do to deal with the British citizens currently in camps in north-east Syria? His recent letter to four of his Conservative colleagues seemed to suggest that far higher numbers—up to 900 people—travelled to the region than we had believed, and a significant number of those remain. This is causing tension with our allies in the United States, who have expressed extraordinary frustration at the UK’s inaction. The Foreign Secretary does not need to take my word for it; he only needs to look behind him, because there is serious disquiet on his own Benches about this issue. Our US allies believe that the global threat from ISIS will grow if this remains unaddressed. Does the Foreign Secretary accept President Biden’s case that the global threat from ISIS will grow if this remains unaddressed, and given that the Government have it made clear that they do not intend to repatriate British citizens, can he tell me what alternative approach he intends to take in order to deal with this serious security threat?

I was deeply troubled to hear the Foreign Secretary outline how children are being targeted by Daesh propaganda. Does he agree that it is appalling that British children in the UK are being groomed to join Daesh, and will he therefore tell me what steps the Government are taking to protect children from this threat?

Finally, Iran has continued to make efforts to destabilise the region, including supporting and arming militia groups in Iraq, which the Foreign Secretary referenced. What specific steps are the Government taking to counter Iranian destabilisation efforts in Iraq, and what assessment has he made of the wider threat of Daesh outside of Iraq and Syria? Does the Government believe that this threat is currently growing?

We will continue to support the Foreign Secretary and appreciate the steps that have been taken and that he has laid out today, but, with so much Government policy currently under review in terms of the future of our armed forces, foreign policy, security, defence and aid, we must hear far more about our future focused commitments to defeat Daesh.

[Dominic Raab]

May I first thank the hon. Lady for her support for the military action we are taking against Daesh? We have not always had that from the Opposition side of the House, but it is important. It is important for our armed forces to know that they have cross-party support, and it is important for our enemies to know that they cannot divide us. She asked about the integrated review. I can reassure her that that will retain its strategic focus on countering Daesh and the terrorist threat that we face. She also referred to recent attacks on coalition forces. Of course, they involve both Daesh and Shi’a militias. Our approach is to work closely with coalition forces, but the big step change that we are seeing is the reinforcement of the capability of the Iraqi security forces. We will continue to work on that, ultimately for a long-term sustainable and better future for the Iraqi people. That is the course that we need to pursue.

I totally agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of official development assistance, and about the military approach that we are taking being in lockstep with having an effective humanitarian initiative. I have read out some of the figures that show how seriously we take this, and I can reassure her that we will remain among the leading countries around the world in all our ODA, particularly in relation to Iraq and Syria, and this is well above the level that we have had under previous Governments.

The hon. Lady asked about the global resettlement scheme. That is one for the Home Office, but she will have heard the message from the Home Secretary and the Home Office, and I am certainly engaged with that to ensure that it is effective and continues this country’s proud tradition of providing a haven to those who flee persecution.

The hon. Lady also asked about foreign terrorist fighters. Those individuals who have fought with or supported Daesh should face justice, primarily where the crimes have being committed, which is in the region, where the victims are. It remains our view that a prosecution pathway is most likely to be effective there, not least for evidence-gathering purposes. When individuals return to the UK, they can and will be investigated. She will know and respect the fact that that is handled by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service independently, but we work closely with all our partners in order to achieve that. What she said about the US was nonsense. We are in lockstep with all our allies.

The hon. Lady also asked about minors. That is particularly important because of the moral duty, which we recognise. Obviously we would advise anyone against travel to Syria. There is no consular support there—certainly not the kind of regular consular service that we would normally be able to provide—as conditions on the ground make that impossible. As I have said to the House previously, we continue to work with all those concerned to facilitate the return of unaccompanied or orphan children where that is feasible with no risk to security and where it can be done practically. I will not comment on the numbers, as that is obviously sensitive, but I take this very seriously. We regard those children as the innocents of the scourge of war, and wherever it is safe and possible, we will put our protective arms around them. I hope I have addressed all the various points that the hon. Lady raised, and I reiterate my thanks for her support on military action, which is so important.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have stood up for Israel when it has faced bias and, frankly, politicised attacks in the UN and other forums. We will continue to press for the abolition of item 7, because it is the only country-specific standalone agenda item and it focuses on Israel, and that cannot be right.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

The US intelligence report released last Friday makes a clear and compelling case that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman approved the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Last year, the Foreign Secretary said of those with “blood on their hands”:

“You cannot set foot in this country and we will seize your blood-drenched ill-gotten gains if you try.”—[Official Report, 6 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 664.]

Can he confirm that he will be bringing forward sanctions against bin Salman following this report and that he now finally accepts that it is time to fundamentally reappraise our relationship with Saudi Arabia?

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Lady is a bit behind the curve here. Of course, we have an important relationship with Saudi Arabia on security, on trade and on other things, but the reality is that it was this Government, and me, who introduced Magnitsky sanctions on 20 Saudis involved in the murder under our global human rights regime—[Interruption.] We did it last July. She ought to catch up.

[Lisa Nandy]

I am, frankly, astonished; I genuinely expected a better response from the Foreign Secretary. He will not stand with the family of Jamal Khashoggi as they seek justice. He will not stand to lift a finger against the dirty money flowing into the City of London. He will not stand with our allies in ending arms sales to Saudi Arabia. He will not even defend the children of Yemen against brutal aid cuts by his own Department, even as his Government seek to sustain the conflict that they are party to. Last year, we heard him talk tough about standing up to despots and henchmen, but now he tells us that in response to this report he is not prepared to take a single action, will not stand up to corruption, will not stand against humanitarian catastrophe, will not stand up for press freedom and will not stand up for human rights. Is there a single thing that he will actually stand up for?

[Dominic Raab]

I again say to the hon. Lady that we were already right out in the lead in imposing asset freezes and visa bans on 20 of the most directly responsible. She refers to the US report. The US has not put sanctions on the Crown Prince, as she well knows. More generally, she will have seen the action that we have taken—[Interruption.] She ought to listen. On dirty money, we have already said, and I have committed to this House, that we will introduce an extension of the Magnitsky sanctions to cover corruption—[Interruption.] She is now going on to talk about Russia. The reality is that we will continue to support standing up for human rights, and I will be introducing to the House Magnitsky sanctions and extensions in the corruption space shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 19th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is right; we have taken decisive action in relation to South Africa and South America. We have also, as a precautionary measure, suspended the travel corridors and ensured that we have a system in place whereby people have to have a pre-departure negative test. The passenger locator form is backed up by increased enforcement by both Public Health England and Border Force. Of course, we have also reintroduced quarantine on arrival, with extra checks to ensure that people are resting in the home.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary had strong words about the arrest of Alexei Navalny, but he knows that those words will not be taken seriously by Moscow until the UK takes action to disrupt the networks of dirty money on which this regime depends. How many of the Russia report recommendations have now been implemented?

[Dominic Raab]

We, like the hon. Lady, are absolutely appalled by Alexei Navalny’s politically motivated detention. It is a Kafkaesque situation, frankly, when the victim of this Novichok poisoning, instead of being dealt with and supported, has been arrested. The hon. Lady will know that we have taken action, including imposing sanctions on six individuals and the State Scientific-Research Institute of Organic Chemistry and Technology. We are leading efforts in the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which is the real action that will send a message to Russia.

[Lisa Nandy]

The Secretary of State seems to be struggling with the answer, so I can tell him that the answer is none. Of 21 recommendations made 15 months ago, the Government have implemented not a single one: no action on foreign agents, no action on golden visas, and the London laundromat is still very much open for business. Can he not see the problem? For as long as the City of London acts as a haven for dark money, he can tweet all he likes, but those words will be met with nothing but derision in Moscow.

Let me ask the Foreign Secretary an easy one that he should be able to answer. We know that the laws in this country on espionage and foreign interference on British soil are not fit for purpose, so will he commit to the House today that he will bring forward legislation to fix this great big gaping hole in our defences—not in the coming months and not at a date to be determined, but before this House rises for recess next month?

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Lady raises the report that preceded the poisoning of Alexei Navalny. I am explaining to her what we are doing in response to that, which I thought was what she cared about. Not only have we introduced sanctions on the individuals and the organisation to which I referred; we led the joint statement in December, supported by 58 countries in the OPCW, calling for Russia to be held to account for what it does. If she really wanted to do something about the issue at hand, she would support and commend those efforts.

Xinjiang: Forced Labour

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 12th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

The persecution of the Uyghurs has been of great concern to hon. Members in all parts of this House. We have read the reports and heard the testimony, and it is past time to act. There must be a unified message from this whole House: we will not turn away and we will not permit this to go unchallenged. So may I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement but say to him that the Government had trailed in the media long-awaited sanctions on officials responsible for appalling human rights abuses in Xinjiang? We have waited months, and he briefed the papers that he was planning to announce this today. What has happened to this announcement, and who in government has overruled him this time? The strength of his words is, once again, not matched by the strength of his actions, and I am sorry to say that that will be noticed loud and clear in Beijing.

I was pleased to hear the Foreign Secretary acknowledge that the Modern Slavery Act is not working. The independent review was right to say that it has become a “tick-box exercise”, and we need a robust response to ensure that companies are not just transparent but accountable. But there is little in today’s statement that is new, and I am left slightly lost for words as to why he has chosen to come here today. Back in September the Government said they would extend the Modern Slavery Act to the public sector. He mentioned France, which has already gone further than the UK, with its duty of diligence law, which includes liability for harm. The European Union intends to bring in legislation next year on due diligence, which will be mandatory. Even under the new arrangements, will a company profiting from a supply chain involving forced labour have broken any laws in this country? What law would a company actually be breaking if it profited from what the Foreign Secretary called the “barbaric” forced labour in Xinjiang? If the UK really does intend to set an example and lead the way, he will have to do more than tinker around the edges. One of the best things he could do for those British businesses he rightly praised is to make the playing field level for the many British companies that do the right thing.

We warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s proposed review of export controls. If the Government are successfully able to determine whether any goods exported from the UK are contributing to violations of international law in Xinjiang, that will be a breakthrough, not just in taking robust action against China’s human rights abuses, but as a model that can be used in other countries around the world where British exports risk being misused. So we will pay close attention. He will also know that the House of Lords recently came together to pass two cross-party amendments that put human rights considerations at the centre of our trade policy. I was astonished not to hear any reference to them today. Do the Government intend to get behind those efforts to ensure that our trade policy defends, not undermines, human rights? I can tell him that I will be writing to MPs when the Trade Bill returns to this place to urge them to vote with their consciences. I hope the Government will not find themselves stranded on the wrong side of history.

We cannot allow this moment to pass us by. The Foreign Secretary was right to say that this is truly horrific, and the House is united in condemnation of what is happening in Xinjiang. Members of all parties want Britain to act as a moral force in the world. Despite today’s disappointing statement, I believe he is sincere when he says that he wants the same, but now he has to make good on his promise to back up words with real action.

[Dominic Raab]

May I at least thank the hon. Member for what she said about the approach that we are taking on export controls? She is wrong on a number of fronts, though; we certainly did not brief the papers. We have said that we would keep Magnitsky sanctions under review, and we continue to do so. Only one other country has applied Magnitsky sanctions in relation to China and specifically Xinjiang, and that is the US. We are taking targeted sanctions both through the fines that we will be legislating for under the MSA and through the stronger export controls, so what she said in that regard is not accurate. All four measures that we announced today are new. I was a little surprised to hear her refer to the EU regarding the new investment deal that it has done with China, and the suggestion that it has adopted stronger measures, which is simply not factually correct.

The hon. Member referred to the amendments to the Trade Bill, which I would like to address. The noble Lord Alton’s amendment has attracted a lot of interest. I think that it is well meaning, but it would actually be rather ineffective and counterproductive. Let me briefly explain why. It would frankly be absurd for any Government to wait for the human rights situation in a country to reach the level of genocide, which is the most egregious international crime, before halting free trade agreement negotiations. Any responsible Government would have acted well before then. At the same time, every campaigner against free trade would seek to use that legal provision to delay or halt FTA negotiations by tying the Government up in litigation that may last months—if not years—with no plausible genocide concluded at the end.

Finally, although I think it is right that the courts determine whether the very specific and, frankly, technical legal definition of genocide is met in any given situation, it would be quite wrong for a Government or for hon. Members of this House to subcontract to the courts our responsibility for deciding when a country’s human rights record is sufficiently bad that we will not engage in trade negotiations. Parliament’s responsibility is to determine when sanctions take place and with whom we negotiate.

The measures that we have announced today will ensure that both business and the Government can cater for the very real risk that supply chains—either coming to the UK or going into the internment camps of Xinjiang—are not affected, and that UK businesses are not affected. The hon. Member should unequivocally support these measures.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 24th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

Actually, we consistently showed that we are a leading, if not one of the leading countries, on aid. That will continue. We also—this will matter to the United States—indicated the increase in defence spending, which shows what a dependable ally we are. All the soundings that we have had—that I have had—with the incoming leadership show that there are huge opportunities on climate change and covid to strengthen the relationship even further.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I echo the Secretary of State’s congratulations to President Biden and, in particular, to the Vice President-elect on this historic election. However, the spectacle of democracy under attack in the United States has sent shockwaves around the globe. Even after the transition announcement yesterday, the President has continued to say that he will

“never concede to fake ballots”.

Ron Klain says that the President has “set back” the democratic norms of the United States. Does the Foreign Secretary now regret emboldening those who attack democracy by refusing to assert that all votes should be counted and that processes need to play out, or will he stand with me and the incoming White House chief of staff in defence of free and fair elections?

[Dominic Raab]

First, I warmly join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to and welcoming the historic election of Vice President-elect Kamala Harris. Frankly, the stuff that the hon. Lady said about emboldening critics of the US elections could not be further from the truth. What we have said consistently—[Interruption.] She might want to listen to the answer to her question. What we have said consistently is that the US has the checks and balances in place to produce a definitive result. It has. We warmly welcome the new Administration. We look forward to working with them.

[Lisa Nandy]

Global alliances are based on shared values: democracy, the rule of law and human rights. Human rights will be a key pillar for the Biden Administration. They rightly recognise that Yemen is the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe, sustained by US and UK support. The war has gone on for more than five years, with a dangerous rocket attack in Jeddah just yesterday. Does the Secretary of State agree with the incoming US Secretary of State, the National Security Adviser and the ambassador to the UN that it is time to end participation in, or any form of support for, the disastrous Saudi-led campaign? Will he now commit to playing the UK’s part by ending arms sales to Saudi Arabia?

[Dominic Raab]

I certainly agree with the hon. Lady that we have to pursue every effort to get peace in Yemen, both on the humanitarian side and on the political track. That is why we have been fully supportive of the UN special envoy, Martin Griffiths. I have been out to Saudi to encourage, promote and cajole the Saudis into doing the right thing. Of course, the Houthis need to move. Actually, the most important thing is a concerted regional push for a political end to this wretched conflict.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 13th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend takes a close interest in this issue, and he will know that India and Pakistan are both long-standing and important friends of the United Kingdom. We have encouraged, and continue to encourage, both sides to engage in the dialogue that is necessary to find a lasting diplomatic solution to the situation in Kashmir, and to maintain regional stability. It is, of course, ultimately for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution, taking into account the wider issues of the people of Kashmir.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary has said that the Chinese Government must accept the responsibilities that come with being a leading member of the international community, and he has rightly highlighted the egregious human rights abuses against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang. Since July, he has apparently been gathering evidence to impose targeted sanctions against the officials involved, but so far we have seen very little action. Today China is standing to be elected to the UN Human Rights Council. While I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s willingness to speak out about this issue, surely, today of all days, we should take a clear moral stance and show that the UK has more than words at our disposal. Will he confirm that we will oppose China taking a seat on that council?

[Dominic Raab]

I suspect the hon. Lady will know that the UK has a long practice, under successive Governments, of not commenting on voting in UN elections that are conducted by secret ballot—[Interruption.] Never under a Labour Government: the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) is wrong. The hon. Lady and I stand in total solidarity on the point of principle. We have unequivocally made clear to China our grave concern about Xinjiang. On 6 October, since we last met, the UK joined 38 other countries in the UN Third Committee to call on China to allow immediate and unfettered access to independent UN observers.

[Lisa Nandy]

May I say to the Foreign Secretary, who is a former human rights lawyer, that it is quite desperate and a sign of our diminished influence in the world that the UK is not willing to take a stance on this important issue? We are deeply concerned about our relations with the rest of the world. Whether it is the covid vaccine, climate change, the Iran deal, west bank annexation, NATO or Scotch whisky, the Government appear to have no influence at all in Washington at the moment when we most need it. We are told that they are now scrambling to repair the damage to relations with Joe Biden and his team. There is no greater indication of why that matters than the case of Harry Dunn. In July, the Foreign Secretary told the House he had reached an agreement with the US about immunity arrangements for Croughton annex. His repeated refusal to publish that agreement has fuelled the family’s anguish and underlined the widespread belief that his Department has chosen to side with the US Government over its own citizens. Why does he believe that neither Parliament nor the family of Harry Dunn should see the small print of this important agreement with the United States?

[Dominic Raab]

We did indeed change the arrangements, exactly as I undertook to the family and to the House. We also issued a written ministerial statement, which set out the terms. When the Labour party was in government, at two points when they reviewed the arrangements for Croughton, they did not make a WMS and they did not put into the public domain the memorandum of understanding. It has been standard practice not to do so and I think the hon. Lady knows that.

Belarus: Presidential Elections

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Dominic Raab

Thursday 24th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Let me start by thanking the Foreign Secretary for this statement and for advance sight of it. It is rare, but it matters when we agree with one another in all parts of the House. It sends a message to the people of Belarus that this whole House stands with them on their right to choose their own destiny, and to resist interference in their elections and freedoms from anywhere, wherever it comes from. That is why we believe he is right to focus support on the people of Belarus and to focus on tackling the human rights abuses—the tear gas, detentions and beatings—we have seen in recent weeks. I know he will also be as concerned as I am about reports of torture, so perhaps he will take this opportunity to reaffirm his Government’s commitment to upholding the Geneva convention. I want to pay particular tribute to those brave women who have stood up in recent days to the armed, masked men and shown the face of courage to the world. When they defend democracy and stand up for freedom, they stand up for us all and they must have our support.

We very much support the Foreign Secretary’s efforts to work with allies to impose Magnitsky sanctions on those involved. Has he had discussion with counterparts about including Lukashenko in these measures? Has he made any progress in ensuring that corruption is in the scope of the Magnitsky legislation that this House recently passed? I welcome the funding the Foreign Secretary has provided to human rights organisations, but will he tell the House what he is doing to protect academics? Is he exploring increasing the number of Chevening scholarships to Belarusians? Has he considered measures to support protesters who have lost their jobs or been blacklisted for the stance they have taken? He will know from his previous work that there is more than one way to harass, intimidate and silence people into compliance, and taking away livelihoods has always been one chief way in which dictatorships seek to silence people. I am particularly concerned about members of the arts and cultural community, more than 50 of whom have been detained, with a greater number having lost their livelihoods. What active steps is the British embassy taking to protect writers and other cultural figures, as well as others involved in the protests, from interference?

The BBC Russian service is a key source of impartial information for the people of Belarus. I am very concerned about the potential for both funding cuts to the World Service and the targeting of its journalists. So will he commit to ensuring that Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office funding for this service is protected in any upcoming spending review? What is his Department doing to support BBC journalists and protect them from attacks on them and their families? Has he had any discussions with the Home Secretary about provision for Belarusians seeking asylum in the UK? Will he take this opportunity to reiterate the UK’s support for free and fair elections around the world? I welcome his announcement about the OSCE today. Will he commit to ensure that we play our part in continuing to provide funding to uphold democracy abroad and security at home?

As the Foreign Secretary moves forward with sanctions, this underlines the importance of the UK safeguarding against the UK and our overseas territories providing a safe haven for money obtained through corruption and human rights abuse—blood money, as he called it. So what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the Russia report? The Government have been silent on that matter since it was published before the summer recess.

Finally, one of the leading figures in the Belarusian opposition council said recently that more than the prospect of detention what he fears is the prospect that nothing will change. We send a message from all parts of this House today that we stand with him and with those who are defending freedom and democracy, in Belarus and around the world.

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her statement and her support. It is powerful for all Members, on all political sides of the House, to stand in solidarity with the people of Belarus, and I welcome that support. Like her, I am appalled at the arbitrary detention and the abuse of protesters in detention, including any activity that amounts to torture or inhumane and degrading treatment. We absolutely stand for the absolute prohibition of torture, as reflected in various human rights treaties to which we are a party.

The hon. Lady referred to sanctions, and we are consider the whole range of potential individuals. She also mentioned corruption, which she will know is not covered by the Magnitsky sanctions; they deal with a slew of the most serious human rights violations, although they do cover those who might profit from those human rights abuses. I can tell her that I am looking carefully at how we extend the next step of the Magnitsky sanctions to corruption and similar types of offences—I will say more about that in due course.

In terms of money for civil society, including journalists, we have doubled that amount of money, as I explained, and will look very carefully at how it is targeted, not just to journalists, but to writers and the members of the arts that the hon. Lady described. I will not pre-empt the comprehensive spending review, notwithstanding her deft attempt, but I can tell her on media freedom that we have a campaign that we do side by side with the Canadians, which is encouraging those countries that are willing to sign up to new legislation, and also providing support to journalists who are either in detention or have litigation against them. That is progressing. We have worked very hard with the Canadians on it, and the numbers joining that media freedom campaign have grown.

Finally, the hon. Lady asked about the OSCE. I can tell her that obviously we work very carefully with our partners in the OSCE. It was the United Kingdom that pushed for the Moscow mechanism to get an international review both into the human rights abuses and the vote rigging, and we are proud of the role we play with our partners.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 8th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and our staff continue to support Mr Yuen and his family during what must be a very distressing time. I can tell her and reaffirm that the United Kingdom’s long-standing global position is to oppose corporal punishment in all circumstances and to call for the consideration of alternative sentences.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

In the last six months, the Foreign Secretary has publicly reminded Iran, Israel, China and Russia of their obligations under international law. I agree with him, so does he agree with me and with the most senior legal official in Government, who has behaved with honour and principle this morning, that when the Prime Minister briefs that he will unilaterally tear up our international obligations under the withdrawal agreement, it undermines our moral authority, harms our national interest and makes a mockery of the Foreign Secretary’s attempts to stand up for international law? Will he assure the House that he, as the Foreign Secretary, will never vote for amendments that violate our international obligations?

[Dominic Raab]

I obviously respect all the brilliant civil servants who work for us. I used to work as a Foreign Office lawyer myself. I can say to the hon. Lady that I am surprised she would open up this question. As we go through the uncertainty of changing our relationship with the EU, we will make sure that there is maximum certainty for businesses as regards the UK internal market, and of course we will legislate to that effect. Ultimately, we will take every measure necessary to protect the integrity of the United Kingdom and to comply with and live up to the Good Friday agreement, ensuring that it is respected. I am surprised she is not supporting that.

[Lisa Nandy]

The right hon. Gentleman clearly does not read the newspapers, because his own Government have been briefing the precise opposite. Let me try him on another international obligation. An international arbitration ruling determined that the UK owes a debt to Iran, which has not yet been paid. In a letter to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s family last week, the Defence Secretary said that the UK

“acknowledges there is a debt to be paid”

and is seeking to find ways to pay it. It is absolutely vital that the Government have a clear and agreed strategy for Nazanin, Anoosheh Ashoori and all dual UK nationals to ensure that they are brought home as soon as possible. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Defence Secretary, and if so, what steps is he now taking to resolve these heartbreaking cases?

[Dominic Raab]

I can tell the House that I had two conversations throughout August with Foreign Minister Zarif. We pursue all the cases of our dual nationals. The question of the International Military Services debt is a parallel issue, but we have always said that we would work to resolve that. As well as all the wider issues that have already been raised in relation to Iran, there is never an engagement, a meeting or a telephone conversation that goes by without our being absolutely clear—and I hope that the hon. Lady agrees—on the appalling and arbitrary detention of all dual nationals and calling for their immediate release.

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Dominic Raab

Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) (Urgent Question)]

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the creation of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question.

The creation of the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office today is a key moment: a key moment for our vision of a truly global Britain, and a key moment for our integration of our international efforts in order to maximise their impact abroad. With this innovation, we are drawing on the example of many of our allies, such as Australia and Canada and, indeed, the vast majority of OECD countries, by putting our world-class aid programme at the beating heart of our wider foreign policy decision-making, and doing it in a way that works best for the United Kingdom.

We are integrating and aligning the UK’s expertise as a development superpower with the reach and clout of our diplomatic network in order to ensure that their impact internationally is bigger than the sum of their parts. We have paved the way for this approach during covid, bringing together all the relevant strands of our international activity. For example, we joined our research efforts to find a vaccine at home with our international leadership in raising the funding to ensure equitable access for the most vulnerable countries, culminating in the Prime Minister hosting the Gavi summit and smashing the target by raising $8.8 billion in global vaccine funding. That amply demonstrates how our moral and national interests are inextricably intertwined.

We continue to bolster health systems in the most vulnerable countries, not just out of a sense of moral responsibility—although there is that—but also to safeguard the people of this country from a second wave of this deadly virus. It is in that spirit, as the new FCDO comes into operation today, that I can announce that the UK will commit a further £119 million to tackle the combined threat of coronavirus and famine, so that we can do our bit to alleviate extreme hunger for over 6 million people from Yemen through to Sudan. In tandem with that, to leverage the impact of our national contribution, I have also today appointed Nick Dyer as the UK’s special envoy for famine prevention and humanitarian affairs, again as we combine our aid impact with our diplomatic leadership to focus the world’s attention and rally international support to help tackle this looming disaster and threat.

The new Department reflects the drive towards a more effective and more joined-up foreign policy, and I pay tribute to the brilliant work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) and all her support directly in driving this merger forward. My team of Ministers has already been holding joint Department for International Development and Foreign and Commonwealth Office portfolios for some time now, so we will have continuity as we bed in the organisation of the new Department. Sir Philip Barton becomes the new permanent under-secretary at FCDO, the brilliant diplomat who co-ordinated the United Kingdom’s response to the Salisbury nerve agent attack back in 2018. We have also broadened the senior departmental leadership to achieve a more diverse range of expertise and experience at the top. So, as well as FCO and DFID experience, the board of directors general brings together those with wider experience from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Cabinet Office, not to mention from the private sector and the voluntary sector.

Abroad, we will operate with one voice and one line of reporting, so that all civil servants operating abroad, including our trade commissioners, will work to the relevant ambassador or high commissioner in post. Training the cadre of the new Department will be essential too, so the new International Academy launched today will train and improve the skills of all our dedicated civil servants across Government who are working internationally. To boost this excellent team, I believe it is important to bring in additional insights from outside Government. Therefore, I have also appointed Stefan Dercon, professor of economic policy at Oxford University, as my senior adviser on aid and development policy.

With the support of my tireless ministerial team, we continue to consult outside Government to test our thinking and glean new ideas for the successful operation of FCDO. I am grateful for the input we have received over the summer from hon. and right hon. Members across the House. In particular, my thanks go to the Chairs of the Foreign Affairs, International Development, and Defence Committees. I am also grateful for the advice I have had from non-governmental organisations, foundations and international organisations—from Bill Gates to David Malpass, the president of the World Bank, with whom I discussed matters yesterday.

We will reinforce that external scrutiny not just by maintaining ICAI—the Independent Commission for Aid Impact—but by strengthening its focus on the impact of our aid and the value added to our policy agenda, and by broadening its mandate to provide policy recommendations alongside its critical analysis. I am particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for all his advice on this matter.

In this way, and informed in due course by the integrated review, the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will deliver on this Government’s mission to forge a truly global Britain to defend all aspects of the British national interest and to project this country as an even stronger force for good in the world.

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for that, but the truth is that this is a complete mess. It has made a nonsense of his own review—the integrated Department has come before the integrated strategy. Thousands of staff with world-renowned expertise have been treated disgracefully, holding meetings in recent weeks with senior civil servants who cannot even answer basic questions about how this Department is going to operate. Why? Because the Government were shamed by a footballer into supporting some of the poorest children in this world. That does not bode well for a commitment to the poorest people across the planet.

The creation of the Department for International Development—the right hon. Gentleman knows—was a game changer not just for the world, but for Britain, and to put that at risk now is extraordinary. The world has never felt more unstable. We are in the midst of a global pandemic. We know that a vaccine will be successful only if it reaches the world’s poorest, and as the UK takes on the task of hosting COP26 next year, the world is wondering what on earth is going on and whether Britain is capable of rising to the scale of the challenge.

The right hon. Gentleman did not give a commitment to retain the spending of 0.7%. I want to hear that commitment from him today. He also knows that the Prime Minister said, when he described DFID as a

“giant cashpoint in the sky”,

that he would reassess the spending and the priorities of the Department. Today, the front pages of the papers say that the Chancellor is going to raid the right hon. Gentleman’s aid budget. The truth is he is losing this argument within his own Cabinet, so will he give me a cast-iron guarantee that there will be no changes to the International Development Act 2002? Will he tell us which country programmes have been identified for cuts? Where is the impact assessment and will he publish it? Where is the strategy that will guide allocation of resources? Can he confirm that ICAI will remain and that, crucially, it will remain independent? The Foreign Office and other Departments do not have a good record on aid spending. This Government ought not to be allowed to mark their own homework.

The sad fact is that, instead of a strategy for Britain’s global role, we have got a new paint job on a Government plane. Where is the ambition? Where is the strategy? On a day when we have seen the United States pull out of global efforts to find a vaccine, the Prime Minister is holed up in Downing Street, hiding from the world, where people wonder what on earth is going on. I do not envy him the mess that he has inherited, but he has to resolve it. Our standing in the world is at stake and we will not allow the Government off the hook on that basis.

[Dominic Raab]

Can I, I think, thank the hon. Lady for her question? It was full of assertions and various snippets from media speculation in the newspapers. Let me try to give her some substantive answers. [Interruption.] She is saying that, but why doesn’t she listen? She asked about ICAI whereas, actually, we had already announced we were keeping and reinforcing it. I made the point in my statement; it seems that she is rehashing and rehearsing the critique that she wants to make without actually listening to what we are doing.

The hon. Lady asked in particular about the search for a vaccine. That is an excellent example of where we do need to bring together our world-beating aid leverage with our diplomatic clout. That is exactly what this Prime Minister did at the GAVI summit—bringing countries together, smashing the target for global vaccine funding, which is a good complement and supplement to the research we are doing at Oxford, at Imperial and elsewhere not just to find a vaccine for the people of this country, but to ensure an equitable distribution around the world.



The hon. Lady asked about the 0.7%. The Prime Minister has been very clear on this, and the new FCDO will put our world-class development programmes at the very heart of our foreign policy. The 0.7% commitment is a manifesto commitment, and it is enshrined in law. I would just gently point out to the hon. Lady that we have hit the 0.7% aid target in every year since 2013. She is right to say that it was Labour that introduced the target back in the ’70s, but it never hit the target in any year. I think she should look at her own record before making assertions that, frankly, do not hold water.

The hon. Lady talked about a mess, but I do not think she has followed the detail of what we have done. The Order in Council that we made today during the Privy Council meeting will be laid in Parliament on 9 September and will enter into force on 30 September. That is necessary to transfer powers legally from the previous Departments and the positions of Secretary of State to their new ones. I have already answered the question on ICAI. I would have thought she would take this opportunity to welcome the things that she wants to see. We are reinforcing ICAI, and I have explained the benefit that we have had from hon. Members across the House, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). I have also explained why we think ICAI is so important to external scrutiny, but we want to see practical recommendations to guide action, alongside the critical evaluation that it rightly does.

It is not clear to me whether the shadow Foreign Secretary opposes the measure in principle, but I think she does. If that is the case, would she reverse it? I think it is true to say, judging by the press releases coming from her colleague, the shadow International Development Secretary, that the Opposition are sticking with shadow Ministers along the old FCO and DFID lines. I am afraid that that can only leave an even more divided Opposition as we forge a more integrated and aligned foreign policy to better serve Britain and the interests of the British people.

China

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Dominic Raab

Monday 20th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it. May I be clear that the Opposition strongly welcome both of the measures he has announced today? He is right to ensure that Britain does not allow our exports to be used against the people of Hong Kong, and I thank him warmly for taking this step forwards.

I am particularly glad that the Government have listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), the shadow Secretary of State for International Trade, and suspended the export of surveillance equipment alongside the suspension of the export of crowd control equipment, which was demanded of the Government by the Labour Opposition last year. Will the Foreign Secretary go further and also review the training of the Hong Kong police by the College of Policing and other UK police forces to ensure that we are playing a part in helping to uphold, and not suppress, the rights of the people of Hong Kong?

May I also welcome the indefinite suspension of the extradition treaty and the safeguards that the Foreign Secretary announced today? It affords protection to the Hong Kong diaspora community here in the UK, and particularly to the brave young pro-democracy activists, whom I recently had the pleasure to meet.

We believe it is vital that the world shows a co-ordinated front on this issue. I was heartened to hear that the Foreign Secretary had discussions with our Five Eyes partners. Canada, Australia and the USA have already taken this step. Will he speak to other key allies, including Germany, to ensure that there is a co-ordinated international response? He also made no mention of our Commonwealth partners. Has he reached out to those Commonwealth countries that have extradition treaties with Hong Kong, to ensure that BNO passport holders and pro-democracy activists can travel freely without fear of arrest and extradition?

The Foreign Secretary could take a number of other steps. He made a commitment today that the UK will not accept investment that compromises our national security. Will he confirm that that will extend to the proposed nuclear power project at Bradwell, and will he tell us what assessment the Government have made of the security implications of Sizewell C?

Elections are due to take place in Hong Kong in the autumn, and we are concerned that, just as in the case of Joshua Wong, the Chinese Government may seek to bar candidates from standing. A clear statement from the Foreign Secretary today that candidates selected through the primary process are legitimate and must be allowed to stand in those elections would send the message that, as he says, the world is watching. I also ask him to work internationally to ensure that independent election observers are allowed into Hong Kong to oversee those elections.

The Foreign Secretary was a little irritated by my suggestion yesterday that the UK ought to impose Magnitsky sanctions on Chinese officials involved in persecuting the Uyghur people and undermining basic freedoms in Hong Kong, but I gently say to him that we have known that Uyghurs have been detained in camps since at least 2017. Has any work at all been done on that by the Foreign Office? Given that the USA has already imposed similar sanctions, is he working with our US counterparts to build the case for UK sanctions, and will he discuss this with the US Secretary of State tomorrow when he meets him?

The Foreign Secretary may not have done the groundwork to enable him to impose Magnitsky sanctions now, but his Government have the power right now to take action. He could, as the US has done, bar Communist party of China officials from the UK. Why has he not done that? The Chinese ambassador said yesterday that he reserves the right to take action against British companies. What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with British companies operating in China to offer advice and assistance? I have asked him a number of times whether he has had discussions with HSBC and Standard Chartered about their stated support for the national security law. He must condemn that support. We should be showing the best of British business to the world, not the worst.

I was pleased to hear that the Foreign Secretary had discussions with Australia and New Zealand about their making a similar offer to BNO passport holders, but we are concerned, after asking a range of parliamentary questions, that there are serious holes in this offer. We have been told by the Government that BNO passport holders and their families will not receive home status for tuition fees, will not have access to most benefits and will have to pay the NHS surcharge. That seems wrong.

We are welcoming BNO passport holders to the UK for similar reasons to refugees, but these measures are completely out of step with that. Without serious action before these proposals are published, we will essentially be offering safe harbour only to the rich and highly skilled. That may benefit the UK, but it lacks the generosity and moral clarity that this situation demands. The Foreign Secretary will also know that many young pro-democracy activists are too young to be eligible for BNO passports. The Home Secretary said last week that she was considering a specific scheme for 18 to 23-year-olds. Will those details be published before the summer, and can he provide more detail today?

Finally, this must mark the start of a more strategic approach to China based on an ethical approach to foreign policy and an end to the naivety of the golden era years. If it does, the Foreign Secretary can be assured that he will have the Opposition’s full support. Like him, our quarrel is not with the people of China, but the erosion of freedoms in Hong Kong, the actions of the Chinese Government in the South China sea and the appalling treatment of the Uyghur people are reasons to act now. We will not be able to say in future years that we did not know. I urge him to work with colleagues across government to ensure that this marks the start of a strategic approach to China and the start of a new era.

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady for her response and in particular for her support for the two measures that we are taking today: suspending the extradition treaty arrangements and extending the arms embargo. I note that there is a drastically different tone being taken by Opposition Front Benchers from that taken even a few weeks ago, but we welcome her support, and do so in a spirit of cross-party endeavour and the importance of sending a very clear signal to Beijing, and indeed to our international partners, about where we stand.

The hon. Lady asks about the review of policing. Of course she is right about that: it is a question of balance. We will keep that under constant review. She mentions a range of details on BNOs, and they will be set forward by the Home Secretary shortly in the way that I have described. I urge the hon. Lady to wait for the detail before critiquing it. The Home Secretary and the Home Office have been doing a huge amount of work since September last year on all that, and of course we also need to bear in mind the offers that other countries quite rightly and usefully will be making.

I welcome what the hon. Lady says on international co-ordination. She is right about the importance of working with my German opposite number. I am seeing him this week, and it is something that is squarely on the agenda. We have also, through the Five Eyes membership, already touched base with a number our Commonwealth colleagues, but I will continue to do that. She is right that it needs to be more than just the Europeans and the UK with the North Americans—the traditional Five Eyes and Europeans—because there is a whole range of non-aligned countries out there that are very much influenced by what China is doing and saying. We want them to support us in upholding the international rule of law, which in all areas, including, as she mentioned, the South China sea, will be very important.

We rigorously review not just all investments into this country from a security point of view but whether our powers are sufficient. That is something that we will keep under review, and I know that the Secretary of State for Business is looking at it very carefully.

The hon. Lady is right as well about the September LegCo elections. I have made it clear that we want to see them allowed to take place in the way that is recognised in not just the joint declaration but the Basic Law. I agree with her point about the disqualification of candidates. We also need to be realistic, if I am honest with her, about the likelihood of China, or the Hong Kong authorities, accepting international observers.

The hon. Lady asks about the Magnitsky sanctions. She is simply wrong to say that we have not done our homework on them; we have done our homework since August of last year, which is why we could introduce those sanctions for the situation with Jamal Khashoggi, Sergei Magnitsky and North Korea. Of course, the national security legislation, which we are responding to, has only just been enacted, let alone started to be enforced. We will patiently gather the evidence, which takes months. It is not, as the hon. Lady has previously suggested, just something that can be done on a political whim; indeed, it would be improper if that were the case. Of course, if we introduce those targeted sanctions in this field, and indeed any other, without having done our factual evidential due diligence, not only are they likely to be challenged but we are at risk of giving a propaganda coup to the very people that we are seeking to target.

The hon. Lady mentions HSBC. She may or may not have already heard the comments I have made about that. Certainly, we will not allow the rights and the autonomy of the people of Hong Kong to be sacrificed on the altar of bankers’ bonuses. We urge all businesses to look very carefully at how they respond. They are, of course, going to be nervous about any potential retaliatory measures that may be taken by Beijing. In any event, we are very clear on the path that we are taking.

As I have said before, we want a good relationship with China. It is very important that we have a balanced, open debate about this in the House, recognise the opportunities of a good relationship with China, but be clear-eyed, as this Government are, about the risks and what we do to protect against them.

Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Dominic Raab

Monday 6th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

May I start by strongly welcoming this statement and the advance sight of it? It has been, as Bill Browder rightly said, a long and difficult journey to persuade the Government to take this step. I know that it has been personally frustrating for the Foreign Secretary to be repeatedly challenged by me over recent weeks about the delays when he has spent the last eight years as its champion. For too long the UK has been a haven for those who use corruption, torture and murder to further their own ends. Today, I hope, sends a strong message that the UK is not their home and that their dirty money is not welcome here.

I pay tribute, too, to Sergei Magnitsky and his family, who have waited far too long for this day. Magnitsky worked for a British company, and it is right that, today, in his honour, we start to clean up the global corruption that he exposed and that cost him his life. I also put on record our support for ensuring that some of those responsible for his murder are the first to face consequences. The time for action against Russian Government officials who oppress LGBT people, Muslims and other minorities and who use chemical weapons on the streets of the UK is long overdue. This is a profound act of solidarity with the Russian people over those who have made their lives a misery for far too long.

I welcome, too, the Foreign Secretary’s action against those involved in the appalling murder of Jamal Khashoggi. I gently say to him that, although today is not the day for sparring across the Dispatch Box, it would be welcome if it marked the start of a more consistent approach from the Government towards Saudi Arabia, and in particular the arms sales from this country that are being used to harm innocent civilians in Yemen.

Similarly, we are grateful to the Foreign Secretary for including the Rohingya in Myanmar in today’s announcement. I hope that he will use his new remit to consider why the UK investment arm, CDC, continues to invest in those who are complicit in silencing people who speak out against human rights abuses in Myanmar.

I welcome the inclusion of trafficking in the measures; the former Member for Bishop Auckland would be delighted to see that, as the Government have previously resisted it. I express serious concern, however, that the Foreign Secretary has not yet been able to persuade his colleagues of the need to include corruption in scope. Corruption and human rights abuses go hand in hand and that must be urgently resolved. The former Prime Minister, David Cameron, expressed regret that he had not acted on the issue earlier:

“I soon realised…the advantages of working together—with other countries—under a common heading…You get extra clout from coming together across the world and saying with one voice to those who are responsible for unacceptable acts: ‘We are united’”

The Foreign Secretary mentioned the USA and Canada and our desire to stand closely with them. They have included corruption in scope and the UK must follow suit.

Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that the measures apply to UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies? We must not create a back door that allows the laundering of blood money in the United Kingdom.

Will all names be published, including those subject to visa bans? I am sorry to do this to the Foreign Secretary, but I refer him to his earlier words. As he put it:

“If we are dealing with people who are complicit in torture and there is enough evidence to substantiate and justify a visa ban, what possible countervailing reason can there be, whether it is to change their behaviour or otherwise, for not making their name public? Would not making their name public deter others?”—[Official Report, 2 April 2014; Vol. 578, c. 300-301WH.]

He also tabled an amendment to the Criminal Finances Act 2017 seeking a public register of people who are subject to such orders, and he rightly set out in that amendment to ensure that third parties could refer to the list. We agree with him. There must be a clear mechanism for civil society to refer in line with the criteria. Can he give us an assurance that that will be forthcoming?

Similarly, will the Foreign Secretary reflect on arrangements in the United States that provide a congressional trigger and allow our Select Committee Chairs to make referrals to the list as well? I can see that the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee is nodding; I would expect him to agree with that suggestion. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will agree too.

Finally, as the Foreign Secretary has long championed, we must have transparency in the process. There has been serious concern about the influence of big money on politics. It is essential that there is independent oversight of the list to ensure that nobody can buy their way out of British justice. Will he commit to parliamentary scrutiny of the list and the way that decisions are taken? I know that he will face resistance from colleagues, but we will strongly support him in that endeavour.

Today is a day that we stand up against corruption and dirty money and for our values with the full support of this House. There can be no ambiguity and no double standards. The UK must lead the way at home and abroad.

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady for her full-throated support. Although it is always a pleasure to spar with her, it is also worth reflecting on those occasions when the House can stand in unison and support such measures. I know that the family of Sergei Magnitsky will hugely appreciate her personal solidarity at what will be a difficult time, after an incredible and ongoing march for justice. I also agree with the wider support that she expressed for the designations.

Let me try to address her queries and concerns. On corruption, work is under way. We are committed to that. There are different definitions of corruption, which has been one of the challenges at international level, but I agree with the point that corruption and human rights abuses are often interlinked. Indeed, in the case of Sergei Magnitsky, what is astonishing is that we have one of the most egregious corruption cases, coupled with an appalling human rights abuse. I reassure the hon. Lady that that work is under way.

The hon. Lady asked about the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, to which the legislation will be extended. The designations will be published online, so her plea for transparency is, I believe, fully met. Finally, whether in relation to Select Committees, scrutiny of the process or the designations, we would welcome a full and rigorous engagement and scrutiny of all that process. I will not, of course, tell Select Committees or the House how to organise their business, but we welcome that and engage with it.

Hong Kong National Security Legislation

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Dominic Raab

Wednesday 1st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

The new security law is deeply shocking, and the arrests overnight have stunned the world. This will have a chilling effect on democracy. It fundamentally undermines the commitments made by the Chinese Government to the United Kingdom and those we made in turn to the people of Hong Kong when we signed the joint declaration. I pressed the Foreign Secretary yesterday not to waver in his commitment to the people of Hong Kong, and I am grateful to him for coming to the House today to make this statement, for advance sight of it, and most of all for honouring the promise he made on 2 June. He is right to do so and has our support.

When will the Home Secretary provide details of the scheme for BNO passport holders and dependents, and has the Foreign Secretary made an assessment of likely take-up? Will salary thresholds apply? We are concerned that this does not become a scheme simply for wealthy Hongkongers to abandon the city and leave others behind. Under the national security law, the Government can extract money from those they believe to be involved in criminality or guilty of offences. In some cases, the people of Hong Kong will not be able to take sums of money out of the city and could have their bank accounts frozen, so what recourse to public funds will apply and will he ensure that dependents will be treated as home students for the purpose of tuition fees?

The Foreign Secretary’s commitment to BNO passport holders is welcome, but it does not resolve the problem. I was deeply moved to see the young activists who bravely took to the streets to protest against this law, at considerable personal risk. The majority will not be covered by this scheme and must not abandoned. The loss of many highly skilled workers will be a blow to Hong Kong and to China. That is why we need additional measures. We in this House have been waiting for Magnitsky legislation for two years now. He must give us a date for when that will be introduced before the summer recess, so that targeted sanctions can be applied to those who breach human rights in Hong Kong.

Overnight, pepper spray and water cannon were used against the pro-democracy protesters. It is now time for Britain to lead on an inquiry into police brutality. I welcome the cross-regional statement that our ambassador co-ordinated and place on record my thanks to him for his efforts, but will the Foreign Secretary now lead the charge for the appointment of a UN special rapporteur on Hong Kong? The provisions in the national security law that encourage people to confess and disclose others’ so-called “criminal behaviour” have raised serious concerns about the prospect of torture. We must not turn away.

What conversations has the Foreign Secretary had with Carrie Lam about the provision for the Chief Executive to hand-pick judges? Given the comments by the former Hong Kong Chief Justice Andrew Li that this would fundamentally undermine the independence of the judiciary, what assessment has he made of the continuing role of British judges in the court system? I wrote to the Foreign Secretary some time ago to ask him to address the direct challenge made by British companies such as HSBC and Standard Chartered to the UK’s stance by supporting this law. We cannot allow British businesses to become complicit in undermining the international rules-based order that they themselves rely on. Yesterday the Foreign Secretary spoke up in this place in defence of press freedom. What discussions is he having with UK news agencies to defend their ability to continue to report freely on the situation on the ground, and with non-governmental organisations, which will be deeply concerned that the law applies anywhere in the world?

The Government have taken a step forward today with the announcement of new rights for BNO passport holders and a statement at the United Nations, but this is no substitute for ongoing and sustained international leadership. I urge the Foreign Secretary to bring forward a comprehensive, detailed and serious package of measures with international partners, as I have outlined.

Finally, the Government must now develop a much more strategic approach to their engagement with the Chinese Government. We support the Foreign Secretary’s view that a constructive relationship remains essential, but it is also clear that the UK needs far greater strategic independence in order to speak from, and act from, a position of values. Will he provide an updated assessment of the implications for national security of the involvement of Huawei in the 5G network? Will he make a similar assessment in relation to the planned nuclear projects involving CGN, in particular at Bradwell? Although this announcement is to be welcomed, I remain deeply concerned that his counterparts at the Treasury see Chinese investment as a central plank of the UK’s recovery and that the Government’s approach remains deeply confused. For too long in relation to China, we have had no strategy at home and no strategy abroad. I hope he can give us a commitment today that this marks the start of a very different era.

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady for her support for the action that we are taking on Hong Kong and the measures that we are introducing in relation to BNOs. She made a number of points and lamented the lack of a comprehensive strategy. I would always welcome any particular suggestions she has. I did not hear any specific suggestions that were not covered in my statement, but I am happy to keep engaging with her.

The hon. Lady asked about the details of the BNO offer. The Home Secretary will come forward in due course, as appropriate, and set out all those details to the House. Obviously, there will be all sorts of regulatory arrangements that we need to put in place, but the contours of the offer are very clear. We welcome BNOs to come to this country. We have a specific historical responsibility to them and there will not be any quota.

In answer to the hon. Lady’s question about numbers, we constantly assess the likely take-up. I think that, in reality, a large number of those who might be eligible will want to stay in Hong Kong. Others may go to countries in the region, but we have a historical responsibility and therefore we are making our position clear. I have also had a number of conversations with our international partners, particularly those with specific and close relationships with Hong Kong and who have large numbers of that community in their countries. I would expect others to be looking very carefully at what they do.

The hon. Lady asked about the Magnitsky legislation and said that it was promised two years ago. It was in the 2019 election manifesto. I have been clear that we will come to the House before recess, not just with the legislation but with the first designations. She also asked about Carrie Lam and the representations that have been made to her. Andy Heyn, our consul general in Hong Kong, spoke to her in the last 24 hours to express our objections to the new legislation.

The Foreign Office’s permanent secretary will also summon the Chinese ambassador, to reiterate the points that I have made before the House. I spoke to Foreign Minister Wang Yi for a considerable period on 8 June, to make clear in advance our strong objections to the nature of the legislation, in order to try to avert this outcome.

The hon. Lady was right to note that extraterritoriality is a feature of this legislation. It is not entirely clear how that will be applied in practice, but it is another sobering cause for concern, and I join her in expressing that. Finally, she asked about Huawei. She will know that the National Cyber Security Centre is reviewing the situation in relation to Huawei and 5G, in the light of US sanctions, and will report in due course. I am sure that the House will be updated as soon as that review is concluded.

Above all, this is an important moment when we agree across the House on the strategic point that we all wish to make, which is that there has been a clear and serious violation of the joint declaration, that we must honour our obligations to BNOs and that we must work with our international partners to build the widest caucus and coalition of like-minded countries who say—not just on the issue of Hong Kong but on the wider question of trust—that China must live up to its international responsibilities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 30th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend, who makes a very important point. Of course, the success of Hong Kong—the entrepreneurial spirit, the vibrancy, the economic success—has been built on its autonomy in the one country, two systems paradigm. That clearly is under threat if China, as we now fear, has enacted the legislation and our worst fears in terms of the substantive detail are borne out; and of course it would be bad news for all international businesses, but, fundamentally, not just for the people of Hong Kong but for China. That is why, even at this stage, we would urge China to step back from the brink, respect the rights of the people of Hong Kong and live up to its international obligations through the joint declaration and to the international community.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

China passed the national security law today. It is a direct challenge to the joint declaration and undermines not only the promises made to us, but those that we made to the people of Hong Kong. The Foreign Secretary told me in the House a few weeks ago that at its application, Britain would act. That law comes into force tomorrow. He must not waiver. Will he fulfil his promise to BNO passport holders? Will he stop dragging his feet on the Magnitsky legislation that he was once so keen to champion and give us a firm date? Will he confirm that this has now changed the Government’s thinking on Huawei? He said just a few weeks ago that we would

“live up to our responsibilities…to the people of Hong Kong”.—[Official Report, 13 January 2020; Vol. 669, c. 769.]

It would be extraordinary were the UK to turn back now. We must live up to those responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee. He is right to quote the HALO Trust. He is right that this is an opportunity. Indeed, it will mean significant cultural change for the FCO, not just for DFID. We want to merge and innovate to bring something that is, as I say, the sum of our parts, but also something different. In fact, just one of 29 OECD countries has a separate Development Ministry. I have been talking to the likes of Paul Collier and Professor Stefan Dercon about how we can achieve this in the way that delivers the best impact, particularly in relation to poverty reduction and things like climate change.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I am concerned by reports that as part of the DFID merger, the Government have agreed to pause all new aid spending, including the conflict, stability and security fund. At a moment of such global insecurity, that would be an extraordinary decision. In a week when the Government have fired their national security adviser, are stalling on re-establishing the Intelligence and Security Committee, and are delaying the Russia report, can the Secretary of State at least give me a cast-iron guarantee that conflict, stability and security funding will continue to be applied to new projects and that this Government are taking national security seriously?

[Dominic Raab]

I can reassure the hon. Lady that conflict prevention—humanitarian aid—is going to remain, if not be elevated, as one of the key strategic priorities of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. There has been no sustained pause, but we are having a review based on the economic figures that will apply given the impact of covid-19 on GNI. That will make sure that we can prioritise the aid budget in the places that need it most. I would have thought, if she is serious about this, that she would welcome that.

Hong Kong National Security Legislation: UK Response

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for coming to the House to make this statement and for advance sight of it. In particular, I thank him for the sentiment of solidarity that he expressed at the end of his statement.

We are deeply concerned about events in Hong Kong. We share the Government’s opposition to the national security law. We want to see real action to address police brutality and the steady erosion of the joint declaration. We want the people of Hong Kong to know that the world is watching. We also want them to know that the world is prepared to act. Can I press the Foreign Secretary for more clarity on BNO passport holders? We welcome the announcement that visa rights will be extended. He says that they will be able to come to the UK if China continues down this path and implements this legislation. Will he tell us at which stage he envisages our taking action? When will these measures be brought before the House? I also ask him for more details about how this will apply. Will it apply to the 350,000 people who hold valid passports, or to the 2.9 million who are eligible? For this to be meaningful, surely it has to apply to people’s families. Will he confirm whether this is the Government’s intention, and what assessment he has done of the numbers?

The first rule of any sanction against China must surely be that it does not harm the people of Hong Kong. Will he tell us what assessment he has made of the potential loss of millions of highly skilled people from Hong Kong; and what assessment he has done of the USA’s recent announcement, which I understand he supports, that Hong Kong is no longer autonomous? Will he therefore support the withdrawal of trade preferences and economic sanctions? There are implications for China and, of course, implications for the UK, but there are also serious implications for the people of Hong Kong, many of whom he does not appear to be offering safe haven to. What impact does he believe that that will have on them?

We have been asking for concrete steps, and I welcome the fact that the Government are now signalling that they are prepared to take these, but the joint declaration has been repeatedly undermined since 2012. As the former Governor of Hong Kong put it, that has been met with only “tut-tutting” and “embarrassed clearing of the throat” from UK Ministers. Why has the Foreign Secretary not pressed for an independent inquiry into police brutality? Given the serious implications for human rights, does he welcome, as we do, the suggestion by former Foreign Secretaries that an international contact group should be established? He knows that the only long-term solution to this is universal suffrage. We must see pressure from Britain on the Hong Kong authorities to begin the process of democratic reform.

I was astonished that, in his statement, the Foreign Secretary did not address how the UK intends to respond to the threat of countermeasures by China. It is increasingly clear that we need an alliance of democracies to ensure that we can maintain, as he says, a constructive dialogue with China on shared challenges, not least on climate change, while standing up to aggressive behaviour and clear breaches of international law. He referenced the statements by the UK, Australia, Canada and the US, which was welcome, and the additional statements from New Zealand, Japan and the European Union. It is time for an international democratic alliance to come together and speak with one voice. The G7 is now off. The G20 is not meeting. The discussion at the UN Security Council has been blocked by China. It is time for Britain to be far more proactive. In recent weeks, Australia has shown real leadership on the search for a vaccine for covid-19 and France has led the charge for a global ceasefire. On this of all issues, why is Britain not stepping up and showing the leadership the world needs?

Finally, I am concerned that this exposes some serious, deep contradictions in the Government’s approach to China. For a decade, we have been told that we are in a “golden era” of Sino-British relations, whereas the right hon. Gentleman has said that we cannot go back to “business as usual” with China. What does any of this mean in practice? The Government have finally accepted that there are concerns about the threat the Huawei contract poses to national security and are reportedly working with other countries to explore an alternative, but will he rule out Chinese involvement in any new nuclear projects beyond Hinkley? With a long and deep recession likely, the need for a coherent approach is only becoming more urgent. We do not have a strategy abroad. We do not have a strategy at home. This needs a calm and sensible approach, to maintain a constructive dialogue and build far greater strategic independence; the two are not contradictory but go hand in hand. Now is the moment that Britain must step up, show global leadership and begin to take this seriously.

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady for her solidarity and support, as expressed at the commencement of her remarks. She asked about the trigger point for changes. It is only right, in order to do this in a very careful and accurate way, to wait for the legislation to be published, so that we can see the full text, because, of course, it is only at that point, or indeed at its application, that we would be able credibly and reliably to say it was in violation of the joint declaration in the way I have described. I think that is a common-sense approach, which allows China, or other countries around the world that are watching and that we want to stand up in support of international law, to see that we are proceeding on the basis of principle and on the facts.

The hon. Lady asked about the detailed arrangements. I have been working with Ministers, in particular, the Home Secretary and the Home Office, on this since last September. As I said, we will wait to see precisely what the legislation says before making any further announcements, but the Home Secretary will set out the details at the appropriate time.

[Lisa Nandy]

Considering families?

[Dominic Raab]

Of course, dependants would be considered. The hon. Lady rightly pointed out that the threat to Hong Kong is not just to its autonomy and freedoms, but to its economy and to investment in Hong Kong, which the UK and many others have serious interests in. The actions of China are, inexplicably, putting at risk what has long been regarded as one of the jewels in the economic crown for China. So she makes important points on that.

The hon. Lady asked why we had not called for an independent investigation into the police, but in fact I called for it in August 2019 and made that clear, having spoken to chief executive Carrie Lam. The hon. Lady also asked about universal suffrage, which of course is envisaged in the basic law for Hong Kong; I set that out as our position in the House of Commons last September. On both points I welcome her support and that of the Labour party. She then asked about international action, where the United Kingdom has been in the vanguard. We have been co-ordinating with our Five Eyes partners—I had a virtual meeting with them yesterday evening, where we reaffirmed our solidarity on this point. I have had calls and been engaged with the European Union, which has put out a statement—it is not as strong as the one we put out, but it shows that the EU is engaged actively on this. I have been speaking to my German, French and other European partners about it, and I also spoke to my Japanese opposite number today. The issue was discussed in the UN Security Council, but of course China, and indeed Russia, will veto any more substantive debate.

The hon. Lady asked about the specific measures we are proposing. I have been very clear on BNOs. Equally, we will work closely with our international partners on what the right next steps are. I think the focus right now, in order to proceed in a productive way that is likely to give ourselves the best chance of the outcome we want, is on setting out our position clearly and working with our international partners, and the ball is in the court of the Government in China. They have a choice to make here: they can cross the Rubicon and violate the autonomy and the rights of the people of Hong Kong, or they can step back, understand the widespread concern of the international community and live up to their responsibilities as a leading member of the international community.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Dominic Raab

Monday 11th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker; I think that is the last time Chorley will be nice to Wigan in this place.

I thank the Minister for the weekly briefings that he has arranged for me and for his kind words on me taking office. It has enabled us to work together to bring many more Britons home. However, he will know that this is the sixth time that I have had to raise the lack of quarantine measures and the fact that the UK is one of the few countries with no specific policies in place for returning citizens. Thousands will be flying into the UK in the next few days from parts of the world where infection rates are rising and healthcare and testing are limited, on packed planes with no social distancing measures, and as of Wednesday many of them will be asked to go straight back to work. This really is absurd; so will he personally intervene to get a grip on this situation, not in a month, but now?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and welcome her to her position. I know that she has huge tenacity and will scrutinise everything that the Government are doing, but that she also looks forward to and enjoys engaging on a constructive basis; that will certainly be reciprocated on our side.

The crucial thing about the quarantine and self-isolation that the Prime Minister announced last night is that all the scientific evidence we received said there was little point in introducing it until we got the prevalence of the coronavirus and the level of transmission down. At that point, it does make sense to introduce it because of the risk of reinfection—or re-seeding, as it is sometimes referred to by the scientists—in the UK. I can reassure the hon. Lady that we have followed the scientific and medical advice at every step along the way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are proud to be pioneering trials in this country to crack the issue of finding a vaccine. Of course, we need to leverage the manufacturing base we have here and our incredible pharmaceutical sector. We are proud that we co-hosted the coronavirus global response initiative on 4 May, and we will host the global vaccine summit on 4 June. On CEPI and Gavi, as I said, we are the largest donor to the recent calls for funding, and we will continue that international collaboration, which is so vital.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

The UK’s participation in the international pledging conference was extremely welcome, but it is deeply concerning that the USA was notable by its absence. Without US participation, the search for a vaccine will undeniably be slower and more lives will be lost, so can the Foreign Secretary reassure us that he or the Prime Minister asked the United States to attend? What was its reason for turning us down? What realistically does he think the UK can do to turn this situation around before not just the Gavi summit that he mentioned but the crunch G7 leaders summit in June?

[Dominic Raab]

The shadow Foreign Secretary raises an excellent point. This is a moment when we need to try to reduce political tensions and work collaboratively right across the world. On returns, I work with my Cuban opposite number, my Chinese opposite number and Foreign Ministers from around the world, and when it comes to finding the vaccine there is an even stronger impetus. We will keep making the case in the G7 and bilaterally, with the Americans and all the major countries, to try to get really strong international leadership, and of course we will continue to try to ensure that the coalition is as broad and deep as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Dominic Raab

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

One barrier to successful prosecutions in child sexual exploitation cases is the fact that, too often, victims are wrongly thought to be complicit in their own exploitation. That highlights the importance of the issue my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) just raised. There must be absolutely no suggestion in any Government guidance that children can be complicit in their own exploitation. That is why the guidance from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority needs to be changed—and needs to be changed now.

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Lady makes a powerful point. No one wants to lay the blame at the door of any victim, let alone the most vulnerable—in this case children. She heard what the Secretary of State said about CICA: it will be looked at in the context of the issues that have arisen recently. It operates in a different context from the criminal justice system, in that it can apply when there has not been a criminal conviction.

UK Poverty

Debate between Lisa Nandy and Dominic Raab

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

I will be as quick as I can, Mr Crausby, and try to stick to your time limit. First, I welcome the debate, even though the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) made a number of political points—

[Lisa Nandy]

How does he know? He wasn’t here.

[Mr Raab]

I was here for the end of the hon. Lady’s speech—[Interruption.] I would be happy to take an intervention from her if she wants to make a point of substance, but we are very pressed for time.

[Lisa Nandy]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Raab]

Not at the moment—I said on a point of substance.

The key point is the systemic challenges that our economy faces. The fact is that our economy sank to 13th place from fourth place on the global competitiveness rankings, and has now climbed steadily but surely back up to 10th. That is the reason why we have job creation at a record high. If we really care about not just the economy but the most socially disfranchised, we have to care about the unemployed—the most vulnerable in our society.

[Lisa Nandy]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Raab]

I am not going to; I will make some progress. The hon. Lady spoke for a considerable amount of time and we are very pressed for time. Unemployment has fallen from 8% to 5.8%. Youth unemployment is down. Overall, there are 1.7 million more people in work. If we care about the most vulnerable in our society, that is the critical section of society.

[Lisa Nandy]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Raab]

I will—briefly.

[Lisa Nandy]

I was simply about to say to the hon. Gentleman that had he been here for my speech and not been 45 minutes late, he would have heard that many of the families whose stories I recounted for those who were present are actually in work, or were in work when those problems arose. A story that he missed was about one of my constituents who was sanctioned for three months for being four minutes late for an appointment. The hon. Gentleman was 45 minutes late for the debate, and he does not seem to have suffered any adverse repercussions at all.

[Mr Raab]

I was following the debate, but unfortunately I was in a Committee, and I did give advance warning to Mr Crausby.

The key point that the hon. Lady needs to address is that all the policies that the Labour party is coming up with will stifle job creation. I gently point out to her that in her constituency, according to the House of Commons Library, unemployment doubled between 2005 and 2010, but has fallen by 63% between 2010 and the present day. Frankly, those facts tell us everything we need to know. When it comes to income tax—[Interruption.] She might want to listen as well as speak, because this is a debate, and I have listened very carefully to what she was saying—[Interruption.]