Council of Europe

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 8th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)]

It is good to take part in this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know that you were able to come in only for the tail end of it, but it was one of those occasions when it was genuinely good to see both sides of the House speak up unanimously in favour of this important institution, with heartfelt gratitude for its existence. The Minister for Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), would have been delighted to take part in this debate, but he was not available to attend. It is therefore my pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government.

I wish to congratulate—along with just about everybody in the Chamber—my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) on his incredible work. I had always thought that he had done well, but, having listened to all the tributes to him from right across the Chamber, I now know that he has done even better than I originally thought. That is quite extraordinary, so I say well done to him and thank him very much. He and other members of the UK delegation play a vital role in promoting the Council of Europe and its work. It is also right to highlight the important work of Sandy Moss and our superb team there as well.

I wish to say that our thoughts are with the people of Ukraine—especially those living in the area that has been affected by the flooding over recent days—whose lives, homes and livelihoods are threatened. This was just another terrible incident that has happened in this tragic war. I also echo the timely remarks of the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). Our thoughts and prayers are with the people of France— I cannot speak French, so I will go along with his words —following that terrible attack in Annecy. They are also with the family of the British child who was sadly injured in that attack.

I am grateful for all the contributions that have been made, and I will seek to respond to as many as I can in my winding-up remarks. The UK has long been at the forefront of the Council of Europe, from its creation through the Treaty of London in 1949 to the Prime Minister attending the Reykjavik summit just a few weeks ago. The Council of Europe has been, and will continue to be, important to our human rights and foreign policy agenda. That is why the work of the Parliamentary Assembly is so vital.

We are grateful to the UK delegation for its efforts to promote and protect UK interests. As the Prime Minister said at the summit in Reykjavik last month, the Council of Europe has an extraordinary legacy. The reason that it has endured for so long is its important role in upholding the fundamental rights and freedoms underpinning our security and prosperity. We continue to co-operate and collaborate with our friends across Europe to uphold and promote the values of the Council of Europe.

As I said at the start of my speech, it is good to hear such strong support for the Council of Europe. The hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) made some really important points. I could see her pride in being able to be part of the delegation, which was true for many others as well. It is very clear that, although we have differences, there is definitely more that unites us than divides us, particularly on core values around democracy and freedom. Like her, I regard it an extreme honour to be able to help engage with interlocutors and often friends around the world as we seek to promote those values. I also recognise the significant 40th anniversary of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—[Interruption.] Ruby, indeed.

Putin’s heinous and unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine is the biggest threat to democracy, human rights and the rule of law on our continent since the Council was established, and it is rightly standing strong against those threats. Last year, the organisation took quick and decisive action to expel Russia, as has been highlighted. We should not forget that the UK parliamentary delegation and the Government were at the forefront in calling for that expulsion.

Today, the Council of Europe is playing a vital role in supporting Ukraine. Its work to establish the register of damage is an important step in securing financial accountability and supporting justice for the people of Ukraine, as was highlighted by my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Theo Clarke) and for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) in their excellent remarks. The Prime Minister signed the register at the summit as a founding participant, and we will continue to work with the Council and our friends worldwide to ensure support for it.

We also look forward to welcoming the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe and many other member states to the Ukraine recovery conference later this month, as the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth highlighted—we will follow up on the important points that he raised in his letter. That will enable us to galvanise international investment in reconstruction as we co-host the conference with Ukraine, building on the £220 million of humanitarian assistance we have already provided.

Responding to Russia’s war, democratic backsliding and growing authoritarian trends, we renewed our commitment to the Council of Europe’s democratic values and principles through the Reykjavik principles of democracy. The UK was proud to be at the forefront of that effort. We also demonstrated our commitment to the Council’s convention system as the cornerstone of its protection of human rights.

We were instrumental in ensuring that the declaration referenced the principle of subsidiarity and the doctrine of margin of appreciation. Those key concepts define the boundaries of the Strasbourg Court’s role and rightly allow it to concentrate on serious systemic issues when they arise. The UK has a strong tradition of both ensuring that rights and liberties are protected domestically and fulfilling our international human rights obligations. As the Prime Minister said in this House a few months ago:

“The UK is and will remain a member of the ECHR.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2023; Vol. 728, c. 594.]

As many of my hon. Friends have noted, the Council of Europe is an important institution for the United Kingdom. We are actively involved in much of its diverse work, from minority languages to the environment to violence against women and girls, which has been called out in this debate. Our membership allows us to shape international norms and standards and to reform conventions such as mutual legal assistance to better reflect today’s challenges.

The breadth, scope and ambition of the Council’s work is the reason its value has endured, and the UK is determined to ensure that that continues as we face the challenges of tomorrow. Digital technologies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) noted, have transformed the world, but we cannot ignore the complex risks to human rights that they can present, particularly when it comes to artificial intelligence. That is why the UK is committed to the Council of Europe’s pioneering work to develop the world’s first international treaty on AI in relation to human rights, democracy and rule of law.

The UK is also taking ambitious action to deliver a cleaner and greener world, and we are pleased to be engaging with the Council on how we might define the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, which has been raised in this debate. Illegal migration is another fast-growing problem and a pressing human rights issue. If we are to stop it, we need a concerted and collective effort from all countries in Europe to shut down people-smuggling gangs and to block them at every stage of their illegal and inhumane journey. We will continue to work with the Council of Europe to ensure that it plays its part in confronting illegal migration.

I recognise the work of members of the UK delegation on migration, refugees and displaced persons, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, who recently, as she said, visited Strasbourg with her baby—that is real dedication to the cause and I thank her for that work. On Kosovo, I just wanted to highlight to the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who is not in her place—[Interruption.] Oh, there she is—excuse me. She made an important contribution on a number of issues, but I want to reassure her that the UK Government welcome the decision by the Committee of Ministers to refer Kosovo’s application to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. That is the next step in the process.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, we recognise the importance of the Istanbul convention in helping to protect women and girls. There is also important work to be done on issues such as educational impacts during the pandemic, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) highlighted. We should recognise the wider work of the Council, including its ongoing work on election monitoring, which my hon. Friend the Member for Henley highlighted and on which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner have done considerable work.

Before I conclude, I wish my good and hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) very well for his first outing at the Dispatch Box in the Adjournment—good luck.

To end, let me reiterate what valuable work the Council of Europe does. Next year marks 75 years since the signing of the treaty of London—that is even longer than the right hon. Member for Islington North has been a Member of this House. It is an established, venerable institution. The UK has been a leading player since the Council’s inception. In the face of the challenges on our doorstep in Europe, we will strive to ensure that the Council’s value and legacy endure as they rightly should.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you. The last words go to John Howell.

[John Howell]

I began this debate by thanking Madam Deputy Speaker because she is a former member of the Council of Europe, and so are you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a great pleasure to have two former members chair this debate.

I thank everyone for the enormous kindness of their words and for their contributions to the debate. There can be no clearer estimate of the appreciation across the House for the Council of Europe than this debate. I am incredibly grateful for all contributions.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you, John, for everything that you do on the Council of Europe. It was a great honour to be twice a member of the Council. The current Turkish Foreign Secretary—if he still is that—made me a life member of the Council of Europe, which is a great honour. Thank you very much.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the work of the Council of Europe.

Sudan

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her comments. I thank her particularly for the point that she made about our ambassador, who has worked ceaselessly throughout the crisis and with very great effect. In respect of her final point, I will look into the issue of malign public relations and report back to the House.

On the process for ceasefire and peace, I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the statement made this morning by former Prime Minister Hamdok, which we strongly welcome. He made it clear that there will be a global emergency unless this situation is halted immediately. He demanded an immediate, monitorable and permanent ceasefire and said that we needed permanent, reliable and secure humanitarian corridors. He mentioned in particular the requirement for a recommencement of a political process, the transition to democracy and the inclusion of the voice of Sudanese civilians in all forums that aim at securing peace. The international community, the African Union, and the United Nations—everyone—should support the call by former Prime Minister Hamdok of Sudan on all four of those points, because they are essential if we are to stop this growing and dreadful crisis.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Lady is right to chart the nature of the RSF, which grew from the Janjaweed, which was active in Darfur. I first visited Darfur in 2006 and again in 2007. As she rightly said, that was a genocide, in the words of President Bush, perpetrated by the Janjaweed and other militias. All I can say is to reiterate the point that I made earlier: we will do everything we can to ensure that there is no impunity for these dreadful crimes.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Minister for his statement today and for responding to questions for almost 40 minutes.

Human Rights Protections: Palestinians

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

I commend the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) for securing this important and timely debate on human rights protections for the Palestinian people at a crucial moment in Palestinian history and, as I know from talking to my Israeli friends, at a time when many people in Israel are fearful of the dangerous political direction being taken by their own Government, who are becoming more extreme with each election. Palestinians across the occupied territories are currently subject to an explosion of violence from illegal settlers and the state-sanctioned Israeli Defence Forces alike, under what is widely seen as one of the most extreme and inflammatory Governments in Israel’s history.

I take this moment to remember the British rabbi Leo Dee, following the awful death of his wife and daughters—British nationals who lost their lives in the west bank 13 days ago. I also remember those who were injured in Tel Aviv. Every life lost in this 75-year-old conflict is to be mourned.

This year alone, 98 Palestinians, including 17 children, have been killed by Israeli forces—not by terrorists or by a semi-legitimate Government but by a Government who want to be seen to be on a par with their European, middle eastern and Mediterranean neighbours. The number is three times as many as during the same period a year ago. The UN reports that last year was the deadliest year for Palestinians in the west bank since 2005, with at least 151 Palestinians killed by Israeli forces, 35 of them children. Settler violence is also rising. Since January, the UN has recorded 260 settler attacks against Palestinians and their property, including the devastating rampage through Huwara in February that left 418 Palestinians injured.

In the past few days, I have received nearly 1,000 emails and letters from local residents in Ilford South, not just from my Muslim community but from my Jewish community and local churches, expressing their sincere concern about the abuse of Palestinians’ human rights and the horrendous violence on both sides of the conflict.

When the al-Aqsa mosque was raided and Palestinians were evicted from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah during the holy month of Ramadan in 2021, I received more than 5,000 emails from constituents expressing their concern about these illegal acts and calling for justice for the Palestinian people. Just last week, I met worshippers outside my local Islamic centre, with many telling me of their profound kinship with the Palestinian people and their deep feeling of injustice over the ongoing violence.

Churches are supporting organisations such as the Amos Trust to raise money to support people in Palestine. For people in Ilford South and in many seats like mine, this is not a remote issue on the other side of the world; it is one of the foremost issues in their minds, and it should be taken seriously and with the gravity it rightly deserves.

I first visited Palestine and Israel in 1999. I went with a group of young people from Ilford—Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. At the time, people believed that the Oslo accords might still be enacted. I have visited the Holy Land about half a dozen times over the years. I recall a time when one could sit in Ramallah, where I sat, with people from the Palestinian negotiation support unit and Israeli Knesset Members, talking about what might be enacted. I recall at that time walking through the checkpoint at Qalandia, which was just a few barbed wire stacks on the floor, and people could walk through, showing their passport. When people go through Qalandia now, all these years later, they see the size of the gun turrets, the encasement and the brutality of the occupation. It is so visceral and so wrong.

I still speak to the Israelis and Palestinians we met back in 1999, many of whom have remained friends because of that experience. I also still speak to those in my community in Ilford, and there is hope that one day this conflict could be resolved. But we need to be clear in calling out honestly what is happening in Israel and Palestine, the asymmetry of that conflict and what we can do in this country, using our foreign service and our Government, to bring real pressure for genuine change.

There are so many aspects to this, including the ever-worsening health crisis, which further compounds the situation in Palestine. According to research by Medical Aid for Palestinians, attacks and obstructions on health workers on the ground have risen exponentially, with a 290% increase in the rate of violations against Palestine Red Crescent Society medical teams. During the recent attacks on al-Aqsa, Red Crescent ambulances were fired upon by the IDF with rubber-coated steel bullets, and a paramedic was severely assaulted and injured by an Israeli soldier. In total, nine ambulances were denied access to the courtyards of al-Aqsa, preventing them from reaching the wounded inside.

In another raid in Nablus, the IDF obstructed Red Crescent ambulance crews from accessing a two-year-old girl who had heart problems and was suffering from tear gas inhalation. The ambulance crews had to rush to the child’s home, under gunfire, to reach her. Israel is supposed to be a democratic country. Is this really what people in Israel voted for—the brutality of an occupation such as this? First responders and hospitals cannot cope with the influx of fresh casualties, and that is compounded by a severe shortage of essential medicines and basic supplies, such as syringes, bandages and painkillers. These instances, and many more, are a clear violation of international humanitarian law. As an occupying power, Israel is required under the Geneva convention to ensure the adequate functioning of health services and to allow medical personnel to carry out their duties. Article 59 obliges Israel to permit the free passage of humanitarian relief and to protect, not fire upon, any such relief.

Turning closer to home, last month the Government published their 2030 road map for UK-Israel bilateral relations. The road map has been widely condemned by a host of international organisations as poorly timed and the most egregious effort to date to try to insulate the relationship between the British and Israeli Governments from anything to do with Israel’s behaviour towards the Palestinians. This is clearly unacceptable. In my view, it is a breach of the approaches of Governments of many different stripes to that conflict over the decades. Perhaps most concerning is the agreement’s rejection of the latest ICJ referral, which requests that the Court render its opinion on the legal consequences arising from Israel’s ongoing violation of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation, on the grounds that it undermines efforts to achieve a settlement through direct negotiations between the parties.

I have a few questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer when he sums up. Is it the Government’s view now that the situation in Israel/Palestine should be exempt from international scrutiny and that Israel should be held to a lower standard when it comes to human rights violations against Palestinians? Although no one would expect Israel to be held to a different or higher standard, we should certainly not be granting Israel the kind of impunity that has led to the extreme behaviour exhibited in today’s Netanyahu Government.

Will the Minister also clarify whether it is still the Government’s view that this is an occupation, that the settlements are illegal, and that bilateral co-operation should not include co-operation with Israel’s illegal settlements or allow for violations of international law and Palestinian human rights? I and my constituents believe that our Government, and all of us in this House, have an historical obligation, arguably going back to the Balfour declaration, to support the creation and recognition of an independent and viable Palestinian state and to ensure that people in the Holy Land can co-exist one day on the same land. This Government must start right now by looking again at that bilateral agreement and, in my view and the view of my constituents, by formally recognising a Palestinian state.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Following Madam Deputy Speaker’s strictures, I call on Members to try to stick to seven minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Tom, you can take an extra minute in your contribution, as we go into the wind-ups.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bambos Charalambous]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. I condemn any demolitions of schools, an issue that I will come to later in my speech. It is harrowing to hear her testimony and her account.

The treatment of children who are detained and held in the Israeli military detention system, often in solitary confinement and with limited access, if any, to lawyers when interrogated, is also deeply concerning. That point was made eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). In its 2019 report, Save the Children found that child detainees

“face inhumane treatment such as beatings, strip searches, psychological abuse”.

Last year, three parliamentary colleagues and I visited the military courts at Ofer in the Occupied Palestinian Territories; the hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) spoke today of her experiences visiting those courts and gave a vivid description of what she saw. We attended a bail hearing of a teenage boy who had been shot and had been questioned without a parent or guardian present. Several colleagues have made the point that Israel is the only country in the world that routinely tries children in military courts, a clear breach of international law.

The next area on which I wish to focus is forcible evictions and demolitions. Paragraph 2 of article 17 of the United Nations universal declaration of human rights states:

“No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.”

Despite that, Israel seems to be pursuing a policy of forced evictions and demolitions. More than 1,000 Palestinians face eviction in Masafer Yatta in the south Hebron hills. Palestinians in the Silwan and Sheikh Jarrah districts of East Jerusalem and Khan al-Ahmar—which the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), visited last year—face a similar fate. So far this year, there have been 63 demolitions in East Jerusalem alone. In area C, 58 schools are under threat of demolition because it is claimed that they do not have building permits, which I understand are almost impossible to obtain for Palestinians.

After demolition, land is often used to expand or develop settlements, which is illegal because international law requires occupying powers not to move their civilian populations into occupied areas, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) mentioned. He also pointed out that settlements are a risk to a two-state solution. They make it much harder.

In 2019, the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), described Israel’s settlement expansion as an “effective annexation”. It would be a very serious development in international law if it were found to be so. The Minister for the Middle East, Lord Ahmad, visited Masafer Yatta in January and tweeted:

“The UK continues to urge Israel to desist demolitions and evictions that cause unnecessary suffering and are illegal under IHL”—

international humanitarian law—

“in all but most exceptional circumstances.”

However, it seems to have had little effect on the Israeli Government’s actions, so what steps do the Government intend to take to ensure that demolitions and evictions do not carry on at pace, as they have since the start of this year?

The final area on which I wish to focus is the imposition of restrictions preventing Palestinians from moving freely in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The permit system operated by the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories limits the ability of Palestinians to travel freely and creates uncertainty and additional layers of bureaucracy and delays, whether people are trying to access medical care in the Occupied Palestinian Territories or to work, study or travel abroad. That point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), who made a very passionate speech.

Similarly, there are visa restrictions on those coming from abroad to work in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, such as academics. Israel will argue that a permit system is necessary for security purposes, but the way in which the system is applied can be seen as punitive and unjust. A report published last year by Breaking the Silence, an organisation established by former soldiers in the Israel Defence Forces, described Israel’s military permit system as “bureaucratic violence” used on occasion as “collective punishment”, when an entire family’s travel permits can be revoked, which denies them access to work and to medical care in an instant.

All those human rights violations are a result of the occupation. The solution to these problems must be a two-state solution, with a thriving, prosperous Palestinian state alongside a safe and secure Israel, but sadly we have seen little progress towards that for the past eight years. The onus should be on both sides to get around the table and start talking, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) at the start of his speech. I fear that if this does not happen there will be an escalation in the violence, given the steps already being taken by the Israeli Government, such as giving Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich control over much of the Israeli civil administration, the military body that administers the occupied west bank. That was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), who also referred to last month’s raid on the al-Aqsa mosque.

However, the UK is resisting efforts to hold Israel to account within international institutions. The 2030 road map makes no reference to a two-state solution, and contains commitments that raise concerns about the Government’s willingness to apply diplomatic scrutiny to breaches of international law and their support for the role and independence of international legal institutions such as the ICJ and the ICC. The UK’s capacity to be an honest and consistent diplomatic interlocutor with credibility on all sides relies on a consistent approach to the application of international law. There needs to be more accountability, and the UK Government should be challenging human rights abuses wherever they occur. I therefore ask the Minister these questions. What steps are the Government taking to bring about a two-state solution? Does he support the call for thorough and transparent investigations of the deaths of children killed by Israeli security forces? What further steps will the Government take to put pressure on Israel to stop the evictions and the demolitions?

I began my speech by saying that this had been one of the deadliest years so far in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Let me end by saying that unless urgent action is taken, there is a real risk that the situation will become much worse over the months ahead. The time for action to de-escalate the violence and protect human rights is now.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Minister, and ask him to leave at least two minutes for the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) to wind up the debate.

Ukraine

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dave Doogan]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point. He asks whether I agree with him, and I am afraid that I do not. My understanding is that although tranche 1 Typhoons may have hours left, by the time the penalty factor for what they did when they were flying is applied, there would not be many hours left. They may look like Typhoons, but their combat air systems are very old, and they are perhaps not exactly what Ukraine is looking for. That is nevertheless a valid point, and it leads me directly to my next point.

Not a single Typhoon in the United Kingdom is available for use by Ukraine, which makes me wonder what we are training its pilots on—unless we are training them on NATO combat air standard protocol. That is all we can do, because they will not be getting Typhoons—mark my words—and they do not actually want Typhoons. People talk about getting pilots for Ukraine, but pilots are just the tip of the arrowhead. They need maintenance crews, avionics specialists, refuellers and armourers. The logistic tail for a fourth-generation combat aircraft is enormously long, and none is quite as long as the Typhoon’s. What Ukraine actually needs is something more akin to the Gripen or the F-16, and the United Kingdom does not have any of those. That means that the United Kingdom is just part of the puzzle of working with allies in NATO and in Europe. The Gripen in particular is ideally suited to the types of facilities that Ukraine will be able to operate from.

The Secretary of State said that Ukraine must “take back more land.” I wonder how he intends for Ukraine to do that without exercising air superiority. There will be a spring offensive, as I think most Members agree. We need to make sure that that offensive belongs to Ukraine.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I remind all Members that if they take part in the debate—not in an intervention but in a speech—they will be expected to be here for the wind-ups. I call Liz Truss.

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend that Russia is, of course, to blame, but we should hold ourselves to high standards and follow through on the commitments that we make, as should our allies such as the United States.

There is unfinished business in terms of offering Ukraine the security that it needed, which is why we need to learn the lessons of what happened. Frankly, we were complacent about freedom and democracy after the cold war: we were told that it was the end of history, that freedom and democracy were guaranteed, and that we could carry on living our lives without worrying about what else had happened. We were told that there would be no challenge to those basic principles and that we had won the argument. We know now that that argument is never finally won. We need to keep winning the argument, and we need to keep defending our values with hard security and economic security, if we are to succeed.

First, we need to do all we can to make sure that Ukraine wins this war as soon as possible. Every extra day means lives lost, women violated and towns destroyed. We need to do all we can, as fast as we can—in my view, that includes fighter jets. We have had a discussion today about which are the best possible options, but having spoken to the Ukrainians about it months ago, I know that what they want is an option. Let us work with our allies to get them an option to use, otherwise they will not be able to prevail. We also need to make sure that Ukraine has the economic wherewithal to continue the fight and that we are continuing to support it internationally.

Secondly, we must not be complacent when that war is won. I do believe that Ukraine will win the war—there is no way that Russia will win the war—but we need to make sure that the future of Russia is a more positive future than the one that we enabled at the end of the cold war. What does that mean? It means that we should never again be complacent in the face of Russian money and Russian oil and gas. Instead, we should make sure that any lifting of sanctions is tied to reform in Russia. We can never again have the situation where we enable freedom and free trade between the west and Russia, and that is then used to develop a kleptocracy, which is exactly what we have seen take place.

We need to make sure that Russia pays for the crimes that it has committed and that it is held to account for the appalling atrocities and war crimes—all of them. We need to make sure that money seized from the Russian state is used to rebuild Ukraine. That is vital. Of course, we in well-off countries such as Britain should contribute, but I cannot imagine a situation where Russia simply goes ahead as if nothing has happened and does not contribute to rebuilding Ukraine. That is vital and I will be pushing for it to happen.

Thirdly, we need to learn the lesson about how we deal with authoritarian regimes more broadly. President Xi has made very clear his intentions with respect to Taiwan. We have to take those seriously. During the Russia-Ukraine conflict—the invasion by Russia of Ukraine—we have amassed, for the first time in history, a group of nations that is prepared to put on sanctions and act together. We need to formalise this grouping, which I have described as an economic NATO—the G7 plus our key allies, such as the EU, South Korea and Australia. We need to bring that group together and start developing our plans now because, although we ended up doing those things after the invasion of Ukraine, prevention is far better than cure. Let us develop these economic tools and let us be clear with China exactly what would happen if there was an escalation with respect to Taiwan. Let us be clear about that now.

Let us also make sure that Taiwan can defend itself. Let us not leave another free democracy undefended for an authoritarian regime to invade. That is a very important principle. The reality is that, as a proportion of the world’s population, fewer people are living under democracy now than 30 years ago. Can we imagine what the world will look like in 30 years’ time if we do not act now? It is not a world that I want to live in.

We have heard some excellent contributions to the debate and I am pleased about the unity that we have seen and continue to see across the United Kingdom. We need to do all we can to support Ukraine and we need to act as quickly as possible. I am familiar with the vagaries of the Government machine, after spending 10 years in various Government Departments, so I will do all I can to support my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in his efforts to make sure that things happen as quickly as possible.

We also must not forget the broader arguments. Freedom and democracy are the lifeblood of our society and other free societies around the world. We need to be prepared to do all we can to defend them now, before it is too late. The fact is that being tough is what will bring us peace, and that is what we need to do.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I also welcome our friends from Washington in the United States of America, who are in the Gallery. You are most welcome to our proceedings today.

Democratic Republic of Congo-UK Relations

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Friday 28th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

I am pleased to introduce this debate on UK relations with the Democratic Republic of Congo.

I studied French at the University of Stirling nearly 30 years ago, so I have always been interested in francophone Africa. In fact, I have visited 15 francophone countries across that great continent in the past 20 years. One thing that I have taken from those numerous visits is a growing concern about the paucity of British political and economic interests in those francophone countries. I want to use this debate to try to ascertain from my right hon. Friend the Minister what measures the Government will take to increase British representation and engagement with francophone countries in Africa in a post-Brexit context.

When I visited Mauritania some years ago, I was shocked to find out that I was the first British Member of Parliament to visit the country in 25 years. I wrote an extensive report about Mauritania which I presented to William Hague, the then shadow Foreign Secretary, and ultimately that led to diplomatic relations being instigated with Nouakchott. I am pleased about that outcome, but it should not be the role of Back-Bench Conservative MPs to try to solicit and entreat our Government to understand and recognise the extraordinary importance both of francophone countries in Africa and of our engagement with them.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you will know that 21 of the 54 African nations are officially francophone, and they act increasingly as a political bloc. We, I believe, have lost votes at the UN periodically because of our inability to engage with and convince francophone African countries to support us. I very much hope to hear from the Minister of State on whether there is in the Department for International Trade or the Foreign Office a dedicated unit with French specialists and experts who will work constructively with the Government to focus on francophone African countries.

According to my information, we are the second biggest donor to the Democratic Republic of Congo, but my friends in Congo describe us, much to my consternation, disappointment and embarrassment, as observers. We give the second largest amount of international aid, yet we are described as observers! The Russians, the Chinese, the French and the Belgians are assiduously trying to engage politically and commercially with the Democratic Republic of Congo. We are falling behind not only our fellow countries, but our potential adversaries—the Russians and the Chinese—in our influence in such an important and large African nation.

As the Minister of State will know, the Russians recently signed a major military contract with the Democratic Republic of Congo to provide it with military helicopters and planes. Unfortunately, it is not inconceivable that we are re-entering an extraordinarily competitive set of circumstances with our Russian adversaries within Africa, commensurate with what we went through during the cold war. Whether it is in the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea or in Djibouti, the Russians seem to be stealing a march on us.

I supported Brexit very passionately. More importantly, I am proud that the people of Shrewsbury voted for Brexit. I can see two major advantages to Brexit in our relationship with African nations. First, of course, we are moving to a points-based system to evaluate immigrants crossing our border. I am very pleased about that, because I want Congolese people and all African people to be treated in the same way as Europeans when the assessment is made as to whether they will be granted the privilege of working in the United Kingdom and perhaps ultimately receiving citizenship.

I have spoken many times at universities throughout the country to try to explain to young people—even today it is quite difficult to convince them of this point—that under the previous system, when we were a member of the European Union, our immigration policy was racist. It was pure racism personified. There was automatic access, with no questions asked, for our fellow Europeans such as the Poles—I am originally from Poland myself—the Czechs, the Hungarians and the Romanians, but the Congolese and those from other African nations had to jump a much higher fence to enter our labour market.

I am delighted and thrilled that at our borders, unconstrained by such artificial concepts, we can now assess an individual based on her or his skillsets, what they will bring to our nation and whether they can convince a British entity to employ them, rather than on where they have come from. I want to attract the brightest and best to this country, whether that is in the healthcare system or in the business world. I want to do everything possible to ensure that we attract the brightest and best Africans to our nation.

The other benefit, of course, is that as an independent and sovereign nation we will be able to slash tariffs—I have been promised that that will happen—on products that we do not make or produce ourselves. Isn’t that interesting? We have hitherto been part of a bloc representing the interests of 28 rather disparate and highly polarised nations. Inevitably, the geographical perspectives of southern European nations and what they grow and produce are very different from northern European nations. I am pleased that we will be able to slash tariffs on products from the Congo and other African nations that we do not produce in the UK. What is the point of having tariffs on oranges? We have yet to devise a way of growing those sorts of products in the United Kingdom, so we should slash tariffs on them.

In the old days, we had to put up barriers to protect Spanish orange growers, Greek olive producers and all those agricultural products that we cannot produce here in the United Kingdom. I look forward to hearing from the Minister—I intend to ask her many written parliamentary questions going forward—what agricultural products she intends to slash tariffs on to send the strongest possible signal to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and other nations that we are serious about trading with them. Yes, aid is an important aspect of that relationship but, ultimately, giving tariff-free access to the world’s fifth largest economy is much more important, and that is what will support African nations more than anything else. I ask the Minister to put a list in the House of Commons Library of the products on which she intends to start reducing tariffs.

The other issue I want to raise is my concern over the conduct of Rwanda. Rwanda is, of course, a member of the Commonwealth, and we have a special relationship with Commonwealth countries. My understanding is that Rwanda and Mozambique are the only non-former British empire countries that have recently joined the Commonwealth. Nevertheless, part of being a member of the Commonwealth is that our relationship is special and is one of mutual respect and understanding. We are friends, and we sometimes have to be quite straight with our friends when we think they are making a mistake.

I am proud of the tremendous work that we did to ensure that South Africa was admonished when she was pursuing outrageous racist policies of segregation and apartheid. The Commonwealth acted extremely well in the 1980s. Of course, her late Majesty was instrumental in bringing the Commonwealth together to ensure that the voice of our friends in Africa was heard. I would argue that apartheid was finally brought down, in part, by the unity of the Commonwealth in explaining that such conduct was completely unacceptable and unsustainable for a nation wishing to be part of this rather special and exclusive club, which I believe has 56 members—although the Secretary of State may correct me.

I have heard from my friends in the Congo that, unfortunately, Rwanda has been repeatedly and consistently funding the M23 terrorist group with guns and money. Thousands of people have died this year in north-east Congo as a result of the terrorist activities and atrocities of the M23 terrorists operating there. Our media is quite rightly full of the killings and violence towards people in eastern Ukraine. We need to understand and recognise the brutality of the Russians towards our Ukrainian friends. However, I am disappointed that our British media does not seem to take the same interest in what is happening in north-east Congo. As I said, thousands of people have been killed, and so concerned is Kinshasa with the behaviour of Rwanda that it did not send a delegation to the recent Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in Kigali. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) led the British delegation, and I have spoken to her about this issue. She said that the absence of Congo from the IPU conference was very clear, given the severity of the concerns of our friends in Kinshasa about the conduct of Rwanda.

I have said before that the United Kingdom and Rwanda are Commonwealth partners. Under both the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), and the current Home Secretary, there seems to be a determination to continue with the policy of sending to Rwanda those who enter the United Kingdom illegally via the English channel. By the way, I totally support the Government’s determination to break the business case of the ghastly criminal gangs that prosper to the tune of tens of millions of pounds from trafficking these people illegally across the English channel, but if the Home Secretary is to continue on the path of sending these illegal immigrants to Rwanda when there is growing concern that Rwanda is funding terrorism in a neighbouring nation, serious questions have to be asked. Unless those questions are answered satisfactorily, I will not be able to support any move in this House to undertake that policy of sending illegal immigrants to Rwanda.

Interestingly, Robert Wood, the American representative at the UN Security Council, gave a speech at yesterday’s Security Council calling for Rwanda to stop supporting these terrorists in north-east Congo. Will the Minister, on the Floor of the House, echo the sentiments of Robert Wood and our American allies by publicly calling on Rwanda to stop funding these terrorists? I would be extremely obliged for her views on this. Can she assure me that she will raise these concerns directly with the Rwandan Government?

President Tshisekedi of Congo visited London on 18 October for a major economic summit, and he spoke passionately about the importance of trying to engage bilaterally with the United Kingdom in a more constructive and effective way from the point of view of trade. I speak as one of the Prime Minister’s trade envoys, and I returned this morning from Mongolia after a 20-hour plane journey. I understand the importance of the trade envoy programme. We are currently working on opportunities in Mongolia worth hundreds of millions of pounds, and I am very proud of the trade envoys’ work in promoting bilateral trade with key strategic partners around the world. In a post-Brexit context we have to stop our obsession with our small, shrinking continent and reach out to parts of the world where we have historically not been able to grow our exports.

I pay tribute to Lord Popat, who is doing an extremely important job as our trade envoy to Uganda, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I am not ashamed to say it, although it may be slightly controversial—this is nothing against Lord Popat—but when two countries are at odds with one another in such a profoundly difficult way, I do not believe it is appropriate for one trade envoy to cover both countries. I urge the Minister to ensure that there is a dedicated trade envoy purely for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which in itself is the size of western Europe. She will know, without my going into them, all the tremendously strategically important bilateral commercial interests we must enter into to ensure that the Russians do not steal a march on us.

Finally, I know that in my portfolio of Mongolia £2 billion has been set aside in credit exports from UK Export Finance. On the Mongolia desk, we are working assiduously to try to spend the Minister’s money as quickly as possible. The day before yesterday I heard of productive and extensive one-to-one discussions with the Mongolian Prime Minister to ascertain the key strategic projects that they would like us to get into. I hope the Minister will let us know how much is available for Congo and that she will encourage British companies to enter this extremely important and very exciting market.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I welcome the Minister in her new role to the Dispatch Box.

Persecution of the Rohingya: International Response

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

We certainly hope that the ICC will at some point be a forum for holding these crimes to account. We will continue to use our diplomatic network very energetically to build a foundation for one day arriving at that point. We think that, on that journey, our contribution to the ICJ case will be very significant. What we bring to that is tremendous legal firepower and an ability to add real strength to the case being brought by the Gambia. We hope that our alliance and our legal firepower will be an effective and important intervention in that case, which may lay the foundation for further legal activity and, possibly in the longer term, some movement in the ICC.

To achieve true justice for the Rohingya, their citizenship in Myanmar must be restored, the systematic human rights violations they have suffered for decades must end and Rohingya people must be meaningfully included in future visions of Myanmar society. Humanitarian assistance cannot solve that political element of the crisis. We need to look to the future and work to create the conditions that will allow the Rohingya to return to Myanmar voluntarily, safely, and with dignity when the situation allows.

We therefore continue to engage with a range of partners, both globally and in the region, to encourage dialogue, to find a peaceful resolution to the crisis and fundamentally to support a return to democracy. We will use all available opportunities, including at the G7 and with our Association of Southeast Asian Nations partners, to push for a long-term solution to the crisis at its root cause. We will also use our role as penholder to keep the situation in Myanmar on the UN Security Council’s agenda and explore all available council tools.

The Rohingya crisis remains a top priority for this Government. We will continue to do all we can to ensure the Rohingya can voluntarily, safely and sustainably return home when conditions allow, and to ensure that all people in Myanmar can live safely and in peace. I reiterate my thanks to the hon. Lady for calling this debate and to all parliamentarians for their efforts to engage and support this important issue.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

As somebody who has been to Cox’s Bazar myself and seen the appalling consequences of the persecution of the Rohingya, I must say how privileged I am to have chaired today’s Adjournment debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Mahsa Amini

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Gillian Keegan]

Of course it would bring back memories, and that interview showed us the plight that Nazanin found herself in for many years. The Foreign Office will continue to work both on those individual cases and within societies to ensure that we keep those relationships alive, in order hopefully to defend the human rights of everybody around the world.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Minister for taking the urgent question and responding to a number of Members—particularly, as was mentioned, on the International Day of the Girl.

Human Rights Abuses and Corruption: UK Sanctions

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly would, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s analogy of the seamless garment. I believe that human rights and religious belief work together and that when we attack one, we attack the other, so I have absolutely no compunction in agreeing with him on that. I will say that and put it on the record.

During the ministerial conference, numerous violations of freedom of religious belief were highlighted. For those cases, the threshold of evidence needed for Magnitsky sanctions was more than high enough. I want to raise one case in particular. Even though it has already been mentioned in today’s debate—the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green has been to the fore in this matter—the situation in Xinjiang deserves special attention, especially as this House, the Home Secretary and our closest allies recognise that there is overwhelming evidence of genocide against Uyghur Muslims.

Since 2003, the Chinese Communist party has sought to eradicate—I use that word on purpose; the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) used it as well—the Uyghur culture from China. For nearly 20 years, there has been a systematic approach to Uyghurs that has led to mass forced labour, forced relocation, the detention of up to 2 million people, arbitrary torture, forced sterilisation, executions and even organ harvesting on a commercial basis. As China commits these crimes, it also seeks to profit from the detention of the Uyghur Muslims, and as the arrests have increased, so has the economic output of the region.

This is where Magnitsky sanctions can make a real difference and where the UK can start to implement its duty to prevent genocide under the 1948 genocide convention. This is exactly the kind of situation the regulations were put in place for. Indeed, in 2020 Her Majesty’s Government announced co-ordinated action with the EU, the US and Canada to introduce sanctions on four Chinese Government officials and the public security bureau of the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, which runs the detention camps in the region. However, unfortunately and disappointingly, the UK Government have refused to impose sanctions on senior Chinese Government officials who are known to be directly involved in perpetrating the abuses, including the six perpetrators who have been sanctioned under near-identical legislation in the United States of America. This is part of a trend where the UK is getting slower in protecting global human rights. I say this disappointedly and very respectfully to the Minister, who I know has the same level of interest in protecting global human rights as I have. I am proud of our country’s commitment to upholding human rights on the world stage and that we are seen as global leaders in this field, but this reputation should not be taken for granted.

In the first year of the UK’s Magnitsky sanctions regime, 102 perpetrators were sanctioned for human rights abuses. However, the following year this fell to just six perpetrators. In the same period, the United States sanctioned more than 130 individuals or companies, again under near-identical legislation, when the threshold of evidence was met for both the UK and US regimes. The major question that everybody is asking is: if the American Government can do it, why can’t we?

The Government’s own impact assessment for the global anti-corruption sanctions legislation stated that the policy envisaged the UK working

“more closely with international partners, including the US and Canada”.

Clearly we are failing to keep pace with sanctions designations. This lack of co-ordination not only weakens the impact on perpetrators but encourages sanctioned individuals to use the UK as a safe haven to profit from corruption or human rights abuses, as many Members have said today. It also sends a message that the UK is unwilling to condemn such behaviour. As of today, the UK has sanctioned only 20% of those sanctioned by the United States. We need to do better. When I and others in this House raise specific questions on sanctions in this Chamber we always get the same response—namely, that it is the policy of the Government not to discuss specific individuals before sanctions are enacted. For goodness’ sake, just do them! Just follow what everybody else does. More transparency is needed from the Government and there is need for increased parliamentary oversight.

I will finish with four questions to the Minister, and I am sorry that I seem to be rushing. That is “rushing” as in rushing my words, not as in Russian. I have questions I want to ask the Minister. What steps have the Government taken to co-ordinate or share evidence of abuses with the United States and the other 22 countries with Magnitsky sanctions legislation? Does the Minister agree that Magnitsky-style sanctions can be an appropriate tool to help to prevent genocide and other crimes against humanity? Will the Government expand the sanctions on perpetrators of atrocities in Xinjiang province? Finally, will the Government use evidence presented in the international ministerial conference on freedom of religion or belief, held just a few weeks ago, to enact sanctions on perpetrators of egregious abuses of the rights of religious minorities? I know that the issue is close to the Minister’s heart, and we are looking for a substantial response. No pressure, but I want the right answers today.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We now come to the Front Bench contributions.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I, too, begin by thanking the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for securing this debate. I also put on record my appreciation for all that they do as co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions. I also thank those who have spoken in this debate—the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), as well, of course, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

It is essential that we take every opportunity in this House to talk about the plight of the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, the Rohingya in Myanmar and the Yazidis in Iraq, and that we shine a light on state corruption and abuses of human rights where we see them. That is why the passing of the Magnitsky law in 2020 was so important, putting in place a system whereby meaningful sanctions can be taken against states, institutions and individuals involved in human rights abuses or corrupt practices. It was an extremely important first step, but it was only the first step, because having the law in place and not using it effectively is almost as bad as not having the law there at all. The APPG’s report “Stuck In First Gear” makes for depressing reading for those of us who desperately want to see the United Kingdom lead the way in freezing the assets of, and imposing meaningful sanctions on, individuals and states who commit the most egregious human rights violations.

It appears that having given themselves the power to do something significant and meaningful, the UK Government are becoming increasingly timid in the exercise of that power. As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West pointed out, from a first-year high of 102 sanctions, there were only six in the following year. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife and the hon. Member for Strangford said, in highlighting the ongoing abuses in Bahrain and China, as much as we would all love to believe that things were getting better around the world and the situation had improved so much, we know that it simply has not. Indeed, it could be argued that things are getting much worse. It is therefore extremely disappointing to learn that in the opinion of so many highly respected members of the APPG there is a paucity of ambition when it comes to using the legislation effectively and consistently.

Lord Ahmad said:

“Sanctions work best when multiple countries act together…to send a political signal that such behaviour is intolerable.”

But, as we have heard, when the United States announced sweeping sanctions against 16 countries and many individuals, the UK used the power only once against an individual and on four occasions against the Myanmar regime. Why are the powers not being used in a co-ordinated fashion and in tandem with our democratic allies? Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us as to exactly what was the behaviour that the United States saw at the end of 2021 in China, Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, Liberia, Syria, Ukraine and Iran that they deemed to be intolerable but which the UK Government presumably found to be tolerable?

Yesterday, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) were in contact with Richard Ratcliffe who, along with his wife Nazanin, has repeatedly called on the Foreign Secretary to use Magnitsky sanctions and whatever other options are available to better protect British nationals who are being illegally or arbitrarily detained overseas. As the hon. Member for Rhondda said—Richard made this point, too—the Foreign Secretary has had in her possession since last September a file containing 10 names of Iran’s hostage takers, including three people directly involved in Nazanin’s detention and imprisonment. Could the Minister explain why no sanctions have been imposed on any of those Iranian officials, who both we and they know are complicit in the arrest and detention of UK nationals and in human rights abuses against them?

In 2020, the Government’s intention was to take a global leadership role on Magnitsky sanctions. No one anywhere in the House would criticise them for that ambition, but to be a global leader we must ensure that our own house is in order. Further to the important points made by the hon. Members for City of Chester and for Hammersmith, we must close the loopholes in the UK’s financial system.

Earlier this week, we debated the deteriorating security situation in Nigeria, where endemic corruption is taking that country to the brink of collapse. Next year’s presidential elections could be the last chance Nigeria has to prevent itself from descending into chaos and even, heaven forbid, civil war. But that endemic corruption is not just a problem for Nigeria to solve in isolation. Professor Sadiq Isah Radda, the Nigerian President’s anti-corruption tsar, said:

“There are thieves and there are receivers, London is most notorious safe haven for looted funds in the world today. Without safe havens for looted funds, Nigeria and Africa will not be this corrupt. So, for the West to have a moral voice of calling Nigeria or Africa as corrupt, they must shun looted funds by closing safe havens and returning all looted funds to victim countries.”

I urge the Minister, in addition to strengthening and imposing meaningful Magnitsky sanctions, to look strongly, closer to home, at the role that financial institutions here in the City of London are playing in facilitating corruption, to the extent that a Commonwealth country could be on the brink of collapse if something is not done very quickly.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The summer Adjournment debate will start at around 2.15 pm, so any Members wishing to take part in that debate should start to head towards the Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s point, which emphasises the point that I made about acting multilaterally, quickly, urgently and in co-ordination.

We heard a lot from my hon. Friend and others about Hong Kong. The United States have sanctioned at least 11 officials—from Carrie Lam to Chris Tang—for their role in infringing on the rights of the people of Hong Kong. What is the Government’s trepidation about this? We can look at Ali Ghanaatkar in Iran or Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo in Sudan; the former was head of interrogations in Evin prison, while the latter is responsible for gross human rights abuses in Darfur. I have not even got time to mention the many examples that we have heard from across the middle east and the Gulf states. What of Alexander Lebedev—will the Minister clarify? We know that he has been sanctioned by Canada as a former KGB agent and known associate of Putin. Have we sanctioned him, and if not, why not?

We want the Government to make proper and far-reaching use of the Magnitsky regime that we adopted back in 2020, and indeed the country regimes, but that requires ambition, urgency and proper resourcing. The House has made its voice very clear today; there has been complete consistency across the House, as I hope the Minister has heard clearly. The protection and advancement of human rights should be at the heart of any British foreign policy, and I hope that the agreement that the Minister has heard across the House will result in action commensurate with the violations that are unfolding across the world today.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I welcome the Minister to his new role—Rehman Chishti.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rehman Chishti]

I can ask my officials to look at that specific point and come back to the hon. Gentleman on it.

The UK has designated more individuals than any other G7 member, demonstrating our leadership in this field. We also brought forward emergency legislation so that we could respond even more swiftly and effectively. We now have a significantly expanded sanctions directorate within the FCDO to take forward these measures. I visited it this week, where I was impressed by the incredibly hard work everyone is putting in to deliver our objectives. Let me be clear that these measures are working. Sanctions imposed by the UK and our international partners are having deep and damaging consequences for Putin’s ability to wage war.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green asked about greater collaboration with the US as we move forward on sanctions designations. I will be in the US next week to speak to counterparts, looking at sanctions and how we can work together even more in the coming months and years on this point. That may not be quite what he wanted me to say, but it shows our commitment to work with our international partners. Having come into office 10 days ago, I will be in the US next week meeting counterparts about this specific, important issue.



Meanwhile, we continue to impose sanctions in support of human rights and democracy elsewhere in the world, using our geographic regimes. That includes measures cutting off arms flows to the military in Myanmar, targeting those supporting the Assad regime in Syria, and bearing down on politicians who undermine the hard-won peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In recent years, we have boosted the tools at our disposal through our independent sanctions framework. We launched our global human rights sanctions regime in 2020 and our global anti-corruption sanctions regime the following year.

Our global human rights sanctions regime helps us hold to account those involved in serious human rights violations or abuses—including torture, slavery and forced labour—by imposing targeted asset freezes and travel bans. Since the regime was launched, we have designated 81 individuals and entities. We have used it to stand up for the rights of citizens in countries ranging from Russia to Belarus, Venezuela, Pakistan, The Gambia and North Korea. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) mentioned Belarus. Only yesterday, the other place approved the Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2022, which will come back to this House in September, allowing for further debate.

China and Hong Kong have been mentioned by parliamentarians across the House. We have taken robust action to hold China to account for its appalling human rights violations in Xinjiang, including systematic restrictions on religious practice. On that point, I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for the amazing work of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of region or belief, which he chairs. As a former special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, and having worked with my US counterpart, Sam Brownback, the US ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom, to set up the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance—it had 26 member states at the time—I totally understand what such partnership working and collaboration can do to advance interests that are important to both our great countries.

Last year, we imposed unprecedented joint sanctions against those responsible for enforcing China’s oppressive policies in Xinjiang. We took that action alongside 29 other countries, demonstrating the strength of international resolve. We have also led international efforts to hold China to account at the United Nations, taken measures to tackle forced labour in supply chains, funded research to expose China’s actions, and consistently raised our concerns at the highest level.

On Hong Kong, we continue to challenge China for breaching its legally binding commitments under the joint declaration. We have called out its conduct on the world stage. Together with our G7 partners, we have condemned the steady erosion of political and civil rights. We have also opened our doors to the people of Hong Kong through a new immigration path for British nationals overseas, with over 120,000 applications. Moreover, we have suspended the UK-Hong Kong extradition treaty indefinitely, and extended to Hong Kong the arms embargo applied to mainland China since 1989, as updated in 1998.

Although it would not be appropriate for me to speculate about future possible designations, we remain committed to working with partners to hold China to account, and not only China. We remain committed to working with international partners, whether our friends in Canada, our friends in Australia, who apply a similar system of sanctions, or the EU. We will work together, hand in hand, to ensure that everything that can be done is being done to hold those perpetrators to account for serious human rights violations. That is a top priority for this Government.

Our global anti-corruption sanctions regime targets those involved in bribery and misappropriation, stopping them freely entering the United Kingdom and using it as a safe haven for dirty money. The hon. Members for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) talked about how we can address the issue of dirty money coming into the United Kingdom. That is also a key priority for the Government. In just over a year, we have designated 27 people, including Ajay, Atul and Rajesh Gupta and their associate Salim Essa, who were at the heart of long-running corruption that caused significant damage to South Africa’s economy.

I conclude by reflecting on the words of Winston Churchill:

“It is wonderful what great strides can be made when there is a resolute purpose behind them.”—[Official Report, 7 May 1947; Vol. 437, c. 455.]

The United Kingdom Government have demonstrated our vision and purpose by taking significant steps on this issue. Of course we can do more, and we will do more. The Government will work with parliamentarians to do all we can to ensure that serious human rights violators are brought to account.

Again, I thank the hon. Member for Rhondda and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green for all they have done. I look forward to working with them when Parliament returns in September. I go to the United States next week, so this timely debate enables me to say to my US counterparts how important this issue is not just for Congress but for Parliament.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call Sir Iain Duncan Smith, I want to tell everyone that there will be a six-minute limit on speeches in the summer Adjournment debate.

Strategy for International Development

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Before I call the Front-Bench representatives to wind up, after which Sarah Champion will get the last two minutes, I should say that Members need not worry: should we finish before 7 o’clock, under Standing Order No. 54 we will then suspend until 7 o’clock when the questions on all the motions will be put.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vicky Ford]

Why do we send programme aid to China at all? We have reduced it by 95% and we do not send any direct aid, but sometimes there are projects that are important for human rights. For example, we funded an important piece of research by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute called “Uyghurs for sale”, which did a huge amount of good in exposing forced labour in China. There are elements that are doing really important work. I hope that that example is useful.

On tied aid, we are untying aid in line with and beyond the work of the Development Assistance Committee, the global group of major development donors.

BEIS has recently announced that it will not be sending any more ODA aid to China. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield wants more detail about what it has done; I can confirm that there is no ODA aid spent in Chinese prisons. I hope that that has answered some of his questions.

I was asked why we were not at the UNRWA meeting at ministerial level. We were there at a senior official level, where we pledged. The meeting took place in New York in the same week that the Minister for Asia and the Middle East was visiting an UNRWA-supported refugee camp in Jerusalem. I hope that that explains what the Minister was doing.

I have not answered all hon. Members’ questions, but I hope that I have answered a number of them and explained why our international development work is so important. I commend it to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I will now ask Sarah Champion to briefly wind up. You might as well speak until just a few seconds before 7 o’clock so that we do not need to suspend.

[Sarah Champion]

I want to begin by thanking all the aid workers around the world, who work in some incredibly dangerous and challenging situations. They do it quietly; they do it because they care about people and want to make a difference.

I also thank all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. I hope that the Minister has listened to the words of former DFID Ministers, former Treasury Ministers and former aid workers with a wealth of experience. This is all about meeting our international obligations to the most vulnerable and the poorest in the world, not in a political way but in a cross-party way, because we care about this. Why do we care? Because in the past two years, another 100 million people have been forced into extreme poverty—by covid, by climate change, by conflict. The majority have been women and girls. All the issues could have been addressed if we had worked internationally with our partners and used our money wisely.

When we talk about the commitment to 0.7%, it is not about the number. It is about the strategy to alleviate poverty around the world and develop low and middle-income countries around the world so that everybody can have a healthy, prosperous, educated future with Governments who are stable and respect human rights. We can achieve that by working together and by working with our partners on the ground.

I urge the Minister to listen to everything that has been said today; to make sure that the taxpayers’ money that the Government have been gifted to look after is spent as wisely as possible so that we can meet our goals and international commitments; and to work with our international partners so that, hopefully, everybody can have a safe future.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

It being 20 seconds before 7 o’clock, I will just talk for 20 seconds and entertain the House, as I am required by Standing Order No. 54 to put the Questions at 7 o’clock. Now we have another five seconds, and who knows what could happen in five seconds in this place today? [Laughter.]

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 27th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. First, I remind everyone that, if you were not in at the beginning—you know who you are, and, even more importantly, I know who you are—do not stand because you will not get in. Secondly, everybody participating: please do come for the wind-ups.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. In order for us to get as many Members in as possible, the time limit is reduced forthwith to six minutes. I call Mr David Jones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Only the Social Democratic and Labour party has suggested tonight that there are no problems with the protocol. Every other party now accepts that, to one degree or another, there are problems caused by the protocol, which is one of the issues we have faced in these negotiations. The Irish Government, through their Foreign Minister, have patronisingly come to Northern Ireland to tell us, “You don’t really know what you’re talking about. There isn’t a problem.” Of course that has fed through to the EU negotiators, which is one reason why it is important that we have this Bill.

I have listened to Labour Members ask, “What about article 16?” The first people to squeal if the Government had invoked article 16 would have been the Labour party. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) talked about consulting the people of Northern Ireland, but she did not care too much about consulting on abortion. Now she is, as a Labour Member, appealing to the toffs down the other end of the building to defeat this Bill.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I think the right hon. Gentleman is talking about Members of the other place.

[Sammy Wilson]

I am.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) for setting the parliamentary precedent that we are now allowed to refer to the House downbye as the “House of toffs.” I think that is a rather good suggestion.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The hon. Gentleman will find it was corrected to “Members of the other place” or even “noble Members of the other place.” Toffs? No.

[Sammy Wilson]

I do not know whether “noble toffs” is acceptable, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Members have argued that surely we can do this by negotiation, so let us look at the record. The EU has said not once or twice but every time that it will not renegotiate the text of the protocol. The EU has said it every time it has visited Northern Ireland and every time it has met Government representatives. In fact, the EU has now gone further and is taking us to court to impose more checks.

The result of removing the grace periods would be to increase the number of checks per week for goods coming into Northern Ireland from 6,000 to 25,000. This is hardly flexibility from the EU. Indeed, the EU recently wrote to the Government to demand checks on not only goods but people on ferries or airplanes from GB into Northern Ireland. The EU is demanding that people’s personal baggage is searched to make sure they are not bringing in sandwiches or whatever else. Constituents told me this week that such searches have already started in Cairnryan. This is not flexibility but a hardening of attitude by the EU.

Whether by triggering article 16 or through negotiation, we all know what the outcome will be, and that is why the Government have had to take this unilateral action. The Government are not abandoning their obligations. In fact, they are honouring their obligations in two ways. First, they are honouring their obligation to the EU in so far as the single market will be protected by the goods going through the red lane, by the imposition of fines on firms that try to avoid the checks and by the requirement on firms in Northern Ireland that want to trade with the EU to comply voluntarily with all EU regulations. That safeguards the EU market, so we are living up to our obligations to the European Union.

At the same time, the Government are living up to their obligation to the people of Northern Ireland, because the green lane or free lane—or whatever they want to call it—enables goods to come into Northern Ireland without any checks. It does not require the imposition of EU law on the 95% of firms in Northern Ireland that do not trade with the Irish Republic, and it ensures that judgments on whether the law has been broken are made by courts in the United Kingdom, albeit with reference to decisions made by the European Court of Justice.

If one looks at this Bill objectively, rather than through the eyes of those in this House who think we should have remained and still want to act almost as agents of the EU, it will help to restore devolution, it will ensure the integrity of the United Kingdom and it will protect the European single market.