UK’s Exit from the European Union

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.

Historians will write in amazement about Brexit: the swagger of its proponents, the vanity, the false promises and the lies; the salutary sight of focused Brussels negotiators sitting, well briefed, at the negotiating table opposite a series of hapless, unbriefed Tory Ministers; the laughable suggestion that other EU countries would be so envious of Brexit that they would rush to emulate it; the sage advice of our friends ignored; the Brexit enthusiasts, Trump, Farage and Putin, whose malign presence alone should have served as a warning; the campaign tinged with racism and attacks on foreigners; the misplaced triumphalism; the sheer, vulgar philistinism; and the disdain shown for the people of Scotland—if you are in the European Union, you can leave, but if you are in this Union, your voice does not count.

I was on the BBC’s “Debate Night” programme recently. I was up against a Scottish Tory MSP and a member of the audience asked her what benefits she thought Brexit had brought. Do you know what she said? She said, “None at all”—full marks for honesty. However, the Scottish Tory press office went into meltdown, of course, and I am not sure that she has been since.

We all know the truth about Brexit, but we do not expect for a moment that the Tory UK Government will do as today’s petitioners demand. The embarrassment would be too much even for this apparently unembarrassable Administration. And what of my Labour friends? Alas, they are leaderless and sinking on Europe; they are now a party tethered to the anchor of a failing Brexit. There are honourable exceptions; I am talking about the party leadership.

I know that Brexit leaders have not suffered. Some were rewarded with seats for life in the Lords as unelected legislators. We know that many of them, having searched family histories or exploited the generosity of the Irish Government for passports, can skip past fellow Britons who are queuing for many hours at EU borders.

However, what of our constituents who suffer from Brexit? My constituency, Ochil and South Perthshire, straddles rural and urban areas. Brexit, which was rejected emphatically by the Scottish electorate, has impacted every single part of it. Young people have lost access to the incredible Erasmus scheme. Previously, medical students and young social workers could go on a long work placement in Germany and bring their experience back. Students from all backgrounds could spend a year in France or Spain or Romania, to improve their language skills and widen their horizons.

The replacement for Erasmus is the so-called “Turing scheme”—poor Alan Turing; how sad that his name should be associated with it. It promised worldwide advantages, but not for my constituent who travelled to Singapore via the Turing scheme. Once he was there, he was told that there was no money left in the pot to fund his continued stay. He was offered no alternatives or assistance—typical, bungling Brexit chaos. My amazing office team had to work with him to find all sorts of odd and unexpected allowances, bursaries and funds that would plug the gap.

I have the oldest distillery in the country, Glenturret, in my constituency. The boss told me last week that pre-Brexit they delivered, without impediment, all across Europe, sharing lorries with other companies for cost and environmental reasons. Now, if any other firm on the shared transport has made the slightest paperwork mistake, all their goods collectively are sent back with export and other duties. One consignment was sent back twice, the first time because the whisky was labelled “From Scotland” and the second time because it was labelled “From Britain”. The rules that we have negotiated mean that neither name is recognised. “Global Britain” is ironic, eh?.

According to the distillery boss, now it sometimes takes longer to get whisky to Paris than to Japan. That is not because it is becoming quicker to get to Japan; getting to Paris has simply become a nightmare. Glenturret has now had to design new labels for every single market within the EU—seven different labels, with all the added cost of switching a machine and switching the labels. It has had to abandon smaller markets in the Baltic states and elsewhere—

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a Division. We will be back in 15 minutes. Is that okay?

[John Nicolson]

Curses.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

9. What diplomatic steps she is taking to achieve the goals of the Government’s global Britain agenda.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

20. If she will make an assessment of the potential impact of the Government’s policy on uprating UK state pensions overseas on delivering the Government’s global Britain agenda.

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

The integrated review of foreign policy, defence and security sets out the Government’s vision for global Britain. We are delivering this though our diplomatic, economic, development and security partnerships, prioritising Euro-Atlantic security and the Indo-Pacific tilt. We have become an Association of Southeast Asian Nations dialogue partner, and we have provided £2.3 billion-worth of military support to Ukraine, published a new international development strategy and agreed the AUKUS deal.

The United Kingdom state pension is payable worldwide and uprated where there is a legal requirement to do so. This has been the policy of successive Governments for over 70 years.

[Rehman Chishti]

On what the hon. Member says about alienating the world, we should look at what really happened in practice. The United Kingdom led the world on stepping up and supporting the people of Ukraine. Whether militarily, economically, diplomatically or on a humanitarian basis, we have stepped up to the plate at every level in that regard. Whether with COP26, the summit on freedom of religion or belief, or the summit coming up on the preventing sexual violence initiative, the United Kingdom is leading the world and standing up for our values of democracy, liberty and open societies.

[Peter Dowd]

The job interviews have taken a long time today.

I cannot believe I am actually having to ask this question, but over the summer thousands of UK pensioners living in Canada had their pensions stopped as a result of proof of life forms not being sent to them and therefore not being able to be returned, pushing many of them into debt and having to borrow for basic bills. To reinstate their pension, they have had to phone an international number, with calls lasting up to an hour. What does it say about global Britain if we cannot even pay our pensioners living abroad? What support can the Department and the British high commission give to pensioners in Canada to ensure that their pensions are reinstated as quickly as possible, and can the Minister confirm that this issue—this debacle—has yet been sorted out with the Department for Work and Pensions?

[Rehman Chishti]

I thank the hon. Member for that question. I know he has had a written response from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who leads on this matter, and had a conversation with a Minister at the DWP.

Let me answer specifically about pensions in Canada. I was recently in Canada, and this pensions matter was raised with me by my parliamentary counterpart in Canada, so let me answer that point specifically for the hon. Member. State pensions are uprated where there is a legal requirement to do so. The United Kingdom and Canada have two arrangements concerning social security, neither of which includes state pension uprating. The Government continue to take the view that priority should be given to those living within the United Kingdom when drawing up expenditure plans for additional pensioner benefits. That has been the position of successive Governments for the past 70 years.

Non-proliferation Treaty: 50th Anniversary Review

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Fabian Hamilton]

The hon. Lady interrupted me in saying exactly that. We want to see the non-proliferation treaty taken to its logical conclusion, which is the ultimate elimination of all nuclear weapons. That seems a vain hope that the moment, but we know as politicians that unless we have those hopes and aims, unless we look to the future and have a vision for a better world, we will certainly never achieve it. We may fail in our lifetimes, but we must have that vision and hope—that determination —to aim for the elimination of all nuclear weapons.

As we have heard, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is the most successful international treaty in history. It has prevented the proliferation of nuclear weapons across the world and has almost certainly deterred some rogue states from easily accessing the materials needed for nuclear weapons programmes. It is therefore vital that the review conference in New York in August provides fresh impetus towards further nuclear non-proliferation. As a nuclear power, it is really important that the UK acts responsibly and throws its entire diplomatic weight behind this review conference in the NPT’s 50th year. We need to play our part alongside other nuclear powers to ensure that a nuclear conflict can never take place, because we all know that if it did, the destruction would reach every corner of our world and kill millions and millions—not only human beings, but all living creatures.

Non-signatories to the NPT and those who continually flout its obligations should also form an important part of the review conference. Given regional tensions, it is vital that we put as much diplomatic pressure as we can on India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, and indeed South Sudan to finally sign and ratify this historic treaty. As far as we know, South Sudan has no nuclear weapons, but it has not signed the treaty.

It is also important to hold to account countries such as Iran that continue to pursue nuclear weapons programmes—that, of course, flies in the face of its commitments within the NPT. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what recent discussions the Government have had with those countries about signing up to the NPT, even if they refuse to attend the review conference. Of course, North Korea was once signed up and then withdrew from it. Can it be persuaded to sign up to the NPT again?

My party has a long and proud history of action on nuclear non-proliferation. While we are clear that the Labour party is steadfastly committed to our nuclear deterrent, we also understand that, as a nuclear power, we must act responsibly. That is why Labour Governments signed the NPT in 1968—as hon. and right hon. Members have mentioned today—signed the comprehensive test ban treaty, and phased out tactical nuclear weapons in 1998. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North said, there is no such thing as a tactical nuclear weapon; it destroys every living being and creature in its path.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. Just a reminder: we expect a vote at around 5.17 pm.

[Fabian Hamilton]

Oh, gosh. I am sorry; I didn’t realise that.

Continuing that rich history of multilateral non-proliferation is the right thing to do—to act now and use Britain’s position as a nuclear-armed state to convene a nuclear forum to discuss the next generation of arms control, including on hypersonic missiles. The non-proliferation treaty review conference is just around the corner and is the perfect opportunity for the UK to put non-proliferation back on the global political agenda at such a vital time.

With that in mind, it is worrying that the Government have, as part of their integrated review, decided to increase the cap on the amount of nuclear weapons the UK can hold. We in the Opposition all believe that sends the wrong message to our international partners. It also came without justification. Does the Minister have any update on the justification for that increase? How does he believe it will impact on our participation at the NPT review conference?

We must also look to the NPT review conference to hold discussions on the other important non-proliferation treaties, especially the comprehensive test ban treaty, because the United States has still not ratified it. Does the Minister have any plans to discuss that with his US counterpart? Beyond the political and diplomatic process, it is vital that we remember the human consequences of nuclear testing. We must honour those who risked their wellbeing in nuclear testing on behalf of this country, but also encourage other Governments to do the same in areas such as Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona and Utah, where significant cancer clusters have been linked to previous nuclear tests. The horrific consequences of nuclear testing for those communities exposed to nuclear test fallout should be a driving force in bringing Governments to the negotiating table. Our country can be a force for good for a more secure world, and it is about time that we reclaimed that moral duty.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Graham Stuart)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for securing the debate ahead of the NPT review conference in August, and to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for stepping in and leading it.

I completely agree with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on the quality of the debate that we have enjoyed this afternoon. I will try to respond to as many of the points raised as possible in the perhaps eight minutes before we vote.

We had a mention of RAF Lakenheath. It remains long-standing UK and NATO policy neither to confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons at a given location. The UK does not have a policy of no first use because—this goes to the heart of much of what we are discussing—the credibility of the deterrent rests on the conviction that we would bring all means to bear to ensure the security of the UK and our allies.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion referred to the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. The TPNW fails to address the obstacles that must be overcome to achieve lasting global disarmament and offers no solutions to the challenges posed by what is, as hon. Members suggested and with which I agree, a deteriorating security environment. The TPNW will not lead us closer to a world without nuclear weapons and risks creating division within the international community, at a time when we need to focus on building consensus and strengthening the NPT to make progress on disarmament together.

What I have picked up, enjoyed and appreciated in the debate—the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) was particularly fluent on the point, but hon. Members across the Chamber picked it up—is the recognition of the importance of the NPT. It is a remarkably successful treaty. Over the last 52 years, the NPT has been the cornerstone of global nuclear security and civil nuclear prosperity.

In 1960, as the right hon. Member for Islington North mentioned, President Kennedy predicted that there could be up to 20 nations with nuclear weapons as soon as 1964. Yet today the number of nuclear-armed states remains in single figures, thanks to the NPT. It is important that we recognise that and cement that progress, although I recognise people will want other initiatives. The NPT has extended access to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. It has prevented the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It has provided a framework for significant levels of disarmament since the cold war peak. It has been remarkably successful.

Now, after two years of delay, we are delighted that states will be able to come together next month in New York to review implementation and take forward the objectives of the treaty. The UK remains committed to full implementation of the NPT in all its aspects. We are a nuclear weapons state that takes its responsibilities seriously. We are committed to the long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons, where all states share in the peaceful uses of nuclear technologies.

At the review conference, the UK will work constructively with states parties for a successful outcome. We will mark the progress of the past 50 years and call on all states to reaffirm their commitment to the three pillars of the treaty—disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear technology.

Celebrating success does not mean ignoring reality. Since the last conference in 2015, we have seen a significant deterioration in the security environment and the treaty faces a number of challenges. We have previously identified risks to the UK from major nuclear-armed states and emerging nuclear states. Those risks have not gone away, and some states are now significantly increasing and diversifying their nuclear arsenals. They are investing in novel nuclear technologies and developing new warfighting nuclear systems, which they are integrating into their military strategies and doctrines, and into their political rhetoric, to seek to coerce others. The increase in global competition and the proliferation of potentially disruptive technologies mean there are new threats to strategic stability.

Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, which the right hon. Member for Islington North rightly and fully condemned, is a dramatic demonstration of the risks we face. We do not underestimate the challenges. They make strengthening the NPT more important. The treaty is not an academic document. It must live in the real world and adapt to address modern challenges. We believe the NPT provides the only credible route to nuclear disarmament.

The UK Government are proud of our contribution to the NPT’s success and of our own track record. We set out the steps we have taken since 2015 in the UK’s national report, published last November. I refer those asking for clarity on the UK’s views and objectives to that report. It sets them out. Our views have not changed since that report. If people have already read it, they should look again. We share the aspirations of all states parties to the NPT for a world without nuclear weapons. Disarmament cannot be done unilaterally or in a single leap. It requires a series of incremental, mutually reinforcing steps.

Building such a framework requires the active participation of the entire international community. Rallying their many disparate interests presents a huge diplomatic challenge, but it is one in which the United Kingdom has already played a significant role. We have pioneered work in nuclear disarmament verification, championed transparency and advanced understanding on irreversibility. In December we published a food for thought paper, outlining one vision for how to get to a world without nuclear weapons in support of the forthcoming review conference that hon. Members have mentioned.

We have pressed for significant steps towards multilateral disarmament, including the entry into force of the comprehensive test ban treaty and successful negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. It is the comprehensive test ban treaty that deals with the testing issues, which have been referred to by hon. Members, as opposed to the NPT. We possess the smallest stockpile. That is worth noting, given the impression that in some way the UK has not been stepping up: we possess the smallest stockpile of any of the nuclear weapon states recognised by the NPT, and we are the only one to maintain a single delivery system—

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a Division in the House.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. I apologise to the Minister for rudely interrupting him earlier on. He can carry on where he left off.

[Graham Stuart]

Thank you, Mr Dowd. It is a pleasure to be back. I am grateful to Members for returning to the debate.

We remain committed to our article 6 obligation to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament. Reducing the risk of nuclear conflict remains a priority and we believe that short-term progress, in line with many of the contributions we have had, is achievable. We should seek to foster dialogue, which many Members have mentioned, both among states possessing nuclear weapons and between states possessing nuclear weapons and non-nuclear weapon states in order to increase understanding and reduce the risk of misinterpretation and miscalculation.

Although we recognise that work on risk reduction does not replace disarmament obligations, we see it as a complementary and necessary step to reduce the risk of nuclear conflict and enhance mutual trust and security. We will continue to work with international partners, civil society and academia to build mutual trust and create the environment for further progress on disarmament.

The UK works to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. We have sought to strengthen the international nuclear safeguard system and the International Atomic Energy Agency through our diplomatic efforts and through direct assistance from our nuclear safeguards programme. We will encourage all states that have not yet done so to sign, ratify and implement safeguards agreements. We will promote the ratification of security conventions and seek universal commitment to the additional protocol and a comprehensive safeguards agreement, which together provide credible assurances of the absence of undeclared nuclear activities and will strengthen the non-proliferation architecture. Nevertheless, the UK recognises that significant regional risks remain, particularly from Iran and North Korea. They have been highlighted in the debate. We are working hard to combat the risk of proliferation and remain firmly committed to ensuring coherence to the NPT and the IAEA safeguards regime to ensure global safety and stability.

Finally, the UK has encouraged and will continue to encourage the development and exchange of peaceful nuclear technologies, enabled by the NPT. Nuclear technologies have a critical part to play in tackling climate change, for instance, not only in helping to achieve net zero, but also through nuclear applications such as helping to improve food security and agricultural resilience. The technologies can help countries to adapt and become more resilient to climate change. They are also vital to global health, as they are used to treat cancer and prevent the spread of insect-borne disease. We want the review conference to highlight the significant global contribution that the peaceful use of nuclear technology makes to improving people’s lives and advancing progress to the UN sustainable development goals.

Draft Somerset (Structural Changes) Order 2022

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd February 2022 General Committees

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

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

It is worth giving a little context to this draft structural change order, because there is always a context to such changes. We should at least explore, if only a little, that context and perhaps tease out the narrative. The process cannot simply be transactional; I thought the Minister sounded very transactional, so this Committee provides the opportunity to tease out some of the issues and to make these things less transactional. We are dealing with the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.

The financial context was set out in the Weston Mercury online in October 2013, in relation to the finances of Somerset County Council, which happens to be Tory controlled:

“A statement released by the authority said: ‘With a drastic reduction in funding from Government, coupled with increased costs and rising demand to look after elderly and disabled people, the council faces a £106 million black hole in its finances over the next four years—with cuts of £30 million required for next year alone.’”

That gives the context of the proposals. The article continued:

“The first phase of savings will be worth £7 million and include changing to low-energy streetlights and selling buildings, as well as moving services such as museums into non-profit trust ownership.”

Events, however, took a turn for the worse, if that were possible. In 2018, a report in Somerset Live stated that Somerset County Council could

“run out of money in the next two to three years”

unless urgent action was taken to curb spending. That, too, is the context for the draft order.

An official audit of the council by Grant Thornton LLP criticised its “pervasive” overspending and its failure to deliver sufficient savings over the past 12 months. That report came as the chairman and vice-chairman of the audit committee resigned from their posts and, as it happens, from the council’s ruling Conservative group. The council has said that action is being taken to ensure that services are protected and that the overspending does not continue. That is also part of the context of the draft order.

Meanwhile, the council maintained a council tax freeze—if my memory serves me right, but I could be wrong—for about six years. Mr Ruddle, one of those who resigned, told the BBC that he could

“no longer support the party’s direction of travel on local government finance.”

He went on to say:

“Somerset, in particular, finds itself in very poor financial shape after almost a decade of cuts in funding from central government, while demand for key services such as adult social care”—

to which the Minister referred—

“and children’s services is at record levels.”

He also said:

“I can no longer reconcile the basic contradiction…sitting as a local Conservative councillor under a Conservative government which is compounding this problem.”

That, too, is the context of the draft order.

That context goes to the heart of the proposals we are dealing with: a Tory council, bereft of financial stability under a Tory Government, with a Damascene conversion on the part of those two members, which took some years to ferment until reaching full maturity and ABV level. Meanwhile, the district councils in the county—Mendip, Sedgemoor, Somerset West and Taunton, and South Somerset, with three under Liberal Democrat control and one under Tory control—recognised the need for change. They all bit the bullet.

In such strained circumstances, it was therefore right to consult the people of Somerset on the new local structural arrangements. The substantive reason, as far as I can tell, however, is a decade of underfunding, which in effect made those councils unsustainable in how they operated. It was not just an organisational issue, but substantially more than that. Yet nowhere in the announcement by the then Secretary of State on 21 July last year is there any mention of the financial causes of the reorganisation, and nor was there any in the Minister’s speech today. There should have been. It is as though the upheaval caused for the councils—and more importantly for the people of Somerset—by the years of cuts that have made this decision necessary has nothing to do with the actions of the Secretary of State or previous Secretaries of State in terms of the massive cuts to local government budgets generally.

From what I can tell, in the consultation the people of Somerset supported a proposal for two councils. In a poll run by the four district councils at a cost of £300,000, with about 110,000 people taking part, 65.3% voted for the district councils’ “Stronger Somerset” proposal, which would have created two councils, Western Somerset and Eastern Somerset. However, the Tory-led Somerset County Council—which, remember, is a financial basket case, incapable of organising a tasting session in one of Somerset’s fantastic beer or cider breweries, and on the brink of a potential section 114 notice for its incompetent handling of the county finances—described the poll as “ deeply flawed” and “biased”. It got to the stage where the leader of Somerset County Council had to deny that section 114 was in the offing.

For those members who do not know what a section 114 is, I will explain, as it is directly relevant. The then Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s “Local authority financial sustainability and the section 114 regime” report—its second report of the 2021-22 Session—set out the definition well:

“under section 114 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, a Chief Finance Officer is required to make a report, known as a section 114 notice, if it appears to them that the expenditure of the authority in a financial year is ‘likely to exceed the resources (including sums borrowed) available to it to meet that expenditure.’…Once a council has issued a notice, spending on all but essential services must immediately cease. It is a statement that a council is in deep financial distress and requires assistance from central government.”

That goes to the heart of the proposals. Hon. Members might want to read that report, because it helps to contextualise further the problems faced by local government in Somerset and more broadly. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham were members of that Select Committee. I am sure we can consult them on their views, if necessary.

I was the leader of a council for many years, and I have known a fair number of council leaders in my time, but I have known none who had to deny that a section 114 was in the offing, let alone anyone who had a section 114 —I think there have been four in the past few years. So the leader of Somerset County Council was the pot calling the kettle black. As it happens, the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger), said that the Secretary of State “cannot afford” to ignore the vote in the poll to which I referred. However, the former Secretary of State did ignore that poll.

Reorganisations of local government, such as the one proposed by the Minister today, really only paper over the cracks. That is the fact of the matter. Eventually, the Government will have to address the sustainability of local government finances, as per the report to which I referred. In that regard, the question for the Committee is whether we think that the draft order is a long-term solution for the problems facing Somerset local government, when those responsible for the problem in the first place, namely the Government, with their underfunding of local government, and the Tory-controlled county council, with its—let us be honest—incompetence, have not resolved it. The proposals, I hope, will help to resolve the problem, but they will not necessarily do so.

When the elections of 1 April 2022 come about in Somerset, as a result of the provisions under article 4, the people of Somerset will, I hope, send a message to the leader of the existing county council that, in the newly renamed Somerset Council, they do not want more of the financial and organisational incompetence that they have had in the old Somerset County Council. In the meantime, the statement by the former Secretary of State that he would not impose “top-down government solutions” has as much substance as a balloon.

The people of Somerset face major reorganisation of a council that has the responsibility to provide the services on which they rely every single day. From the moment a person wakes up, they will hear or see services provided by the local council. They might hear their bins being collected, before they see them. They will notice the lights on their street coming on or going off. Walking out of their house, they will step on a pavement, cross a road or walk through a park maintained by the council as they make their way to a library maintained by their council. There will be many services provided by the council that they did not even know the council had to provide. Local councils have as many as 3,000 statutory responsibilities.

Given that, given the major changes occurring and given the context in which these things are happening in Somerset, what assurances can the Minister give us in Committee that her Department will closely monitor the community engagement process undertaken by the new council? We should remember that people in Somerset have been used to a council that has provided services much more locally and much closer to them. So when it comes to this new county-wide council, to be authorised under the draft order by us in this Committee today, people need assurances that everything has been done to ensure that they are heard not just at election time, but throughout the years, by way of robust local community networks and engagement infrastructure.

How will the new council engage with its partners in the business, voluntary, community, faith and health—the Minister referred to that—sectors? What are the appropriate arrangements for the transition more broadly to the new council referred to in paragraph 2 of the explanatory notes? When will the Minister decide what incidental, consequential, transitional and supplementary provisions may be necessary in relation to section 14 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007?

Paragraph 7.4 of the explanatory notes refers to the Secretary of State not being convinced that the two-council proposal would improve local government or be “a credible geography”. Why is that, when the 110,000 people in the poll, and even the official consultation, showed that that was not the view of local people? So much for listening to local people.

Is the Minister prepared to write to members of the Committee about paragraph 7.7 of the explanatory notes on the progress that the Implementation Executive is making? Paragraph 10.10 of the explanatory notes refers to those who did not support the unitary model—the majority of people—on the grounds that it would be

“too remote and local democracy would be diminished.”

Will the Minister ensure that those concerns are given full vent in any community network arrangements? It would be helpful to know what those are. The topography, the demography and the social and economic landscape is so varied in Somerset that careful consideration of community structures is required.

Will the Minister and the Department assure the people of Somerset that, despite the transactional approach we heard today, their views have not been discarded in the consultation and will be heard loud and clear during the transition phase? The people of Somerset deserve to be fully involved in the process at all stages. I hope that the Minister can give general and specific assurances on the impact of the proposals on the people of Somerset.

[Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)]

It is a pleasure and an honour to serve under your chairmanship. Mr Efford. I would like to ask the Minister a couple questions, but first, I welcome the order.

In my view, moving to a unitary authority is absolutely the right thing for the people of Somerset. It will allow a more integrated approach to health and social care, security, the way our police interact with district councils, and to powers that have not been implemented in a joined-up way before. Overall, that joined-up approach gives us the opportunity to transform services and improve them at the same time as providing better value for money for our residents in Somerset. Even more importantly, it means that we can speak with one voice in Somerset and work, as MPs who support the Government, with local people to achieve things for our area. It is a massive, once-in-a-generation opportunity that we must not pass up.

We heard some points about supposed context. They represented cloud cuckoo land when compared with my experience and knowledge of what has been going on Somerset for many years. The opposite is the case. Our county council, of which I used to be a member, was saddled with a huge debt of £350 million by the previous Lib Dem administration. That costs residents of Somerset £40,000 a day to this day. It is outrageous.

[Peter Dowd]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Fysh]

I will not. The hon. Gentleman said many things that were patently not the case.

There is another point that people might not understand, and I would like the Minister’s feedback on it. She talked about the transition arrangements and the commitments that the various councils would make not to enter into contracts and so on. South Somerset District Council, which is Lib Dem-run at the moment, has just run up another £120 million of debt against its assets. That is an outrageous layer of extra debt, which will fall to the unitary authority and the residents of Somerset to pay off. The council sold the council housing in Somerset some years ago and got £40 million. It was therefore in net cash but is now in massive debt. What can the Minister do to try to stop the Lib Dems implementing such a scorched earth policy in the coming months? They are undoubtedly engaged in that at the moment.

Somerset County Council plans to spend 13% more on adult social care and children’s services in this year’s budget, but it is raising council tax by only 2% on the main precept. That is a very strong performance, so it is wrong to say that the scheme is being planned on the basis of trying to solve an issue that we, on this side of the House, have created.

I will just end by saying that we heard lots of aspersions cast against Somerset’s Tory leader. Without wanting to saying anything untoward here, I think that the residents of Somerset have a right to understand that the previous Lib Dem council leader of South Somerset is currently in jail for 11 years for pretty heinous crimes—well, very heinous crimes—and the main character witness at his trial was none other than the previous Lib Dem leader of the county council, who sits now in the other place, outrageously. My point is that these are not fit and proper people. The Lib Dems are not a fit and proper party to be involved in local government in Somerset ever again.

It is also worth the people of Somerset understanding that that district council—that Lib Dem-led district council—is currently also under investigation for endemic and widespread corruption. I wonder what the Minister can say about whether she will, for this period, which is so important in making the transition to a proper integrated unitary council, put the Lib Dem South Somerset administration—today—into special measures.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Mr Efford, once again, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I think we may be marching towards local elections in some patches. I thank the Minister for an informative introduction to the draft statutory instrument. It obviously follows the one that we did last week, and I think we have another next week, too. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle for his eloquent and powerful speech, and also, of course, the hon. Member for Yeovil for trying to add some local context.

I will use the National Audit Office figures for local government cuts. It is coming up to 12 years of cuts, which are now at 50%. When 50% is taken away, councils struggle, including Somerset County Council—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle explained the seriousness of the matter, with the section 114 notice; in plain English, it was on the verge of bankruptcy.

Getting back to the statutory instrument, the Government consulted on two proposals, which the Minister outlined, for a move towards a unitary authority system for Somerset: Stronger Somerset, which proposed an east-and-west split with two unitary authorities, and One Somerset, which proposed a single unitary authority. The answer from the public was clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle mentioned, with well over 100,000 responses—I think there were 110,000 responses—to a public poll. That is quite substantial, and, as politicians, we have an eye on polls.

[Peter Dowd]

The point that my hon. Friend has raised is pertinent. As it happens, the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) said, in relation to that poll, that the Secretary of State “cannot afford” to ignore the vote but, of course, he did, didn’t he?

[Mike Amesbury]

That certainly seems to be the case; it is evidently clear. In that poll of more than 110,000 people, 65% supported the two-unitary proposal, and only 35% the single-unitary proposal, yet the Secretary of State and the Minister march on with this devolution proposal that seems to have been rejected by a public poll.

It was not just the public who did not support the single-unitary proposal. In response to the consultation, a statement by the four district councils disputed the idea that the proposal had local support, describing the Government as

“foisting a manifestly unpopular new local government on our residents”—

not my words, but those of the district councils.

The Government criteria for unitary authority proposals, to which the Minister rightly referred, include the need for plans to be locally approved. As I stated earlier this week, on a previous statutory instrument similar to the draft order, the explanatory notes for such restructuring instruments state that plans should be “locally led”, as any devolution proposal should be, and should

“command a good deal of local support”.

Will the Minster therefore explain whether 35% is now considered “a good deal” of support?

[Peter Dowd]

The hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset said—my hon. Friend is probably aware of this, but perhaps he will clarify—not only that the Secretary of State “could not afford” to ignore that vote, but:

“The Secretary of State might have preferred us all to go away and forget this referendum, but we didn’t”.

Is that an important comment by a Member of Parliament who represents the area?

[Mike Amesbury]

It is very important. I concur with that good and important intervention by my hon. Friend.

The Secondary Legislation Committee marked the draft order, as well as those for North Yorkshire—which we have already discussed in Committee—and Cumbria as instruments of interest, because of that question of local say in and ownership of devolution. Does the Minister consider the local support aspect of the criteria to be less important than the others in this and other similar proposals that we will discuss in the not-too-distant future? Is that why, when the Stronger Somerset proposal was apparently rejected on other grounds, the One Somerset proposal was taken forward despite clearly not fulfilling the criteria that the Government had set out?

The hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger)—whom the hon. Member for Yeovil knows well—repeatedly and loudly expressed his concerns in the House of Commons Chamber about the plan, stating that the logic of the decision to approve the plan is bizarre. He is not a shadow Minister, but a local Conservative Member of Parliament. His concerns and those of the local people who supported the plan for two unitary councils appear to centre on the fear of a loss of local connection and of democracy under one authority—one authority that is currently struggling and financially on its knees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

I have been very encouraged by our spirited debate on this statutory instrument. Yesterday we managed to complete our discussion in 15 minutes; this has been a genuine debate. I thank all members of the Committee for their contribution, but I will say that I disagree with the entire premise of the arguments made by the hon. Member for Bootle. He seems to believe that this is an issue of local government finance. It is not; it is about devolution and levelling up. Unitarisation is not a solution to deep-seated—

[Peter Dowd]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kemi Badenoch]

No, because I can tell that the hon. Gentleman wants to have a debate about local government finance. This is a structural change order. He did not speak in the local government finance settlement debate a couple of weeks ago, in which he could have raised many of these issues. In fact, a lot of the points that he made would be more suitable for a debate in the Somerset County Council chamber, and were not really relevant to the structural change order that we are considering.

I must stress to all Members—I have made this point previously—that unitarisation is not a one-size-fits-all solution to multiple problems. If what the hon. Gentleman said is true—from what I heard from Members representing Somerset, it is not true that there are deep-seated financial issues—unitarisation would not fix the problems, so it does not make sense for him to argue that those problems are why we are making these changes. Considering what we have had to do in Liverpool—I will not go into the details—it is extraordinary that he, a Merseyside MP, is talking about what is happening in Somerset.

[Peter Dowd]

On a point of order, Mr Efford. The Minister really needs to get her facts right. I am the Member of Parliament responsible for Sefton Council, which is a different borough. Why on earth she is referring to Liverpool, when I do not represent Liverpool, is beyond me.

[The Chair]

Thank you for your intervention. We do not need to get sidetracked into the finances of local authorities. We are dealing with Somerset, and if we could stick with what we are here to debate, I would be grateful.

Ukrainian NATO Membership

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when they are not speaking in the debate. This is in line with current Government and House of Commons Commission guidance. I remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. That can be done either at the testing centre in the House or at home. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated, and when entering and leaving the room.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered British support for Ukraine’s membership of NATO.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am very pleased to be called in this debate. Yesterday on the Floor of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) asked an urgent question on the situation in Ukraine, and today I am very pleased to initiate this debate, given the extraordinary situation and military build-up that we are starting to see on the border between Ukraine and Russia.

Yesterday on the Floor of the House, we referred to the Budapest memorandum, which was signed in 1994 by the United Kingdom and other major powers. Hon. Members will remember that the Budapest memorandum allowed Ukraine to give up her nuclear arsenal, which at the time was the third largest in the world, in return for certain security guarantees in relation to her territorial integrity and sovereignty. As signatories of the Budapest memorandum, we in the United Kingdom have a unique responsibility to our Ukrainian partners. During the course of my speech, I intend to highlight some of the growing and serious violations of Ukrainian security that we are starting to see, and explain why I and many others believe that it is essential to lobby our own Government on the issue and to take a lead in supporting our Ukrainian partners.

In a previous Parliament, when I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee, I had the opportunity to go to Donetsk and Luhansk. The Committee was writing a report on British relations with Russia, and we were taken to Donetsk and Luhansk to see for ourselves the situation on the ground. I have never come across anything like it, certainly in my 16-year career as a Member of Parliament. It was total, utter destruction on an industrial scale. All the buildings had been destroyed; all traces of human habitation had disappeared. What really struck me was not just the sheer material destruction of Donetsk and Luhansk, but the complete annihilation of wildlife and the natural habitat—something that I had never seen before. We saw for ourselves what the Russians are capable of, and what they can do to another European country on our continent. It is something that will stay with me forever. I will never forget those scenes in Donetsk and Luhansk.

I am the sole Conservative Member of Parliament to have been born in Poland, and the sole Conservative Member of Parliament to have been born in a communist country. I used to go back to communist Poland two or three times a year to see my beloved grandfather, when he was still alive. I understand what the Russians are capable of. I saw it in the country of my birth, Poland, where they had instigated and forced on the country an economically illiterate and politically Orwellian system, which—thank goodness—finally collapsed in 1989. We know what the Russians did to our partners behind the iron curtain between the end of the second world war and 1989, trapping all those European partners behind the iron curtain. The Russians are now trying to trap our Ukrainian partners behind a new iron curtain that they want to impose in what they perceive to be their sphere of influence.

Despite those concerns, when the Select Committee was undertaking the report, I was the sole Conservative MP on the Committee pushing for dialogue with the Russians. We had many debates about what we saw on the ground and what should be our recommendations to the Foreign Office. I think there was universal hostility, frustration, anger and suspicion towards the Russians from my colleagues, but I was the one MP who was trying to look at it in a more balanced way.

Certainly when we visited Donetsk, the independent monitors on the ground said that some of the ceasefire violations were half the responsibility of the Ukrainians and half the responsibility of the Russians. I remember trying to push back and talking about the need for dialogue with the Russians. I still believe that we need to have dialogue with the Russians, but things have changed significantly since we visited Donetsk and Luhansk.

The first concern I want to highlight is something that we have seen in recent weeks. We have seen and heard of the death of a Syrian child on the Poland-Belarus border. We have seen the extraordinary way in which the tyrant, Lukashenko, has been abusing vulnerable refugees, whom he has incentivised to come to Belarus in his attempt to instigate a new hybrid warfare against one of our major partners.

We have seen the extraordinary suffering that has taken place on that border, with vulnerable refugees being used in a cynical way as pawns for President Lukashenko to manipulate in order to put one of our NATO partners under pressure. As genuine refugees, he should be protecting them, but instead his soldiers pushed them on to the barbed wire fences of the border. Unfortunately, barbed wire has inevitably had to be put up on the Poland- Belarus border because of the vulnerability of that border and of Polish sovereignty, bearing in mind what is going on.

Why do I reference Belarus and President Lukashenko? We know that these actions could be stopped immediately by President Putin, who, to all intents and purposes, controls Lukashenko and what happens in Belarus. I would argue that the suffering and cruelty we are seeing on that border is, in part, the responsibility of President Putin and the Russian regime. Only inhumane, cruel people would behave in this way, and President Putin could, should and must stop it immediately.

Temperatures are dropping significantly as we move towards the winter, and the Polish winters are always very, very cold. We have seen the suffering on the border, and goodness only knows what will happen as the temperatures drop and as those people continue to stay at the border, in the most vulnerable circumstances.

That is one aspect of the hybrid warfare that is being used against our NATO partners, but there are others, including the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. I have secured numerous debates on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline here in the House of Commons and I have probably asked more questions about it than any other Member of Parliament. Why? Because so many of our NATO partners in central and eastern Europe, for many years, have been talking about how this German-Russian project—a 1,200 km gas pipeline under the sea from Germany to Russia, completely bypassing all our NATO allies in central and eastern Europe, and Ukraine—is a direct, deliberate threat to their security.

We are very pleased that the Poles and the Croatians, within the Three Seas initiative, are building liquified gas terminals on their coastlines. We are pleased and proud that they are stepping up and investing in huge new facilities such as Świnoujście on the Baltic coast, in order to import liquified gas from America and Norway, our fellow NATO partners. Nevertheless, many of those countries, particularly the Baltic states, Ukraine and others, still depend on gas and energy from Russia. This pipeline, which bypasses them and goes under the sea directly to Germany, is another way for Russia to try to manipulate, coerce, blackmail and intimidate countries in central and eastern Europe.

We have seen what is happening with the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, and I very much hope that the incoming German coalition Government, who have the Green party among them, will seriously reconsider the project, which is not only a violation of the spirit and letter of our NATO obligations—Germany, being a NATO partner, should take that into consideration—but, I would argue, a major concern from an environmental perspective. With a 1,200 km pipeline going under the Baltic sea directly to Russia, the security situation in the event of a confrontation with the Russians, as well as the ramifications for the environment, could be catastrophic if it were to come under attack or there were some other issue related to it.

There are concerns about Nord Stream 2 and cyber-attacks, but my last point is about assassinations, which have changed my mind about the Russians more than anything else, particularly those assassinations on British soil. Whether it is the Litvinenko or the Skripal case, most of us here in the Chamber—cross-party, throughout the House of Commons, as well as our electorate beyond—have been shocked by Russia’s complete disregard for normal diplomatic protocols and normal international behaviour. The Russians are prepared to send trained killers on to British soil to eliminate their political opponents.

The annexation of Crimea is a serious matter. The other day, I was interacting on the issue with a leading research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society who is an expert on Russia and Ukraine. He highlighted to me some real concerns about what is happening in Crimea in terms of ethnic cleansing, manipulating the Tatars and preventing minority Ukrainians from learning and teaching Ukrainian. There is an attempt to Russify the Crimean peninsula. I am pleased that we have sanctions against Russia because of its illegal occupation of Crimea, but concerned that countries such as Germany and others, for their own commercial gain, seem to be bypassing those sanctions and instigating some extraordinary, high-level commercial contracts with the Russians. Nord Stream 2 is a clear example of that.

The illegal occupation of Crimea is one thing, but the Russians have done something even more worrying, and with even greater potential ramifications. They have built a bridge across the Kerch strait, linking Russia directly to Crimea. They have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to construct that huge bridge to give them direct land access to the Crimean peninsula, so that mother Russia is connected to Crimea.

It is not just the bridge; the Russians are using the bridge, and the jurisdiction around it and the maritime control underneath it, to restrict access to the Sea of Azov. Mariupol and many other important Ukrainian ports are now completely prevented from being utilised because vessels cannot get out of the Sea of Azov into the Black sea, and further beyond to navigate the global seas and oceans.

The Russians are controlling everything that comes through the Kerch strait, not just military vessels. My understanding is that they have now banned Ukrainian military vessels from even going through that strait to the Sea of Azov, Mariupol and other parts of Ukraine, which is extremely concerning. I would like the Minister to refer to the restriction on vessels accessing the Sea of Azov when she responds to the questions we are putting to her.

I am very pleased that the United Kingdom has recently sent our own naval vessels to the Black sea in freedom of navigation exercises: that is something I welcome very much. Let us not forget that the Black sea is not a Russian lake—the Russians would like to think that it is, but it is not. It is an international waterway, and I very much hope that we continue our freedom of navigation exercises throughout the Black sea.

Most people think, “Where is the Sea of Azov, and what are the consequences of blocking it?”. It is the way Ukrainians access almost half their country, and a lot of the industrial products of eastern Ukraine are exported through Mariupol and the Sea of Azov to the Black sea. Our equivalent would be somebody coming along and blocking off the English channel. What would be the consequences for our country if the English channel were blocked off? What would be the consequences for our security if our naval vessels were not allowed to patrol the channel? It would be completely unacceptable, and would potentially lead to war.

We are also starting to see a build-up on Ukraine’s eastern frontier. We are led to believe that 90,000 soldiers are now on its borders, and are there deliberately as a provocation to Ukraine. According to experts I spoken to, some intelligence reports from the United States believe that there could be up to 175,000 Russian troops on the border with Ukraine by January, which is obviously of great concern to the Ukrainian Government in respect of their national sovereignty and security.

I must take a moment to pay tribute to the Ukrainian ambassador, whom I met the other day. He and his team are doing a superb job here, putting forward the Ukrainian perspective in a calm and measured way. Despite all the provocations they are under and all the stress and tension they are going through, they are still trying to communicate their message to us and our Government in a very diplomatic and professional way.

Apparently, Putin has some red lines of his own. Apparently, he will not tolerate or accept the following four countries ever joining NATO: Finland, Sweden, Ukraine and Georgia. Those are his red lines, and I must take a moment to condemn Madame Marine Le Pen, the candidate standing to be the next President of the Republic of France. On a recent visit to Warsaw, she is quoted in Rzeczpospolita—a major newspaper in Poland—as having said that Ukraine is a buffer zone and is in the Russian sphere of influence. I find it highly rude and inappropriate to call a European country a buffer. Let us pause for a moment and think how we would feel if somebody called us a buffer; not an independent sovereign nation, not a democratic society, not a country with its own language, history, culture and aspirations, but merely a buffer. It is not a buffer and it is not in the Russian sphere of influence.

I joked with the Ukrainian ambassador the other day because he said that Ukraine is also sometimes described as a bridge between east and west. I suppose it is slightly better to be called a bridge than a buffer. The ambassador joked with me, “No, we are neither a buffer nor a bridge. Who would want to live on a bridge?” This is an independent sovereign nation, and we must start to treat it as such.

I wonder what would have happened to Madame Le Pen’s ancestors if we in Britain during the second world war had said, “Sorry, you are now in the German sphere of influence. We are not going to support you. We are going to leave you to German occupation.” Frankly, her language has to be called out and challenged.

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Regan taught us how we can only negotiate with the Russians from a position of strength. That is the one thing that I remember about Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Regan. I had the opportunity, when I was first elected in 2005, to meet Margaret Thatcher and thank her for the unique role that she played during the cold war, in giving material and moral support to the Solidarity movement in Poland, which was essential in helping the democratic movements in those countries to persevere in their fight against Soviet and communist oppression.

Margaret Thatcher taught us that the only way to negotiate with the Russians is from a position of strength. I will be 50 next month so I am old enough to remember December 1984 when she invited Gorbachev to Chequers. Konstantin Chernenko was the general secretary of the Communist party in December 1984, but Margaret Thatcher identified Gorbachev as a man she could do business with, and started that extraordinary process of negotiation with the Russians from a position of strength. That position had a united, solid NATO that was outspending the Soviet Union on research and defence capability, showing the Soviets that ultimately their aspiration of world domination would not succeed, and would fall apart because of our strength, unity and determination to outspend them by at least four to one on military capability and technology.

That is the lesson that we now need to learn. We need to negotiate with the Russians from a position of strength. That, I am afraid, is the only thing the Russians understand. They only understand if negotiations are entered from a position of strength and unity. Nothing would please President Putin more than a disunited NATO that is crumbling, divided and not spending a great deal of money on new investments and technology.

We need to increase our spending on defence. Many Conservative MPs, myself included, are extremely concerned at the cuts to our armed forces, whether they are to the number of ships being built or the number of soldiers we have. We understand and recognise the pressures on the budget but, nevertheless, the first duty and responsibility of any Government is the defence of the realm. That is not just the defence of this island; it is the defence of our continent.

When a country is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and the largest military power on our continent, that comes with huge responsibilities. We need to think about the defence of not just our NATO partners, but the other countries in Europe—those final few people and countries on the fringes of Europe that still do not have the comfort blanket of NATO membership and security. We also need to keep NATO strong against the dangerous moves by the European Union to create a single EU army.

I have been a Member of Parliament for nearly 17 years, and I have not had a single complaint about NATO from any of my 81,000 constituents. I have had a lot of complaints about the European Union, but not a single complaint about NATO—it does what it says on the tin. It is an organisation of 30 countries and, as hon. Members know, North Macedonia is the latest country to have had the privilege of joining what is probably the most successful military alliance in the world, and it was given that privilege last year.

We need to keep NATO strong and united against the moves to create a single European army, because I would argue that if it came to fruition, that would, at best, duplicate the services of NATO and, at worst, usurp the supremacy of NATO, destabilise it and push out those six countries that, at the moment, are inextricably linked to the common defence of our continent but are not, and will never be, members of the European Union. Let us just think about those countries for a second: America, Canada, Iceland, Norway, Turkey and the United Kingdom—six extraordinarily important partners that are committed to the defence of our continent. Turkey is protecting our southern flank, America and Britain are two permanent members of the UN Security Council, and Norway, Iceland and Canada are critical in keeping the Atlantic open in the event of hostilities between Russia and America. That is also something to take into consideration.

President Putin wants to undermine Ukraine and turn it into a vassal state like Belarus. He wants another puppet like Lukashenko to run Ukraine for him, and I have spent the last few days watching interviews with former President Yanukovych, who, after the Maidan revolution in Kiev, was whisked to safety to Russia in a Russian helicopter. Putin is keeping Yanukovych there, ready for when he can destroy the Ukrainian Government and reimpose another puppet who will basically give a veneer of independence to Ukraine. As we all know, however, the strings of the puppet will all be controlled from Moscow. We cannot allow that to happen.

I am coming to the end of my speech, but I want to mention the NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania in 2008 that stated the organisation’s commitment to NATO membership for Ukraine. That is a very important point, because the United Kingdom, as a member of NATO, is a signatory to the Bucharest statement of 2008. Let me read an extract from the Bucharest summit declaration:

“NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP”—

the membership action plan, which is the prelude and precursor to NATO membership, as well as the framework and grid—

“is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia.”

That is a statement from 2008 whereby Britain and other NATO partners made it abundantly clear that the prelude and precursor to NATO membership—which is ostensibly carried out through the MAP, the membership action plan—would be instigated. That was over a decade ago, so I would like to ask the Minister for her assessment of what has happened since the Bucharest summit. What is her understanding of the MAP strategy for Ukraine, and what are the British Government doing to take a lead in supporting Ukraine’s MAP application process and ongoing movement towards a conclusion and fruition?

There are other things in that process, such as the enhanced partnership for peace which NATO affords, formed partly by countries such as Jordan, Australia, Ukraine, Georgia, Sweden and Finland. However, the real precursor to membership is the MAP, and that is what I will ask the Minister about today. That is why I have instigated the debate; I want to know about the MAP, and I am going to ask a lot of written parliamentary questions about the issue over the coming months and years.

Finally, I come to British leadership on our continent. Do Members remember what they used to say to us in 1999 when Poland, the country of my birth, joined NATO? Do they remember what they said to us when Poland and the Czech Republic joined NATO, when those central European counties were given part-defence partnership with us? They said that it was a step too far, that it would cause world war three and that it would trigger some sort of conflagration that would destroy Europe. That is what they told us: “Don’t give the Poles NATO membership, it is too dangerous. Let’s just leave them there, in the Russian sphere of influence.”

That is absolutely disgusting and disgraceful. That is not the British way. However, we showed that leadership to ensure that our friends in Poland, the Czech Republic, and other central and eastern European countries were given that right to join NATO. The same thing happened in 2004, when Romania and Bulgaria were allowed to join NATO. There were the same siren calls, “It is a step too far, it is going to cause another world war and conflagration with the Russians”. That did not happen.

The time has come to give our Ukrainian partners that same insurance policy. They are our fellow Europeans; let us remember that. They are our fellow European brothers and sisters, not some obscure country far away of which we know very little, and not some banana republic that we have no connections with. They are our fellow brothers and sisters, our fellow European brothers and sisters. With that comes a massive obligation to support them.

I have recently written a report on the Three Seas initiative, which I have sent to the Minister. That is a new grouping of 12 countries in central and eastern Europe led by Poland and Croatia, and we interviewed all 12 ambassadors in writing the report. It is a very exciting project that it is taking place in central and eastern Europe, and I very much hope that we can engage further with that initiative, as well as helping Ukraine. It is an opportunity for Britain to take a lead in central and eastern Europe. As Germany and France are undermining Ukraine for their own selfish, national commercial interests—specifically with the Nord Stream 2 pipeline—now is the time for Britain to show leadership.

Finally, the Ukrainians will remember our actions. They are in probably one of the most vulnerable, dangerous set of circumstances that any European country could face. We are lucky here in the United Kingdom to be perched on the extreme western fringes of our continent, as far away as possible from Russia. When a country has a border with Russia—I have been to the Polish-Russian border on many occasions—and the brown bear is next door, his claw scratching on the windowsill, everything changes. The Ukrainians are watching us now and will remember how we behave. I want to lead a campaign, which I hope other MPs will join, in a cross-party caucus to convince our Government that the time has come to show leadership and ensure our Ukrainian friends are finally given NATO membership.

Islamophobia Awareness Month

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when they are not speaking in the debate. That is in line with Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. I also remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. That can be done either at the testing centre on the estate or at home. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the Chamber.

Before we move on, may I say a little about the process? Seventeen Back-Bench Members have indicated that they wish to speak. In practical terms, other than the mover and the Front Benchers, that gives each Member about two and a half minutes tops, and that is with no interventions—I am not saying that there should not be interventions. To be fair to everyone in advance, I should say that if we get too many interventions, that limit might even drop down. There will be a formal limit of two and a half minutes each after the mover of the motion has spoken, with 10 minutes each for the Front Benchers.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I know the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), and I would consider him a friend. We speak regularly. I am disappointed that a debate on a very important subject has turned into the normal political attack on the Conservative party. To hear the sanctimony of an organisation that was investigated by the Equality and Human Rights Commission for prejudice and antisemitism in lecturing this party on prejudice is something.

I would like to talk about the practical—[Interruption.]

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. I appreciate that people feel very passionately about this matter, but we must keep order in the Chamber.

[James Daly]

Thank you, Mr Dowd. We can talk about the definition of prejudice, but it is within ourselves. The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton knows two people who work for me; one is certainly my best friend. I am a Conservative Back-Bench MP who does not see a difference in human beings because of their religion, faith or anything. I see the decency in people and that is what motivates me in politics. It is what motivates Shahbaz and Khalid. At least two Members opposite know those two people who have given years of service to my area and its community. To be tarred with what has just been said—the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton knows it is not correct.

I fight every day in my constituency to ensure that my Muslim constituents have the best possible representation. When we talk about Islamophobia, I would like Labour MPs to support me in practical policies to help with the various issues that affect the Muslim community. There are lots of important issues, but I will talk about just one. In my seat and the seats of the hon. Members for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Manchester, Gorton, just about every Muslim family is touched by a taxi driver who works there—families who are absolutely dependent on that income. When I contact the hon. Members for Manchester, Gorton and for Bolton South and say, “Let’s set up an APPG for taxi driving in Greater Manchester,” and they say, “No, we can’t do that for political reasons,” it is therefore extremely disappointing. We could actually put in place practical policies—

--- Later in debate ---

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I believe that we should attack Islamophobia wherever we find it, and where the Government have failed they should admit to that. [Interruption.] And where the Government have failed—

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. Right—I will give this warning once more. I do not want shouting across the Chamber; this is a very passionate subject, but I ask Members to stop shouting and I will name people if they do not stop. I hope that is clear.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

If Government Members listen to what Labour Members are saying, they will realise that no one is disputing that there is Islamophobia in all parts of society. We are calling on the Government to take action in their own party and right across society; that is all we are doing.

I also want to point out that, as far as I am concerned, the Prevent strategy has contributed to the continuing prevalence of Islamophobia. That policy has embedded infrastructure of surveillance in Muslim communities, has increased police stop-and-search powers and has been inherently Islamophobic in its theoretical underpinnings. Although I initially welcomed the Government’s review of Prevent, they have now delayed the publishing of that review as part of the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021. And to add insult to injury, the Government appointed William Shawcross to head the supposedly independent review, despite, as we have heard, his questionable actions as head of the Charity Commission in disproportionately putting Muslim charities under investigation.

Finally, I remind Members that 45% of religious hate crimes recorded by the police in 2020-21 were Islamophobic. That is an estimated 42,000 incidents of religiously motivated hate crime per year, which is approximately six times the number of recorded offences. And perhaps it is a reflection of how much Islamophobia permeates our entire society that a professional sportsperson had to share his painful experiences of being discriminated against during his time as a cricketer. Since Azeem Rafiq provided evidence to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee this month, other professional cricketers have shared their stories of being abused due to their ethnicity or religion, and an independent commission looking into racism and discrimination in cricket has now been inundated with responses.

All of that is sufficient to show that the Government need to take action now. I urge the Government to give a comprehensive response to the letter by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton; to update Members on Government progress in defining anti-Muslim hatred; to listen to the needs of the community when it comes to the impact of the Government’s strategy; and to ensure that there are proper safeguards for British Muslims against further abuse and discrimination. That is all we are asking for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) on securing this important debate.

It is ironic that when we consider the word “Islamophobia”, we think about the word “Islam”. “Islam” means “peace”. “Salaam alaikum” means “peace be unto you”, and “Alaikum salaam”—the reply—means “unto you be peace”. It is deeply ironic that, as the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) said, we have the evil of Islamophobia out there. I, too, have seen some very ugly stuff that I never want to see again. Islamophobia exists.

In the short time available, I want to tell an anecdote. As a student, I was fishing about for a subject to make up my degree, and one of the subjects I chose, by great good fortune, was the history of Islam and Islamic culture. That was one of the best things that I ever did, because I learned everything about the life of the Prophet. I learned about the Hegira in 622. I learned about the Umayyads, the Abbasids, the hadith literature—I was talking to the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton about this earlier today—the sunnah of the Prophet, and so on. In doing so, we met Muslims. They came to lectures. We worked with them. We ate with them and learned about food. It is a very simple thing, but when you know somebody and you like them, it is hard to hate them. I was very fortunate with my education. I think that we can build into education in the future a greater understanding of Islam, Judaism and other religions, which will make for a more tolerant society.

One of the things that came out of my lectures was the expression that we all know—that we are all the sons and daughters of Abraham. The similarities between Christianity, Judaism and Islam are there to be seen, and they are strengths that we should build on together. Wherever we are today as a nation, we will have to play to our strengths and really work together. It is a difficult world for us. That means mobilising everyone of all creeds and religions in this country. Therefore, stamping out something like Islamophobia can only help to build a better country for all of us.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I may have to drop the time limit to two minutes because of all the interventions. I did alert colleagues to that. For the moment, however, I call Anum Qaisar, who has two and a half minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

No, I will not give way. [Interruption.]

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady is not giving way. There are two more Members to speak. Their limit will go down to two minutes if people do not keep to time and stop interrupting. It is as simple as that.

[Wera Hobhouse]

We need to listen to those who have lived that experience, to recognise it as hurt and not to call it politics. That is wrong, and I am ashamed, as someone from the white Christian community. I do not share those views, and I stand in solidarity with all Muslims who have faced discrimination, and with those who are perceived to be Muslim only because of their skin colour.

This month is about raising awareness of the discrimination faced by British Muslims and the hate that drives that discrimination. It is also time to celebrate the many contributions of British Muslims to our society in Bath and beyond, from politics and media, through sport and entertainment to local business and our community life.

I must mention Mr Diya Al-Muzaffar, who allowed people into his house on Pierrepont Street in Bath for prayer, where they still go today—it is the site of the Bath Islamic Centre and mosque. The Bath Islamic Society mosque offers interfaith workshops, alongside churches and synagogues in Bath, bringing interfaith communities together. The success of those sessions shows how we can join together to protect and support one another. It is a powerful reminder that there is so much more that unites us than divides us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Every single day, people of Muslim backgrounds like me face discrimination and prejudice. I am never allowed to forget that my presence in Parliament, as the first MP to wear a hijab, makes many uncomfortable, from the regular mispronunciation of my name to being mistaken for other hijab-wearing women who work in Parliament, to being asked, even, if I am related to Shamima Begum.

Too often, we are cynically used as a focal point for people’s anxieties, as scapegoats for the failings of the political and economic system. It should therefore be no surprise to anyone that I constantly have to cope with a vicious torrent of abuse. Just to give hon. Members a few examples, this is the kind of material that I receive: “Vile and filthy religion…importing vile and filthy creatures like Apsana Begum”; “Muslims should be banned from public office…we can’t trust their allegiances”; “Muslims are the masters of lying. They are the bane of our Christian society. They do not belong and should be deported”; “Deport the Filth”; “Throw her and her family back to where they came from”; “Chop her hand off”; “This could be one of your last statements”. Those are not even, by any measure, the worst of what I receive.

All too often, Muslims live with a constant, persistent fear overshadowing our lives, especially given that the latest data shows that Muslims are the largest target of religiously motivated hate crimes. The rise of the far right, in particular, is a very present danger. I just want to pick up on the fact that Government Members have been talking about taking politics out of this. I wonder what they would say to what the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief reported—that institutional suspicion and fear of Muslims has escalated to “epidemic proportions” and that “numerous” states, regional and international bodies were to blame. Perhaps the Minister can address that point.

It is important to remember that, across the world, under the auspices of fighting terrorism and extremism, we see people of Muslim backgrounds facing persecution and the denial of basic citizenship rights, from the Rohingya refugees to the escalated harassment of Muslims in France, for example. The evidence is very clear. Islamophobia is on the rise. But there is hope and I am inspired by the history of anti-racist struggles in east London. I am proud to represent the constituency that I have lived in all my life and I pay tribute to the contributions of Muslims all across Britain.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I have allowed three or four minutes extra to give all the Back Benchers their two and a half minutes, so I accept that there is much to cover, but I exhort Front Benchers to take that account in their responses.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd, and to participate in such an important debate secured by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan). Those people who pay attention to the parliamentary calendar might notice that we had a debate quite recently on the definition of Islamophobia. We are debating a not dissimilar topic today, which is important and welcome. We need to be much more focused and relentless in looking at this issue, and this debate today is part of that. The recent high-profile cases of racism in cricket are just one example of why that really matters.

I am a member of the APPG on British Muslims, like a number of other hon. Members here today. The APPG is a good example of cross-party work, which is really important: collective purpose is absolutely necessary when we are dealing with Islamophobia, given the significant harm and detriment caused to so many people, some of which we have heard about today.

We have heard powerful speeches today from several hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar) is a strong woman. I am proud to be her friend and colleague. What she had to say today was really important; I am grateful to her for saying what she did. Tackling Islamophobia absolutely requires us to listen to the lived experience of those who are affected. It is absolutely not on for those voices to be minimised in any way.

There are other people whose powerful work in this area is making a difference. We heard about Tell MAMA, which supports real change and works closely with the Community Security Trust. Joint working between Muslim and Jewish bodies is really important. It is a shame that such work is needed, but it is assuredly needed. From what some people might describe as low-level discrimination or harassment—presumably, those people have never experienced it themselves—to very serious crimes, the way that Islamophobia touches lives is broad and ever evolving. We heard from the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton about his worries for his grandchildren and the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) talked about her own children. We heard about the online space, which is a bin fire of abuse and harassment, with anonymous trolls spreading bile and threatening people in a terrible way. The impact on women is greater, online as it is offline. This is not a straightforward issue, however, and it requires all of us to focus.

Somebody whose work we have heard about in this area—somebody who will deliver change—is Zara Mohammed, the new general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain. The call from the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for the Minister to discuss with Zara is sensible. Zara is a young, Scottish woman on a mission to deliver real, positive change. She is absolutely committed to pressing for action to deal with Islamophobia and improving lives. Part of how we can do that is to be open and encourage dialogue, to make sure that people are focused together. She was good enough to spend some time recently with me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), explaining the issues she is dealing with. I am grateful to her for that.

Of course, these issues reach far beyond this place. The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton hosted some visitors earlier in the week, including Rahima Mahmut, whose work on behalf of the Uyghur Muslim community is so important. We owe her huge thanks.

It is also worth reflecting on the work that other groups are doing, including groups led by young people. In my local area, Kirsty Robson is a co-founder of Yet Again, a group of young people who work to prevent genocides such as that faced by the Uyghur Muslim population in China. There is the work of Never Again Right Now, another youth-led movement, spearheaded by the European Union of Jewish Students, including my colleague, Olaf Stando. It is international in membership, and calls out the treatment of those who suffer human rights abuses because of their religion. I note its campaign in support of Uyghur Muslims, calling for a diplomatic boycott of the Beijing games.

I mention those groups in particular because solidarity is important. Tackling Islamophobia is not something that only Muslims should have to deal with and it is not something that is the responsibility of Muslims. We need to be open, all of us, to the fact that it is an issue everywhere. I have heard some comments today that make me think that I need to emphasise that point. I live in a fantastically religiously diverse community. I live in a country where there is a lot of work going into delivering fairness and social justice and stamping out racism in all its forms, but we do not have a magic wand. We cannot wish away the reality that Islamophobia remains and is an issue in Scotland just as it is everywhere else. We need to be alive to that and we need to be willing to work hard to deal with it.

The Scottish Parliament has a cross-party group working hard on this issue. It has been working with Professor Peter Hopkins and his team from Newcastle University, has conducted an inquiry and has adopted the APPG definition of Islamophobia. As we have heard, all parties in the Scottish Parliament have agreed to do that.

We need to define Islamophobia; we need to be clear what we are talking about and what is unacceptable, and we cannot do that if we do not define it. We need to be confident in our language.

It is welcome that the Scottish Parliament has got to that place. I am really keen to hear from the Minister the UK Government’s plans to look at this again and push ahead with this. I do not think they should get to keep kicking this into the long grass, particularly given the Prime Minister’s past comments, which are indefensible. The tone of some comments from Government Members today is regrettable. That is not the way we should conduct ourselves in here. Some of the eye-rolling and the language used was most unfortunate. However, I have to say that the contributions from the hon. Members for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham) and for Wycombe (Mr Baker) were eloquent and welcome. We need to see and hear more from the UK Government on this. We need to be mindful of the broader environment that we are in: there is a changing climate across in the world. We have a part to play here, using the platforms that we have, in making sure that we make a difference, because there has been a surge in respect of how the Muslim community is treated.

I conclude by returning to something the Minister said, which others have reflected on. She said that this is not political, or should not be, but her comments were. We need to take a step back from some of that. We need to accept that this is an issue for all of us in this Chamber and across the House; we all have a responsibility and duty to deal with Islamophobia. We will do that better if we can have discussions without raising the temperature in the way that it was raised, regrettably, today. I hope the Minister has something positive to say on that.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I want to give Afzal Khan two minutes to wind up the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

I am afraid I do not have the time.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. The Minister clearly does not want to give way.

[Kemi Badenoch]

The UK is one of the best places in the world to live, no matter who you are or where you come from. It is full of opportunities. We have a large and thriving Muslim population who have made contributions to our country and society. The country’s first two mosques were founded in 1887, and now there are almost 2,000 mosques serving a Muslim population of more than 3 million. Wherever we look, we see Muslims enriching our public life, including as politicians in the Cabinet, as doctors and nurses keeping our NHS going, and as sporting heroes dominating on the world stage. Their prominence is testament to our openness as a country, and proof of something that has long been true: when someone lives in Britain they can become anything they want, whether that is Health Secretary, Education Secretary or growing up to win gold medals representing Team GB.

I now turn to the remarks made by hon. Members during the debate. I am afraid that I will not be able to cover all of them, but I will try to go through as many as I can. The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton invited me to visit the country’s first green mosque. I will have a look at my diary and see if that is something I can accommodate. He also asked what we are doing to keep people safe online. He knows that we are progressing the online safety Bill. If there is anything specific he would like to mention, I would be very happy to take them forward on his behalf—it is a Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport competency, but I am sure that we all can work together.

The hon. Gentleman also asked what we are doing to protect places of worship. I am told that we are funding, through the places of worship protective security funding scheme, quite possibly well over £100 million. Is that correct? It is quite a lot. I will confirm the amount, but we are putting several millions into the protected security funding scheme. I do not have the exact figure in front of me.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned his letter to the Prime Minister. This has caused quite a bit of confusion. The hon. Gentleman wrote to the PM and received a response from the party chairman. I often respond on behalf of the Prime Minister. I am informed that, after the hon. Gentleman made a point of order, the Prime Minister responded to his letter, so I hope that we can put that matter to rest.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) made some really good points about individual action; it is not just about words or definitions. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood) also made the point that this should not be a party political issue, and talked about the trust that people have in different political parties. This is not just a Conservative party issue, and people should not make it out as such.

I thank hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for sharing her experiences of anti-Muslim hatred. I found them quite shocking and will come on to what the Government are doing to tackle that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) asked me to meet the APPG officers. He will be pleased to know that my office has already reached out to the shadow Minister’s office. We have not yet had a response, but I am sure that we will in due course and that we will find a time to meet the APPG. I am happy to meet its chair as well.

Although I admire the passion expressed by the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar), I disagree with her fundamentally when she says that we should not take the politics out of the debate. We should take the politics out of the debate—in fact, we must. I grew up in a country where people did not take the politics out of the debate and can tell hon. Members now that when we do not do that and allow politics to infect religions, countries burn. As faith Minister, my approach will be to take the heat and the politics out of the debate. [Interruption.]

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Kemi Badenoch]

It was disappointing that the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) used her speech to make partisan attacks on colleagues on the Government side of the House. She said that she does not have the lived experience of racism and that we should listen to those who do. I can tell her of my many lived experiences of racism at the hands of Liberal Democrats who made disgusting and vile comments, which I am sure she would be happy to apologise for. We should be able to have this debate without making partisan attacks such as hers. [Interruption.] I did not intervene on Opposition Members, so I will not give up my time to take interventions.

The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) made a fair point, which I accept. He said that it is fair to talk about action. I accept that he has made a good point that things have been slow. A commitment was made several years ago and we did lose momentum. We had a change in Administration, Brexit and covid, which, fingers crossed, we are coming out of. I think he will find a different change of tone and pace with me as faith Minister.

We all share the view that hatred of Muslims is a vile social ill. We have no time for people who seek to divide us. As I said before, we will not tolerate anti-Muslim hatred any more than we tolerate antisemitism or any other form of hatred, but the reality is that, despite this and our continued condemnation, stubborn pockets of prejudice exist.

Home Office figures show that 45% of religiously motivated hate crime recorded by the police was perpetrated against Muslims. The fact that Muslims—[Interruption.]

[Dr Allin-Khan]

Take an intervention!

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I would like to conclude my speech without being talked over. I can barely hear myself. This is not the spirit in which we should—[Interruption.]

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. Can we stop interrupting? We have two and a half minutes. The Member in charge is not going to get to speak and we may not even get to put the question. That is how serious this is. I have tried to be as honest and delicate as I can in this debate and give people the opportunity to speak.

[Kemi Badenoch]

It is shameful that Muslims can still face verbal or physical attacks and are made to feel like outsiders in their own country. Political parties are granted a rare standing in public life, and it is our job as politicians to demonstrate leadership and set an example for others to follow in everything we do, from our public discourse to our constituency surgeries.

To that end, it was incredibly disappointing that the hon. Members for Manchester, Gorton and for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) used their speeches to attack William Shawcross with defamatory remarks that would be actionable if made outside this Chamber. William Shawcross is an outstanding public servant, as is Trevor Phillips, who the shadow Minister mentioned.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

On a point of order, Mr Dowd. I do not make this point of order flippantly. The Minister has just said that Mr Shawcross is a great man and she started her speech by using a trope about Muslims and terrorism, yet she is meant to be talking about Islamophobia. Shawcross has said that the Muslim faith is a fascist faith. How can she say that he is a person to lead a review that impacts on Muslims?

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

You know that is not a point of order. Carry on, Minister.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Debates such as this are symbolically important to show our shared commitment, but symbolism does not improve lives on its own. The Government have done a lot and we have some of the strongest legislation in the world for tackling hate crime, and it is working.

I will give a few examples. In 2019 a man who posted violent messages about Muslims alongside photos of him posing with a fake shotgun was jailed for four years. That year, two brothers attacked a group of men outside a Cardiff mosque: one was sentenced to five years and three months in jail, the other to 18 months in jail.

Our approach to discrimination is something that we should be proud of. In July, the European Court of Justice gave the green light to employers in the European Union to ban their workers from wearing hijabs or other religious insignia. We have taken control of our laws and are no longer subject to the ECJ’s jurisdiction. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that that kind of prohibition is thoroughly un-British.

I recognise that the debate is concluding, Mr Dowd, so what I will say in closing is that this is an issue that I am prepared to work on with all Members of the House, but what I will not do is be intimidated or bullied, and—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Israel and Palestine

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between each debate. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of debates in Westminster Hall. Members are expected to remain for the entire debate.

I remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members who are attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address, [e-mail]. Members who are attending physically should clean their spaces before using them and as they leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall. Members attending physically who are in the latter stages of the call list should use the Public Gallery and move on to the horseshoe when seats become available. Members can speak from the horseshoe only where there are microphones.

Before I move on, we will have a formal time limit of three minutes, given the amount of interest and the number of people speaking. After Catherine McKinnell, there will be a limit of three minutes, and I exhort Members to stick to it, or we will have to drop it down a little.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.

Like many thousands of my constituents, I watched in absolute horror a few weeks ago when violence was used against worshippers gathering during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan at the al-Aqsa mosque. The scenes were truly shocking. They were deeply painful to watch and they motivated many thousands of my constituents to write to me. Like me, so many of them were thinking, “There but for the grace of God go I”.

The ceasefire is, of course, welcome. We all pray that it holds and is strengthened, and that a path forward can be charted, but it is essential that all holy sites in that holiest of cities—holy to so many people of many different faiths—are protected and respected. I press the Minister to do whatever he can to ensure that there is no repeat of the scenes we saw just a few short weeks ago.

The history of Palestine and Israel is in so many ways a perpetual cycle of loss, sorrow and conflict, pierced only occasionally by moments of hope and fleeting opportunities for positive and lasting change. Even those moments have become ever rarer in recent years, with a cycle of violence that has decimated entire communities, led to the loss of countless lives, and laid bare the shaky foundations on which any aspirations of a negotiated, diplomatic settlement have been built. The goal of a viable and sovereign Palestinian state alongside a safe and secure Israel remains the shared objective of so many in this House and all over the world, but in truth, it has rarely seemed further away. The end of Benjamin Netanyahu’s 12 years as Prime Minister of Israel at least suggests that a path towards a settlement, political and practical, could be charted. Indeed, the high-wire balancing act that led to his removal points to a long-missing political tenacity that could bode well.

However, among those who have removed an indisputable roadblock to peace are some with still greater belligerence, with opinions more extreme and entrenched even than Benjamin Netanyahu’s. The fact that they will serve alongside those with an unequivocal commitment to a viable two-state solution is welcome, and it is perhaps to them that we must reiterate that the illegal occupation and proposed annexation of the west bank is violating international law. Only when they accept that can we make progress in the field of peace. Any and every road towards a just and lasting peace requires that the occupation is brought to a permanent end, with both Palestinians and Israelis enjoying true and meaningful security, dignity and human rights.

Some may try to argue that formal annexation has been stopped—that we no longer need be concerned. It is impossible to articulate adequately how dangerous and misguided such counsel is. The truth is that illegal settlement expansion has continued, and Palestinians are still being evicted from their homes. I cannot condone these violations of international law, nor should anyone in this House or in the international community. The Labour party has repeatedly called on the UK Government to object to the expansion of settlements in the strongest possible terms, and we have raised this issue in Parliament, in public, and directly with the Israeli ambassador to the UK. I urge the Minister today to change the dial on the facts on the ground by recognising the state of Palestine.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

If colleagues wish to remove their jackets in the light of the heat, they should feel free to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for securing this important debate at a crucial fork in the road for Israel’s Government, following Naftali Bennett’s replacing Benjamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister yesterday. I hope that the new Administration will listen to the voices of Governments around the world on the issue of justice in Palestine and urgently change direction, because for too long peace and the hope of peace has been crushed by military might. I know that a large number of my Labour colleagues wish to speak in the debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), whose constituency had the highest number of signatories, alongside mine, to the petition that urges the UK Government to recognise the state of Palestine.

In recent weeks, we have witnessed millions of people marching in almost every major city in the world. Israel’s illegal occupations, annexations and bombardment of the Palestinian people and those trying simply to exist in Gaza can no longer be ignored. Indeed, there is an enormous sense of anger and injustice in my constituency of Ilford South, which has the highest number of signatories to the petition, at around 6,000. Individually, 5,000 people in my constituency have written to me. This has happened during the covid pandemic, which shows that people care deeply about what is happening around the world. My constituents rightly feel that human rights abuses should be challenged, be they in Kashmir, Myanmar, Yemen or, indeed, in Gaza.

Although people are rightly concerned about events in the middle east, I want to be clear that it is never acceptable for members of the Jewish community, both in my Ilford South constituency and across the UK, to be subject to criticism, abuse and attacks because of the actions of the Israeli Government. It is clear that there is a huge groundswell of support for justice as the escalation of this conflict has continued, with the needless deaths of civilians on both sides, the recent illegal seizure of land and the incendiary storming of the al-Aqsa mosque. The proliferation of evictions, demolitions and new settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories not only runs counter to international humanitarian law, including the fourth Geneva convention; it also serves to make a viable two-state solution ever more distant.

The Labour party has long urged both sides to come together to ensure a just two-state solution that enables Palestinians and Israelis to peacefully co-exist. I have travelled to Israel and Palestine extensively, on more than half a dozen occasions, and I have seen at first hand the conditions in which Palestinians are forced to live. However, I have also met many progressive activists and politicians in Israel, and I encourage Members from both sides of the House to forge links with those groups and with partners for peace on both sides of the divide. As we have seen in recent weeks, they were highly effective in helping to bring the latest conflict to an end. The many powerful protests in the likes of Lod, Ramla and Umm al-Fahm show that hundreds of thousands of Israelis are united with the Palestinian people in their condemnation of the events in Palestine and Gaza.

The UK Government should therefore consider every possible avenue to put pressure on the Israeli Government. That includes reviewing the £360 million-worth of arms that they sell to Israel, and challenging—

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. Can you wind up, please?

[Sam Tarry]

Indeed, Mr Dowd. The UK Government have an historical obligation, as do all of us on both sides of the House, to support the state of Palestine in coming into being, and to ensure a future of hope, in which two peoples can co-exist on the same land.

UN Human Rights Council: UK Voting Record on Israel

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Westminster Hall

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the UK voting record at the UN Human Rights Council on Israel.

[Interruption.]

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a Division in the House, but we do not have to suspend the sitting unless Members wish to do so.

[Scott Benton]

Personally, I can continue.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Mr Dowd, I would like to suspend the sitting and take part in the Division.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is not on the list to speak, so it is in the grace of the Minister and the Member in charge. I am happy to suspend the sitting if other Members wish to do so, but I cannot suspend it only for the hon. Gentleman.

[Jim Shannon]

If the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) and the Minister want to go ahead, I am happy with that, but I have a small intervention that I would like to make. Do we have eight minutes for the Division?

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Can we move on? I call the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton).

[Scott Benton]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, for the first Westminster Hall debate that I have had the privilege to lead. I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for a fact-finding visit I undertook to Israel and the Palestinian Authority in 2019.

The landmark peace agreements signed between Israel and her Arab neighbours in recent months are an extremely welcome development after years of stagnation, but it is an unavoidable reality that the unrelenting attacks on Israel at the United Nations make regional peace harder to achieve.

It is no secret that the UN and its associated bodies have a long history of singling out Israel far more than any other nation in the world. Past UN Secretaries-General have publicly raised concerns about the UN’s fixation with Israel, with Ban Ki-moon stating in 2016 that

“decades of political manoeuvring have created a disproportionate number of resolutions, reports and committees against Israel.”

He rightly said that this bias does not help the Palestinian issue but instead foils

“the ability of the UN to fulfil its role effectively”.

His predecessor, Kofi Annan, said that while Israel faces “intense scrutiny”,

“other situations fail to elicit the world’s outrage and condemnations.”

The current UN Secretary-General has said that Israel

“needs to be treated as any other state”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Crabb]

I am sorry to cut in just as the Minister is making a very important point, but I want to get some clarity. I understand the argument that he is making about engaging with the text that has moved from a permanent item 7 agenda into item 2, but if we voted against text that singles out Israel for criticism without mentioning Hamas or Islamic Jihad when it appears in item 7, surely it is morally right and logically consistent to vote against it when it appears under item 2 or anywhere else. Will he commit to vote against text exactly like that when it appears under item 2?

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

I remind the Minister that we have about three minutes left.

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point, which it is worth exploring. The UK Government have a principled opposition to agenda item 7 and have therefore voted against it because of its nature. We recognise that moving away from agenda item 7 is a positive step, so our commitment is to engage with the specific text. It may well be the case that the UK Government find the final text unacceptable, but the decision will be based on the specific text rather than our principled opposition to item 7 as a tool of specific and unfair criticism of Israel. Those negotiations are ongoing, so I am not in a position to provide my right hon. Friend with the reassurances he seeks.

It should be recognised that the close and strong bilateral relationship between the UK Government and Israel gives us the opportunity to speak out when we feel that Israel’s actions warrant it, as we have done on our concerns about annexation and the demolition of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. However, it is also the Government’s position that we will continue to support and advocate balanced resolutions in UN bodies. We are committed to making progress toward a two-state solution.

Resolutions that politicise UN bodies or that risk hardening the position of either side do little to advance peace or mutual understanding. We believe that negotiations will succeed only when they are conducted between Israelis and Palestinians and supported by the international community, and we will continue to work with international bodies, regional bodies, European partners and the United States, and of course with Israel and the Palestinian leadership, to advance dialogue, to encourage joint working and to find a permanent peaceful solution to this conflict, which has gone on for too long.

[Peter Dowd (in the Chair)]

Thank you for your forbearance during the Division Bells.

Question put and agreed to.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords]

Peter Dowd Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 20th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), who made a thoughtful contribution on some of the gaps in this Bill. Perhaps it is because I am, with him, the co-chair of the all-party group on anti-corruption, perhaps it is because in the last Parliament I was our Front-Bench spokesperson on the Criminal Finances Bill or perhaps it is because I am in front of the TV too much at the weekend, but I get the sense that money laundering is everywhere of late.

As the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned, we heard this morning of the record £6.2 million fine slapped on William Hill for not being vigilant enough in the prevention of money laundering. We have seen how the proceeds of crime have been funnelled through its channels, and the Gambling Commission has said that it must do better—as if it did not have enough on its plate with responsible gambling.

It has just finished, but for a while Sunday night was “McMafia” night—it is now “Homeland” night again in our house—and as the plot unfolded, we saw how billions of pounds can be transferred internationally very quickly, at the click of a mouse on a laptop. It also showed corrupt politicians, violent police, counterfeit goods hawked around high streets and all sorts of other things. It was fiction, but there was some factual basis.

No one so far has spoken against the idea of having such a Bill. The principle is good. No one is saying that we should turn a blind eye to dirty money. My worry is that, as right hon. and hon. Members from all parties have said, the Bill could do better and go a lot further. It is a good start, but the Paradise papers and Panama papers shone a light on a murky world of international finance and taxation working for the benefit of those with access to vast wealth and an army of lawyers—for the few, not the many—when ordinary citizens just want a fair and transparent financial system. So two cheers for the Bill.

The glaring omission, which has been mentioned many times, is that the Government need to work a lot harder to persuade the UK’s overseas territories—and one day, I hope, the Crown dependencies, too—to adopt the same level of transparency as we have in the UK and introduce public registers of beneficial ownership.

It is not for nothing that London is frequently named as the world’s money laundering capital. In 2016, the Home Affairs Committee concluded that the London property market was the primary avenue for the laundering of £100 billion of illicit money a year. As a London MP, that is particularly galling to me, because my inbox and postbag are full of housing issues, which also come up a lot when people come to my surgeries. We have a housing crisis, with people who want to get a foothold on the ladder and people in substandard accommodation.

It is not enough to think that it is not our problem; otherwise, silence equals complicity in what are becoming industrial levels of tax avoidance and evasion. The Bill will allow us to set our own sanctions and anti-money laundering policy, but our leaving the EU will inevitably damage our ability to influence the policies of the bloc. Britain’s voice will be quieter on the world stage and its global footprint will diminish. We will shrink in our role fighting corruption globally.

Some progress has been made in the adoption of private registers, but not all overseas territories have even adopted one, and if they have, they have not been centrally located or fully populated. Four and a half years on from when the Government tried to persuade the overseas territories to adopt public registers, none has so far done so, and the Government seem to have given up on them. As has been said many times in this debate, only Montserrat has made the commitment.

The ghost of David Cameron seems to have been ever present in this debate. He invited the world to an anti-corruption summit in London in May 2016—how long ago it all seems—and talked about how the public register model should be a “gold standard”. He said that tax avoidance schemes

“are quite frankly morally wrong”.

Again, there is that disjuncture between what is legally possible and what is morally correct.

Fast forward to 2018 and the Foreign Office expects the UK tax havens to adopt the public register model only when it becomes a “global standard”. There is a definite shift there. It is hardly leadership; it is followership, backtracking or a dereliction of duty, if we are being blunt.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

It is uselessness.

[Dr Huq]

Absolutely; my hon. Friend is so correct, as ever.

We all know what happened to David Cameron next: his ill-judged referendum was his downfall. Ironically, the EU seems to be taking the lead as it prepares to implement the fifth anti-money laundering directive. Our chaotic approach to Brexit and the slippage—we do not know what will or will not apply—is why the Bill is necessary. Last December, the EU agreed that all its 28 member states should establish public registers of the beneficial ownership of companies. We can all get behind the reasons: they allow greater scrutiny of information and contribute to preserving trust and integrity in the financial system. More and more countries are committed to implementing, or have implemented, public registers—I am talking about sovereign countries and not necessarily our overseas territories. There were 35 countries with registers at the last count, and with all EU member states required to have them by 2019, I suggest that this is a golden opportunity to build a new global standard.

When that happens in 2019, the UK Government should seize the opportunity to ensure that our overseas territories follow suit as soon as possible. Regulatory alignment is a popular watchword these days, and we should apply it in this situation. The territories that rely on wealth being stashed away from taxpayers are astute. They do it because they can get away with it, and they use the arguments of competitiveness and security against a centralised register. Our Government continue to drag their feet after so much promise, which is shameful.

The Government’s anti-corruption strategy was hastily rushed out—some Conservative Members did not notice it—because of harrying by people such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who had several debates on it at the end of last year. We kept saying, “Where is that anti-corruption strategy?” and the strategy was hurriedly rushed out at the end of last year. There is full awareness of the importance of public registers, but the strategy states:

“Our ultimate aim is that public registers become the norm. If this were to happen”—

suddenly it has become conditional—

“we would expect the Overseas Territories to follow suit. The government will continue to work with these Overseas Territories to strengthen their beneficial ownership arrangements”.

The Government also promise a statutory review by December 2018. Why not now? It seems we have had a year of nothing, with the smokescreen of a consultation thrown in. People have consultation fatigue and we know what the issue is.

How can the Government aim for something if they are taking no action? It is not good enough. Only when the UK mandates the overseas territories to create the registers will transparency flow, and only then will the big question be sorted out, with all its constitutional, ethical and international dimensions—people have talked about foreign aid. It is right to hold the Government to account on the promises they have made, as the all-party parliamentary group will continue to do. I hope that the anti-corruption tsar, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who has gone from his place—I would have liked a tsarina—will continue to hold the Government’s feet to the fire.

I should give a short plug for the APPG. We recently had an event where we had the cast and crew of “McMafia” in the building—my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) was there. It is not just fiction, but is happening in the real world. They launched an app. If people enter their postcode, they can see how many secretive jurisdictions are near them. The programme showed Kensington and these smart central London properties, but it is happening in Ealing. I put in my own postcode: Ealing is the 14th most secret neighbourhood in the country.

We are lucky enough to live in one of the most desirable cities in the world, but it is desirable for the corrupt, too—those with dirty cash to stash and launder. The Government agreed to fix that at least two years ago, but no concrete progress has ultimately been made. There are loads of examples—I will not go into them all now because we could be here forever. There were stories of “from Russia with cash”, Magnitsky was mentioned in the debate, and there is the pop princess from Uzbekistan. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking had a debate on the Azerbaijan laundromat case, and we have had Bywater Investments and North Korean shell games. The list goes on and on.

This country has a real choice ahead in defining what kind of country we want to be post Brexit. We can put an end to the millions of pounds of stolen money flowing through London’s luxury property market or we can continue turning a blind eye, kicking the can down the road, saying that we are doing a consultation, pushing these things into the long grass and making London an even more appealing playground for the corrupt.

Thankfully, the other place wants significant concessions on the Henry VIII powers that might have come to pass. We have heard mention of statutory instruments, but this House must be vigilant and ensure that the Government do not try to sneak in more secondary powers through the back door, giving Ministers carte blanche.

Leaving the EU will undoubtedly affect our ability to sanction regimes properly. We will be vulnerable to legal challenges because corporations will see us as an easy target outside the EU. They will have an easier task suing a smaller state. Despite the Bill’s title, only one and a half of its 59 pages are dedicated to anti-money laundering. The Bill is a disappointment and a missed opportunity from a Government who promised much but are short on delivering. It is not just me saying that; ask Christian Aid, Global Witness and Transparency International. My verdict is, “Could do better.”

Child Prisoners and Detainees: Occupied Palestinian Territories

Peter Dowd Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Champion]

I have heard that argument before and I hope that I will deal with it in the forthcoming part of my speech.

In the case of adults, the percentage rises such that a staggering 86% are in Israeli prisons. That affects between 7,000 and 8,000 individuals annually. To make matters worse—if that were possible—the military authorities have now informed UNICEF that they have no intention of changing that policy. It is striking that of the 38 recommendations made by UNICEF, the one stating that Palestinian children from the west bank should be held in facilities located in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is the only recommendation that UNICEF declares has been “rejected” by the Israeli authorities.

There is an unfortunate UK link when it comes to those prisons, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) highlighted. As I am sure everyone here is aware, our own G4S is providing services to the prisons that hold Palestinian detainees following their unlawful transfer from the west bank, in violation of the convention. Those commercial contracts are set to continue until 2017, even though they have been officially held to be inconsistent with the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises.

To understand why any of this matters, it is worth briefly considering the legal provisions that prohibit transfer, and why they were thought necessary in the first place. Article 76 of the fourth Geneva convention specifically prohibits the transfer of protected persons accused or convicted of offences from an occupied territory. It is unnecessary to consider whether the convention applies to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the status of Palestine as an occupied territory, as both those issues have been authoritatively determined by the UN Security Council in legally binding resolutions and that has been accepted by successive British Governments, putting the question beyond any sensible dispute.

The articles of the convention are accompanied by a commentary provided by the International Committee of the Red Cross, whose role includes monitoring the compliance of warring parties with the convention. The commentary makes it clear that the prohibition on transferring protected persons from occupied territory, for whatever reason, stems from the experiences of the second world war, when, as we all know, mass transfers in Europe were commonplace. Determined to avoid a repetition of those experiences, the authors of the fourth Geneva convention voted unanimously in favour of prohibiting unlawful deportation or transfer.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

“My hands were tied in front of me, so I kept reaching up to pull the blindfold off, but the soldiers kept pulling my hands down to stop me. I just wanted to go home to my dad.” That was a nine-year-old. Does my hon. Friend agree that if that behaviour happened in any of our constituencies, we would be outraged?

[Sarah Champion]

I think that the whole room gasped when my hon. Friend read that out. We would be outraged, and I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the fact that that behaviour is happening on an industrial scale.