Russian Assets: Seizure

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is right, and I obviously completely agree.

If we did this, we could have tougher sanctions. A recent example involved Eugene Tenenbaum, a close associate of Roman Abramovich—I am told that “Abram-oh-vich” is the correct pronunciation—and former Chelsea football club director, who was given permission by the Treasury to sell his Surrey mansion for £16 million a month after the Government designated him for UK sanctions and froze all his assets. How did that happen? Why did that happen? Who is not talking to someone else to tell them what they are doing? We are letting stuff slip through because we are not being serious about implementing measures properly.

I could give plenty of other examples. Yevgeny Prigozhin, the boss of the Wagner Group, is deeply involved in another current row about aircraft leased by western companies to Russia that were seized after sanctions were imposed. The Russians are refusing to pay reparations or hand the aircraft back. Huge amounts of money are available to these people. I have a list, but will not go through all the names, because I realise that many others want to speak.

Putin’s brutal invasion has now entered its second year. The Government must amplify their efforts. They have done a great deal, and I congratulate them on much of it, but much more is needed. The Government need to get right down into this issue and make sure that we have a plan for reparation and rebuilding of Ukraine. Let us start with the dirty money—that is the key. We may yet have to give more money, and so may America, but let us start where the bill lands first: with those who are responsible for this brutal invasion of Ukraine. The Ukrainians are a peaceful and decent people whose lives have been turned upside down. Families have been destroyed or have had to flee, and many young men and women are now having to go to the frontline for the first time as soldiers and put their lives on the line, standing for the freedom of their country. We must seize those assets wherever appropriate and ensure that Russia is held to account. As I said earlier, there is much to say “Well done” to the Government for, but there is also much more that needs to be done.

I will leave hon. Members with this simple thought: as we come together across the House, let us also try to work out how we can bring all the other western Governments together in this action. To do it by ourselves will, I recognise, be a slight problem, but if we could get the US Congress, the Canadian Parliament and the European Union to engage on this, then we would have something that would frighten the Russians completely and give us the tools to finish this particular job.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

As hon. Members have recognised, we are honoured to have been joined by colleagues from the Ukrainian Rada who are in the Gallery this afternoon. We welcome you; we salute you and the courage of your country in your fight for democracy.

I must just gently say to hon. Members that the winding-up speeches will start at 6.30 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne]

I think that we can use the same tactics to seize private and public assets, but I am conscious that we have to change the context and parameters of international law first. That is how we maximise the safety of domestic legislation, which has to be the third step. We in this House are lucky that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda has set out precisely how to do that in his ten-minute rule Bill.

Crucially, we need to ensure that the State Immunity Act 1978, which gives immunity to central banks, is revoked or at least conditioned in a way that allow laws to be presented here so that we in Parliament can order the seizure, forfeiture and repurposing of assets.

My final point is a little more short term, meaning now. If we are to maximise the assets that we seize and repurpose for the reconstruction of Ukraine, we have to get serious about sanctions enforcement. Right now, frankly, we are not. There will be a lot more money available if we stop the nonsense that is going on in the dark at the moment. The truth is that sanctions enforcement in this country today is the proverbial riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.

As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said, we have been told that as of October 2022, £18.4 billion-worth of Russian assets have been frozen in this country. We then learned from the scandal exposed by openDemocracy that the Treasury has been issuing licences like confetti, even to warlords such as Prigozhin, the head of the Wagner Group—in his case, to fly English lawyers to St Petersburg to prosecute an English journalist in an English court in order to silence him because he was writing the stories that triggered the sanctions against Prigozhin in the first place. What a nonsense!

As I began to dig into this, much worse was revealed. In the last Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation report, it was revealed that the Treasury is no longer issuing licences to individuals one by one to authorise specific expenditure; it is now issuing general licences that authorise an entire category of spending. In fact, 33 general licences were issued last year, so I naturally asked what the value of those general licences totalled. I was told on 15 February in a parliamentary answer:

“The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) does not disclose data from specific licences it has granted under UK sanctions regimes.”

When the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury came to the House on 25 January, we asked him whether, if he cannot tell us what the total value of the licences is, he could at least tell us what the licences were issued for. He said he could not tell us that because

“there is a delegated framework”

and that these decisions

“are routinely taken by senior civil servants.”—[Official Report, 25 January 2023; Vol. 726, c. 1014.]

I then asked what this delegated framework was and whether we in this House might have a look at it. I first tried a parliamentary question. The answer came back on 8 February:

“There are currently no plans to publish the delegation framework.”

I then had to try a freedom of information request, and I have it here in my hand. It came back to me on 9 March, and it says:

“we can confirm that HM Treasury does hold information within the scope of your request.

The information we have identified…we believe may engage the exemption provided for by section 35(1)(a)—formulation or development of Government policy.”

We now have a situation where Ministers are saying that it is the civil servants’ job, and the civil servants are saying that it is advice to Ministers. For that reason, we cannot get to what this delegated framework looks like.

I then asked whether they could at least tell us how many people we have busted for sanctions evasion. The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation confessed that there were 147 reports of a breach last year, but when I asked the Minister for Security how many criminal investigations had resulted from that, he said that he could not answer

“For reasons of operational security”.

I went back to the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation report to double-check, and of 147 reports of a breach, there have been a grand total of two monetary fines, both to fintech companies.

So there we have it: £18 billion frozen and licences issued like confetti in a secret regime that Ministers say is down to civil servants and civil servants say is actually advice to Ministers. Despite this flagrant abuse—and we know the scale of it, because the Financial Times told us that $250 million has been laundered by the Wagner Group—we have just two fines that total £86,000. Well, £86,000 in fines is not going to do much to help us rebuild Ukraine. I ask the Minister on the Front Bench to explain to us how she is going to do an awful lot better than that.

Sanctions enforcement in this country stinks to high heaven, and what concerns me most is the culture of secrecy around it. Many of us in this House have been around long enough to know that such a culture is never a recipe for good public policy. We in this House have to be realistic about the scale of finance that is needed; maximise the use of our Bretton Woods institutions; and move internationally and domestically, together with our allies, to change the parameters of international law and maximise the safety and security of domestic legislation that we pass here. But let us move now to send a clear signal from the UK—the home of the rule of law—that this is not going to be a safe haven for sanctions evasion. We are going to send that clear message by getting tough, and getting tough now.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

If we are going to get everybody in, we are going to have to have a self-denying ordinance of about six minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to wind up for the SNP in this very constructive debate. We support the motion. I commend the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for moving it; I can hardly do anything but support it, because I called for the same thing from this spot on 26 April last year and reiterated that call on 25 May and 22 September.

The SNP has long been pushing for a Marshall fund to aid the reconstruction of Ukraine. We have also been pushing for greater financial transparency within the UK’s financial sector. That is a good thing in and of itself, but the crisis in Ukraine has brought an urgency to the need to deal with the UK’s long-standing problem of dirty money. We want to see action, so I hope the Minister is taking good note of the constructive pressure she is feeling today. We want to see more, better, faster and broader action than we have seen to date.

I appreciate that it is difficult. I am a financial services lawyer—if we go back far enough—so I know that we are dealing with some of the slippiest, best advised and best resourced people in the world, who are very able to exploit loopholes wherever they exist, but there is a unanimity here and there is a will. I implore the Minister to do better than we have seen to date.

The London laundromat has been a long-standing problem for national security. My predecessor in this role was Stephen Gethins, who is well known to many colleagues as the former Member for North East Fife and who is now a professor of international relations at the University of St Andrews. He has put it very well:

“For years we have turned a blind eye to Putin’s dirty money, propaganda and influence in our democracy. Those who called out the corruption were badged as anti-Russian when it was the Russians who were Putin’s first victims. It is a shame that many are only paying attention to his crimes after such grave events. I hope that real action will be taken. After years of inaction we owe the people of Ukraine and Putin’s other victims at least that.”

As we have heard in the many excellent speeches this afternoon, the scale of reconstruction required in Ukraine is vast. Estimates vary from €600 billion to upwards of €1 trillion, but who can calculate it while the conflict is ongoing? It is going to be a major financial exercise in reconstruction, but the wider moral principle is surely that it should be Russian dirty money that pays. If Russian dirty money is good enough to be sequestrated, it is good enough to be requisitioned for reconstruction.

This has been a constructive debate. Let me give some examples of how other states are dealing with the issue. Estonia’s Government have declared a blueprint for the legal seizure of frozen Russian assets. The Frozen Assets Repurposing Bill is working its way through the Canadian Parliament. There is a Swiss law on asset recovery. Today, the European Parliament is debating precisely how to tackle the issue. I associate myself with other hon. Members’ comments that we need an internationally co-ordinated effort, because any loopholes that are allowed to exist will be exploited. I particularly commend the actions of the Italian state: the Guardia di Finanza has made strong strides in seizing assets.

There is a wider lesson for us all. I very much appreciate the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) about properly resourcing the new financial transparency regime that is working its way through this House. The Guardia di Finanza proves that if there is a strong and properly resourced domestic enforcement mechanism, we will see better results; I strongly believe that the Government could take that on board. Likewise, the Dutch Parliament has already created a trust fund that will be funded by assets in due course, and is working out how it can legally seize them. There is a huge willingness to see the Government do more and do better.

Let me end with a couple of, I hope, constructive points. First, we want to see a wider coalition: we have already seen a coalition in support of Ukraine, but we also need to see a coalition in support of these legal measures. I should be grateful for an assurance from the Minister that the overseas territories will be very much part of the UK’s new regime in this regard, because we are seeing pretty significant evidence that they are being exploited through these loopholes. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am glad to hear some support from the Conservative Benches.

My second point raises what is, perhaps, a broader issue. A number of the UK’s allies are actively engaged in assisting the Russian state and the oligarchs themselves to get around these systems, and they will be the source of the loopholes that will be exploited. Surely the UK is in a diplomatic position to put considerable pressure on those allies.

Having made those two points, and having referred to the unanimity we have seen today, I add my own salutations to our Ukrainian colleagues. There is a coalition of the willing in this House, and I hope the Government can rise to the opportunity that it presents.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Opposition spokesman.

Ukraine

Roger Gale Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I will make progress.

And we are providing £5 million for safety and security equipment for the civil nuclear sector.

We are working closely with international partners to reduce their energy dependence on Russia. The UK phased out Russian coal from August 2022 and banned imports of Russian liquefied natural gas from the start of this year. In December, alongside the G7 and Australia, we set a price cap on seaborne Russian crude oil to restrict Putin’s primary source of revenue for his illegal war. Despite elevated oil prices, Russia’s Finance Ministry has reported a $47 billion deficit in 2022, because of the decisive action we have taken. We will continue to work with partners to cut off Russia’s hydrocarbon revenues and accelerate the global transition to clean, reliable sources of power.

We have also imposed our largest and most severe package of sanctions ever against Russia. With our allies, we have frozen more than £275 billion-worth of Russian assets; in addition to the 1,200 individuals already sanctioned, we will introduce new measures against those in Russia and outside it who are supporting or profiteering from this war. We will crack down ruthlessly on those who seek to evade sanctions.

Abuses and violations of human rights have been committed by Russian forces on a systematic scale: torture and killing of civilians; rape and sexual violence as a weapon of war; and forced deportations. We will not allow these crimes to go unpunished. We will support the war crimes investigations, those of both the Ukrainian authorities and the International Criminal Court. In March, the UK will host a major international meeting to support the ICC in investigating alleged war crimes in Ukraine.

When this war is over, Ukraine can never again be left vulnerable to attack. A strong Ukraine must be safe, flourishing and prosperous. With our Ukrainian friends, we will co-host the 2023 Ukraine recovery conference on 21 and 22 June, here in London. Together, we plan to mobilise the combined might of public and private finance to ensure that Ukraine gets the vital reconstruction investment that it needs. I know that this House will join me in calling on Putin to withdraw Russian forces from Ukrainian territory and immediately bring an end to the barbaric attacks against civilians. The Ukrainians have endured months of relentless attacks and bombardment, but their spirit is unbroken. We share their determination that Putin’s illegal attempted invasion will fail and this House demands that justice be done.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

Russia’s Grand Strategy

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Chris Bryant]

It would undoubtedly add a fifth leg to a four-legged stool, but a four-legged stool is strong enough. I do not want to have to wait for that moment to be able to do this, because Ukraine needs the money now to be able to put food on the table and proceed.

There are two further issues that I ought to knock off in case the Minister says, “Oh, well, yes, this is a very good idea but it is terribly difficult to do, you know, and I can’t think that we can possibly get round to doing it”, which is what Ministers nearly always say. That was not meant to be an impersonation of the Minister currently on the Government Front Bench; it was an impersonation of any normal Minister when they get to the Dispatch Box and hear somebody proposing something difficult or courageous.

First, there is sovereign immunity. State assets are almost always protected from seizure by the concept of sovereign immunity. However, there have been exceptions, such as to satisfy damages awarded by international courts and arbitral tribunal. I would argue that Russia’s continuing refusal to comply with international human rights law—and this goes to the point just made—by attacking civilian housing and infrastructure, and its wilful refusal to follow orders of the International Court of Justice and the United Nations General Assembly are ample grounds for creating such an exemption.

There is also a point about retaliation. Some argue that if we seize their assets, they may seize ours. To be honest, I think it is pretty likely that the vast majority of British assets in the Russian Federation have already been lost, written off or expropriated by the Russian Government.

Finally, some say that countries may choose not to keep their reserves in the United Kingdom if they believe that they can be seized. However, if we severely restrict when reserves can be seized, that concern is minimised. Furthermore, if we acted in concert with our allies to seize the reserves, as we did when we froze them, we could create a powerful disincentive for states to engage in unlawful acts of aggression. I think we should do that. The reserves of an aggressor would never be safe, as there would be no country with a stable currency to protect them.

In the end, we want to ensure that a war of aggression, which has never been formally declared to be a war crime in itself, is seen to be a way in which an aggressor loses their assets. I urge the Government to consider that process carefully so that we can ensure that Russian state assets go to Ukraine as soon as possible.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. There are five right hon. and hon. Members wishing to participate in the debate and I need to call the Front-Bench speakers not later than 4.30 pm. My guess is that everything that needs to be said individually can be said in 10 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Dunne]

I am very grateful. I am well aware that my right hon. Friend, who, when we were in post was responsible for personnel primarily and then became armed forces Minister, has taken a particular interest in procurement of late. I have not always agreed with everything he has said, but I think we are absolutely as one on this issue.

What should we be looking at, in the refresh of the integrated review, to deliver the strategic shift that is needed in UK military capability? First, there must be an immediate restoration of the manpower that has been cut from the British Army. It is very clear that what is happening in Ukraine is a land conflict. Our Army’s land capability has suffered cuts for years, perhaps because it has been given lower priority in the allocation of funds for new capability. That is largely because it is easier to cut a small programme, either by deferring it for a bit or by cutting a bit out, than to cut a major programme, which takes years longer to achieve, as is typically the case in the air and maritime domains.

We also need to prioritise land capability from an equipment perspective, so the second thing that the refresh needs is to look at the capability and capital equipment that the British Army requires. The Chairman of the Select Committee listed a number of items that he would like to see restored or improved.

We need to learn clear lessons about what the current conflict is delivering from the state-on-state aggressor in the Ukraine. I do not have a military background and have not studied the doctrine as the Minister has, but it is very clear that taking territory on a modern battlefield requires the ability to manoeuvre at scale under armoured protection. It is vital that our infantry mobility and our power projection on land, at scale, be restored. As we have heard, much of our equipment is now decades old. Although some of it remains more effective and capable than what an adversary might have, we just do not have enough, and what we do have is getting pretty tired.

We also need to be able to clear territory in advance, so we need artillery capability and agile unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering force across a battlefield. Air protection is critical to that, so we need air defence and a variety of UAVs. Much of our UAV capability has been built around delivering precision fire remotely, which has been very effective in theatres in which we have been operating, such as Afghanistan or Iraq, but would be much harder to deliver at scale across a wider battlefront.

New capability and equipment cannot be effective unless we have manpower trained to use it, so the integrated review also needs to provide adequate funding to allow force-on-force armoured training at scale, access to training areas and the ability to experiment with novel groupings and battlegroups at scale. We are in danger of giving up the capability that we had; I am thinking in particular of the training ground in Canada.

To achieve this, we need agile procurement, as I called for in a paper in 2018. That approach has been provided through the urgent operational requirements system and by individual commands through the rapid capability offices that have been established, which are doing well at bringing in new capability, often procured off the shelf but typically at a small scale. What we are talking about today is on a different scale, so we need to consider acquiring some capability off the shelf. We do not have the luxury of a 10-year procurement programme that may slip, as has often been discussed in this Chamber. We have to contemplate that approach, even if it means not necessarily buying British all the time.

We can continue to provide Ukraine with equipment. We have taken a lead in Europe in providing equipment— I command the Government for their stance—and in training the brave Ukrainian soldiers in its use. However, the conflict is going on for longer than the aggressor intended and longer than any of us would like. We must assume that it will continue, and that supplies will be needed, for some time. In the integrated review, we must be prepared to backfill our own supplies of munitions and increase our own stockpiles and capability. That takes time, and it takes treasure. We need to establish strategic reserves as a consequence of the integrated review, which will allow us to sustain our own forces and those in Ukraine for a long time. We have to demonstrate to the Russians that the UK has the resolve to stand fast behind Ukraine, and the resolve to ensure that NATO is in a position to act as a deterrent to any extension of this conflict beyond where it currently is.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Scottish National party spokesman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Dunne]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, the shadow Minister’s declaration of his interest with the GMB union prompts me that I should have declared my interests when speaking, and I apologise to you, Sir, for not having done so. Until the end of last month, I was deputy chairman of the Defence Growth Partnership and I remain a non-executive director of an engineering company with defence interests, as declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

The right hon. Gentleman is aware that that is not a matter for the Chair, but he has placed his interests on the record. I now call the Minister of State; if he would be good enough, as a courtesy, to allow Sir Bernard a couple of minutes at the end to wind up the debate, that would be helpful.

Iran

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I am delighted to have been called so early in the debate! Let me start by thanking the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for initiating this timely, topical and important debate on not only the treatment of protesters in Iran, but the political situation there. As we know, it is destabilising not just for its own people, but for those across the region and, indeed, the globe.

I want to reiterate some of the comments that have been made, notably those made by the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) and the right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). I do not have a problem with Iran the country—its history, its culture and its proud, proud people. What I do have is a problem with the evil, barbaric, tyrannical, murderous regime of the supreme leader and the treatment of his own people.

On 16 September, the brutal death—I would call it a murder—of Mahsa Amini shook the world. Up until that point, we had spoken about Iran numerous times in the Chamber and Westminster Hall, and there had been numerous calls, as there have been today, for the UK to go further, for instance by proscribing Hezbollah and Hamas across the globe and, now, proscribing the IRGC. We have been calling for that for a number of years, and there is cross-party, cross-Chamber and cross-House support for it, yet still we are waiting. That death on 16 September, however, not only shook us in this country, but shook the people of Iran. When there were protests a couple of years ago, they were stamped out very quickly with brutal treatment from the regime.

What we are seeing now from the brave women and men of that country makes it clear that they have had enough. There is now a hope and aspiration for real regime change, because they know what the penalties are. They know of the risks not only to their own safety and their own lives, but to the lives of their families, and they are still prepared to protest. For that, they have not only our thanks and our solidarity, but our support as well.

When we all watched the World Cup there were many things we took from it, but what I took from the England-Iran game were the powerful statements by the Iranian football team before the match, during the singing of the national anthems, and then after the match. They did not want to stand by and support their regime. They did not want to support what was happening in their country. We see that not only with the football team, as all sportspeople are repressed. They fear not only that they will be murdered if they go back to Iran, but attacks, torture and, ultimately, execution. As the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), the Chair of the Select Committee, said, we are seeing state-sponsored murder on a brutal scale.

This is not just about Iran’s treatment of its own people. Iran has destabilised the region for numerous years in how it treats the Kurds and in its approach to Israel and the entire middle east. More recently, it has provided attack drones for Russia’s illegal war in Ukraine.

We have also seen the Iranian regime take a negative approach not only to the state of Israel but to Jewish people across the globe, by propagating antisemitism, including holocaust denial. As we approach Holocaust Memorial Day, it is now more important than ever to call out the evil of holocaust denial. In recent years, we have seen high-profile competitions such as the international holocaust cartoon competition being held in Iran with the Iranian Government’s support. The most recent competition was held in 2016, according to the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, and it had 150 entries, all depicting holocaust denial and claims of holocaust hoaxes. The competition tries to denigrate one of the worst crimes against humanity the world has ever seen. Despite the denial of Iran’s Foreign Minister, the holocaust cartoon competition is linked to the Iranian regime, as confirmed by Iran’s Ministry of Culture. Conflicting statements are a recurring theme of the Iranian regime, which produces different messages for domestic and overseas consumption.

Iran has been designated a state sponsor of terrorism. It funds Hamas, Hezbollah and numerous regimes across the middle east, including in Lebanon and, as the Chairman of the Select Committee said, Syria. We need to continue calling this out, because Iran’s support for terrorism is a global threat, particularly to Jewish communities, which have been repeatedly targeted. The most notable example is the 1994 Hezbollah bombing of the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina building in Buenos Aires, which killed 85 people and injured hundreds. This continued threat is a major reason why Jewish communities around the world, including in my constituency, require security outside schools, synagogues, community centres and events.

In 2012, Iran or Hezbollah was connected to incidents targeting Jewish communities or Israeli interests in India, Georgia, Thailand, Singapore, Cyprus, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Kenya and this country. This continued threat is a major reason why Jewish communities around the world fear for their safety, and it is why we need organisations such as the Community Security Trust to make sure that our Jewish constituents and friends are safe. Again, I pay tribute to the Community Security Trust’s work to keep my constituents safe to go about their daily lives.

The UK should continue to monitor the global and domestic threat from Iranian-backed terrorism and take action to limit terrorists’ ability to operate domestically, regionally and globally. The Government should be commended for supporting the security of the UK’s Jewish communities against this threat. The Government took far too long to proscribe Hezbollah, compared with other countries, but we need to have further conversations with the EU and our neighbours and friends to make sure they are also proscribing Hezbollah in its entirety.

I share the international community’s concern about a nuclear Iran, as highlighted by the Chairman of the Select Committee. The JCPOA has essentially been dead for three years, yet we have allowed Iran not only to enrich uranium but to develop greater scientific understanding and knowledge so that, if we were to take it away, it would be back in a matter of weeks. We need to do so much more, and I share those concerns.

What do we do now that the JCPOA is dead? I would love to say that we could go back to the negotiating table to find a solution, but I think that moment has passed. The Iranian regime does not care about negotiating. It does not care about the sanctions we might impose on Iran, the IRGC or the police, because so much of its economy is driven by the black market. We need to find new, innovative and meaningful ways to address the situation, but it will also involve our friends and allies in the US, the UN, Germany and France. We need to make sure we are all singing from the same hymn sheet if we are to address the situation, because we need to address not only the threat of a nuclear Iran but the state- sponsored terrorism it is exporting across the globe.

Any future UK relationship with Iran must take into account not only those destabilising factors but what Iran is doing to its own people. As we have seen, the number of murders, arrests and tortures are increasing on a daily basis.

I am sure everyone in this Chamber, in this House and, indeed, in this Parliament sends their support to every single person who is protesting, whether on the streets of Tehran or, as we saw on Sunday, the streets of London. We support their freedom from Iran’s tyrannical regime, and we back their cries of “Woman, Life, Freedom”.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

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

It is a genuine pleasure to speak in this hugely important debate and to follow the many significant and well-informed contributions we have heard from both sides of the House. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing this debate.

The Scottish National party stands in full solidarity with those incredibly brave Iranian women, men and young people whose desire to see political, economic and social change in their country has brought out the worst in a regime that is well known for its ruthlessness and brutality. The accounts we have heard today have been truly harrowing, none more so than the one we heard from the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood).

The protesters’ bravery in standing up to the dictatorship is beyond inspiring, and each and every one of us who believes in freedom and human rights owes it to them not just to stand in solidarity and to unequivocally condemn the regime but to promise to do everything we can to bring the perpetrators to justice, regardless of how long it takes. There have been a number of questions about what we can do. Although our options may be limited in the short term, we can in the long term commit to ensuring that there will be no impunity and no hiding place for the perpetrators of these awful, awful crimes.

As we have heard, the death of Mahsa Amini has been the catalyst for the largest protests that Iran has witnessed since the founding of the Islamic Republic in 1979. As Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe recently wrote:

“Mahsa’s death is the latest blow to the people of a country long abused… Women in Iran are desperate. They are furious and restless. They cannot take it anymore.”

To the cry of “Woman, Life, Freedom”, women and girls are removing their headscarves and, in an act of incredible bravery, defying the regime. But that bravery and defiance comes at a huge personal cost to so many individuals and families.

Hours before she disappeared on 20 September, 16-year-old Nika Shakarami was recorded burning her headscarf at a protest in Tehran. Later that night, she messaged a friend to say that she was being chased by the police, and she was witnessed being bundled into a police van. Shortly afterwards, her Telegram and Instagram accounts were deleted and her phone was turned off. Ten days later, Nika’s family were told that she was dead, and they were given only a few seconds to identify her. Her mother says the revolutionary guards told her that Nika had been in their custody for five days before being handed over to the notorious Evin prison.

Tragedy is, all too often, a reality for women who defy the regime. It is a similar story for 23-year-old Hadis Najafi, a social media influencer who disappeared the following night. Before leaving to join the protest, she sent a video to a friend saying, “I would like to think that, when I think about this a few years later, I will be pleased that I joined this protest.” Thirty minutes after leaving her house, Hadis was shot dead. She was shot at least six times in the face, neck and heart, although her family believe she was shot 20 times. When we talk about the protests and the protesters, we must do so in human terms. We must remember the 22-year-old Mahsa, the 16-year-old Nika and the 23-year-old Hadis as young women who were killed for demanding the rights that every single one of us in this country takes for granted. To try to understand why Mahsa, Nika, Hadis and tens of thousands of other girls pose such a threat to the regime and its ideology, it is worth remembering the words of Hossein Jalali, an Iranian MP and member of that Parliament’s culture committee, who said recently:

“The hijab is the flag of the Islamic Republic. Those who refuse to wear hijab will have to pay a heavy price”.

He added:

“Moving away from the hijab means a retreat of the Islamic Republic”.

That explains why Professor Azadeh Kian, the French-Iranian director of the centre for gender and feminist studies at the University of Paris, said:

“What these women are doing in Iran is a revolution, at least a cultural revolution”.

It seems now that it is not just the women of Iran who cannot take it anymore, as they have been joined by workers, students and minority communities. They are taking to the streets to voice their pent-up anger at this regime, and it must be concerned. As we have heard, the average age of a protester is 15; young Iranians, male and female, are telling the regime that its time is up, and the regime is responding in the only way it knows how. That grassroots demand for change is not going to go away and at some point the regime will have to accept that its tried and trusted tactic of brutal repression simply will not work any more.

Across this House, Members will stand in solidarity with the brave women, men, and young people of Iran. Similarly, we will fully support the United Nations in the work it is doing and its international fact-finding mission. I echo the calls made for the proscription of the IRGC. If we are not going to proscribe that organisation, the Minister will have to explain why.

Finally, let me echo the words of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady); there is something quick, meaningful and practical that we can do right now, which is to reverse the decision made to move the BBC World Service Persian language broadcasts from radio to a digital-only platform. The Iranian Government can and do cut the internet easily, thereby denying the Iranian people a trusted source of news from the outside world. As we know, the FCDO partly funds the World Service, but budgetary pressures on the BBC mean that it has chosen to make its Persian language service internet only. It would take only a tiny amount of extra money to reverse this decision and get the Persian language broadcasts back on to the radio: a tiny sum of money that would tell the people of Iran that the world is watching, we are aware of their struggle and they are not alone. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the Opposition Front-Bencher.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Roger Gale Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 27th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

While I understand the reason for his absence, I rather wish that it had been the Prime Minister and not the Foreign Secretary who introduced this Bill tonight, because when he took office the Prime Minister told us that he had an “oven-ready” deal and I believe I am right in saying that he said there would be a border down the Irish sea over his dead body. The withdrawal agreement and the protocol were freely entered into. The Prime Minister and David—now Lord—Frost brought that document back in triumph and campaigned on it in the 2019 election campaign. It subsequently went through this House with a large majority. I know that only too well because I was sitting in the Chair you are sitting in now, Mr Deputy Speaker, when I announced the result of that vote. But the Government were warned that the deal was flawed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) and others pointed out, before it went through this House, what was wrong with it. They indicated the dangers of the border down the Irish Sea, but they were not heeded. That is why we are here tonight.

This Bill breaches the Vienna convention on legal treaties. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) spelled that out very clearly. There is no doctrine of necessity that applies in this case. Article 16 exists as a backstop—if I am allowed to use that word—and the case in law simply cannot stand up. That means that the Bill we are proposing to put through this House tonight will be a gross breach of international law if it is enacted and implemented.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in what he is saying about the Bill. Does he agree that the UK Government will not be able to complain if the European Union chooses to cherry-pick and undo something unilaterally, because that is the precedent the Government are now setting? Anyone can do what they want.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I think the rather more dangerous point, which has already been made tonight, relates to the damage that this will do to our reputation for integrity and the position that we will find ourselves in when we criticise President Putin for breaking international law, which of course he does over and over again.

[Robin Millar]

Does my right hon. Friend really think that that is a fair comparison to make?

[Sir Roger Gale]

I gently suggest to my young friend that, if I had not thought it was a fair comparison, I would not have made it.

I feel very strongly that we are going down an extremely dangerous path. I believe passionately in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and we have to get back on track, but we are not going to make Maroš Šefčovič’s job any easier by lumbering him with this legislation. I am sure that it will ultimately get through this House—whether it gets through the other place is another matter—but I hope very much indeed that an agreement can be reached before it becomes law. That agreement has to be reached by negotiation; that really is the only way forward. Some of the proposals in the legislation—such as the red and green routes—are sound and can be implemented. There is every indication that the European Union is willing to accept not all but at least some of those kinds of proposals, and I believe that that is the way forward. I do not believe that the Bill is the way forward and that is why, sadly, I shall not be supporting it tonight.

World Press Freedom Day

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered World Press Freedom Day 2022.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. In the 21st century, speaking truth to power is an increasingly dangerous business. While we have in our minds the war in Ukraine and Russia’s atrocities in that country, I want to start the debate by remembering the eight journalists who, as they have gone about trying to show the world the truth of Russia’s atrocities in that country, have been murdered in their line of work. Frédéric Leclerc-Imhoff, a French journalist working for BFMTV, was killed on 30 May 2022. Mantas Kvedaravičius, a documentary film maker, was killed on 2 April. Maks Levin, a photo reporter for Reuters, was found dead on 1 April. Oksana Baulina, a journalist for The Insider, was killed on 23 March. Brent Renaud, a documentary film maker, was killed on 13 March. Oleksandra Kuvshynova was killed on 14 March. Pierre Zakrzewski, a journalist for Fox News, was killed on 14 March. And Evgeny Sakun, a media assistant for the Kyiv Live TV channel, was killed on 1 March.

They are among the 29 journalists and two media assistants who have lost their lives in their line of work this year so far. There have been eight in Ukraine and eight in Mexico. There are also atrocities against journalists and suppression of journalists’ voices elsewhere in the world, particularly among the freedom movement in Hong Kong, and in Ethiopia, where commentary on the brutal civil war has been banned by the Government. These people are trying to inform the world and inform the communities that they serve of the truth of what is happening, and for it they are losing their lives.

When we had the debate last year on World Press Freedom Day and also strategic lawsuits against journalists, I mentioned the case of Catherine Belton, and it is nice to know that people do listen to these debates when we gather together in Westminster Hall. In that case, the person who listened to it was a public relations representative, working for Roman Abramovich, who wanted to call me in to speak about what a great humanitarian he was and why some of the issues raised in Catherine Belton’s book, “Putin’s People”, did not accurately reflect those issues as he saw them. They say a week is a long time in politics. A year is an eternity, and the work of journalists such as Catherine Belton highlighting the activities of Russian oligarchs such as Roman Abramovich has now come to much fuller attention and, as a consequence of the war in Ukraine, some of these issues are taken much more seriously now than they were a year ago.

We now take much more seriously the web of networks and influence of highly wealthy people, particularly oligarchs from countries such as Russia, and the way they have sought to suppress commentary and suppress the active work of journalists to hold them to account. It is right that, under the sanctions regime, the use by such people of London lawyers and London PR firms has been restricted, but we must recognise that that has also been a considerable issue in the suppression of free speech and a free press brought about by wealthy people using British courts to close down British journalists speaking truth to power. The Government want to bring in new legislation, particularly with regard to strategic lawsuits and the abuse of the courts to silence commentary in the press. It is important that we consider a wide range of issues, such as the need for a proper register of people who work for foreign Governments but work in the UK without declaring that interest, as we create a much better legal framework for journalists to operate in.

Since the outbreak of war in Ukraine, we have also been reminded of just how vital our own news-gathering services are. I was pleased to see the Government award an additional £4 million to the BBC World Service to support its commentary on the war in Ukraine and political relations in Belarus and in Russia in particular. Even though the Russian Government have sought to close down British reporting and the BBC in those countries, we have still been able to help people to access the news from the BBC through alternative routes. Some people are using, and have been shown how to use and download, VPNs—virtual private networks—so that they can still access BBC services from within Russia without the knowledge or sight of the Russian Government. The use and the ability of our infrastructure to report news, to share news and to get truth to people around the world is increasingly important, and it is right that we continue to support strongly the World Service and the work of British journalists around the world.

We are seeing an important change in the UK as well with the introduction of the Online Safety Bill, which is currently before Parliament, and in the Queen’s Speech, the commitment from the Government to bring in competition legislation in the digital environment is very important as well. First, with regard to digital competition, it is right that all journalists and news organisations have a fair opportunity to reach their audiences, and that all those organisations have the right to be fairly compensated for the use of their media.

One of the biggest acts of suppression of journalistic voices in the past 20 years has been the demonetisation of media as a consequence of the aggregation of social media platforms. It is much harder for newspapers to make money as they used to, by selling advertising to place against news stories to pay for the journalism that goes into reporting them, if they cannot be remunerated. The way in which social media platforms aggregate news by allowing people to share stories but not sharing any of the data or information about that news and information with the journalists and the news organisation that created it in the first place has taken a lot of money out of the market.

We have all seen our own local news organisations hollowed out. They are much smaller than they used to be and can employ far fewer journalists. That has affected national as well as local media, and we should take that issue very seriously. The introduction, through competition legislation, of a news bargaining code, similar to the one already created in Australia, will be hugely beneficial to media in this country. It will mean that the big tech platforms such as Google and Facebook will have to make a contribution to the news organisations whose content they profit from but do not currently share the benefits of that profit with.

The code has been introduced in Australia with considerable impact. It is enabling news organisations to hire journalists again and to beef up their reporting capability in a way that they could not have done before. Canada is looking at introducing such legislation, and it will be welcome if we do that in the UK, too.

The second point about the Online Safety Bill is the protection of freedom of speech and the journalism that can exist within it. The Government have been asked, through the report of the Joint Committee that I chaired, to create a provision that journalistic content from a recognised news organisation should be presumed to have a right to be carried on platforms. It should not be for major social media platforms to become the editor-in-chief of what the free press can write about. There is a great danger that if platforms decide to strike down news content because they disagree with it, that content will not reach the audiences for which it is intended.

In the modern world a media organisation cannot not use services such as Facebook and YouTube to reach their audiences. There should therefore be a presumption that the news content produced by a recognised news organisation has the right to reach its audience, whether it is in line with the platform policies of a company or not. News content should have such an exemption because there are already existing routes to complain or take action against legitimate content when it is there. Ultimately, a news editor is legally responsible for all the coverage that they endorse and place in their publication. There are complaints procedures that people may use if they are unhappy with a story that has been written.

Ultimately, the mark of journalism is that people put their name to what they write. People are accountable for what they say and the stories that they tell to the world, and they can be challenged. Much of what is called journalism that exists on social media often does not correspond to those aspects at all. It is often produced by nameless, faceless people and organisations that do not exist, who seek to hide their identity in order to spread lies and disinformation. We have struggled to hold such people to account for the stories that they tell. In fact, a report and study produced by the Centre for Countering Digital Hate during the pandemic traced back most of the anti-vax disinformation in the world to just 12 sources that used their platforms to propagate disinformation around the web.

So we have to think about how legitimate journalism, written by credible journalists, can have the opportunity to reach an audience when it is competing not just against the forces of demonetisation, taking away the revenue that it should generate from producing good stories, but also against a wall and sea of disinformation that is propagated online. One way in which we can protect that is by ensuring that the news organisations are recognised, that they have a right to be carried, and that when their stories are there and are carried they can be challenged or disagreed with, not just struck down.

In the report of the Joint Committee that I chaired on the Online Safety Bill, we recommended that there should be a presumption to carry. The Government have said that they are interested in introducing special provisions in the Online Safety Bill requiring an online media platform that sought to take down a piece of journalistic content that it disagreed with from a recognised news organisation to give notice to the news company before doing so, and a period of time for an appeal process would be allowed. However, I think we can and should go further and say that there should be a presumption to carry, so that proper journalism from accredited news organisations can reach the audiences that it deserves.

It is now more important than ever that people have the opportunity to be challenged by issues that they disagree with, and that the funnels of social media through which people consume news, which tend to give people more extreme versions of what they agree with, can be challenged with alternative opinions. One of the benefits we have seen from the very brave work that journalists are doing, particularly in a war zone such as Ukraine, is that it is becoming harder and harder for states to suppress real news and information within their countries. The Ethiopian Government cannot cover up the atrocities that are taking place on a daily basis in Ethiopia, because of the way in which citizen journalists and others bring such information into the public domain. Similarly, film from within Ukraine about what is really happening on the ground and in cities such as Mariupol—reported by journalists some of whom I named at the beginning of the debate—cannot be suppressed when people can bring it to the world. We should be opening up those channels and making sure that their voices have a right to be heard.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I had not intended to intervene in this debate, because I am afraid that I have to leave. My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on the Online Safety Bill; I am chairing it in Committee, so I am not allowed to speak about it. Before he sits down, will he pay tribute not only to the people who we see on “ITV News”, “Sky News” and “BBC News” every night from Ukraine and who are incredibly brave, but to the cameramen and soundmen behind them, who are unseen and unheard but equally brave?

[Damian Collins]

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. As I said at the start, 29 journalists have died, as have two media assistants—exactly the sort of people he refers to. They work together on the frontline, and without the work of those production assistants, the stories that people seek to tell simply would not be heard, because they would not reach their audiences. It is absolutely a team effort. My right hon. Friend is right to say that sometimes we focus on the journalist we see on the screen, but they are just one person in a team who are integral to bringing that truth and that story to the world, and we should remember them as well.

The flashpoint of a war brings home the importance of truth and news. It brings home the reality of the suppression of free media in a world in which we seem to have an increasing number of authoritarian Governments, more restrictions on media and reporting, and a greater challenge to democracy. There is a lot more to being a democracy than holding elections, and the ability of people to speak truth to power, to challenge Governments with information that they do not want to hear, and to tell their stories is increasingly important. We have to acknowledge the fact that democracy is in retreat in many parts of the world. The first sign of that retreat is the suppression of the free press, which is why our ability to discuss that today in this House is so important.

Council of Europe

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) on securing this debate, and on his leadership of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

I follow on directly from the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who made the point in an intervention and has reiterated in his speech that people in this building do not understand the Council of Europe; he is absolutely right. Some months ago, I was in the Tea Room, explaining to colleagues that the Council of Europe covers lands stretching from Azerbaijan to the Atlantic, and from the Mediterranean to the Arctic circle. Even then, some people could not grasp the fact that it was not the European Union, but something much bigger and, I would argue, much more important. One of my colleagues present on that occasion—I will not name her, because I hate to embarrass the Home Secretary—said, “Why do we pay it so little attention?” I looked her straight in the eyes and said, “Because it’s got the word ‘Europe’ in it.” I am afraid that is a sad fact of life.

The Council of Europe has done, and continues to do, an enormous amount of work, particularly in relation to the Russian Federation and Ukraine. Following the Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014, we suspended the voting rights of the Russian delegation, who then walked out. The British delegation, which punches far and away above its weight in the Parliamentary Assembly, took a stand and resisted Russia’s readmission—with one dishonourable exception, who, I am ashamed to say, was a Member from the Government Benches. Every other Member of Parliament from every political party voted against Russia’s readmission in support of our colleagues in the Baltic states, Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. However, others thought they knew better and let the Russians back in.

As such, a couple of years later, we found ourselves in a situation where the Russians had taken the wrong signal, believing that Europe would do nothing about Ukraine. It took the robust attack from my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley—sorry, my honourable Friend; he ought to be right honourable—to undo that damage and make sure that Russia was properly suspended again. Those are the powers that the British delegation to the Council of Europe can have and exercise.

There is some unfinished business. We rightly talk a lot about the Donbas at the moment, and we talk quite a lot about Crimea, but we have forgotten Cyprus. There is a member state of the Council of Europe—Turkey—that, in 1974, invaded and occupied part of the territory of Cyprus, another member state. It is nearly 50 years since that happened, and the matter remains unresolved. There are still Turkish troops occupying soil of another sovereign state of the Council of Europe. That, in its own way, is just as wrong as what is happening in Ukraine.

I thank Chris Yvon, who was the permanent representative during my time as leader of the delegation. He provided massive support during our discussions about the Russian Federation, and contributed in an exemplary way to the work between an ambassador and Members of Parliament, advising and supporting us, and ensuring that we had the information we needed to do the job. I hope that the Foreign Office will recognise that. Finally, I would like to put on record my appreciation of the work done by the superb secretariat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to wind up for the SNP. It has been interesting to hear the various worldviews expressed across the Chamber. From the SNP perspective, I am glad to hear the cross-party support for the Council of Europe, and I very much associate myself with it.

I was a Member of the European Parliament for 16 years. I spent 192 weeks in Strasbourg over those years, so the Council of Europe is close to my heart, and I suffered a terrible thing in losing such a wonderful environment and great colleagues at the Council. I was always struck by the genius of the twin-track mechanism whereby the Council of Europe focuses on the citizens and empowering their legal rights against their own Governments and states, and the EU is a more overtly political and trade union.

It will surprise nobody that it grieves me deeply that the UK has withdrawn from that co-operation in the European Union. I am not in the business of fighting old battles, but Scotland wants to be back in that co-operation; the SNP is an internationalist party, and we want co-operation and multilateralism in all its forms and in all forums. Scotland’s best future is, from my party’s perspective, as an independent state in the European Union. I will come back to that point.

That withdrawal, or retreat, from the international multilateral co-operation of the EU—which the UK has taken Scotland out of—is precisely what makes the co-operation with the framework of the Council of Europe all the more vital. I applaud the work of the delegation. It has had enthusiastic SNP support. My hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) and for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) are enthusiastic members of the delegation. As long as the SNP is part of this House, that co-operation will continue. It suits our worldview to co-operate internationally and to be part of a multilateral enforcement of decency and human rights.

I have been glad to hear the support from across the House for the work of the Council. We need to bear in mind that it needs to be intellectually consistent, so that we work with and support the Council when it is difficult to do so, as well as when it suits us. I have been uneasy about some of the comment and debate, especially in today’s papers. It is not just about the European Union; I see the same ingredients in the public discourse about the European Court of Justice, the European convention on human rights and the European Council.

I say to Conservative Members present—although I exclude most of them from this criticism—that some of their colleagues are quite specifically trying to undermine the work of the Council. Perhaps they are doing so from a position of ignorance, as we have heard, but it is also possible that they are doing so quite deliberately.

[Sir Roger Gale]

We are in the presence of a PPS from the Home Office and a Minister from the Foreign Office. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a knee-jerk, dog-whistle reaction to the Rwanda decision, and any attempt to attack the European convention on human rights and the European Court of Justice, would be a grave mistake?

[Alyn Smith]

I genuinely thank the right hon. Member for his intervention, and I could not agree with him more. One of the things that has struck me since I got to this House is that we are not all goodies and baddies, and there are a number of shades of grey within. I acknowledge the governing party on this issue. I very much agree with his point. Happily, it is on my page of notes, so we can all look forward to that.

That criticism of the framework is ahistoric. As we have heard, the Council of Europe came from a speech that Winston Churchill made in Zurich in 1946. It was formed by the London Statute, signed in this city in 1949. I am a proud member of the Scottish National party; I have a different worldview from many on the Government Benches and many of the Members of this House, but I celebrate the work of the English and Scottish lawyers in drawing up this international framework of decency historically. To withdraw from that would be deeply ahistoric and an act of nihilism and vandalism, which I would deeply regret. The part that the UK has played in the growth and development of the Council of Europe is an example of global Britain that we can actually be proud of, because it has effected real change in the real world, on our European continent. To walk away from it would be an act of great harm, not only to the wider continent but to us at home.

I pay tribute to that proud history, but I also have to list a few of the things, as mentioned by some Members, that we see currently. When we talk about grievous international acts of criminality in Ukraine, the Donbas, or Cyprus or elsewhere, we need to be consistent at home. So loose chatter—in the Queen’s Speech, no less—about a British Bill of rights, as if somehow the European convention on human rights does not work for us uniquely, is an absurdity. In fact, I would say that it is a deeply, deeply regrettable policy trend.

Loose talk of breaking international law—a solemn international commitment, only recently signed—over the Northern Ireland protocol, when there are dispute resolution mechanisms within the protocol itself, is setting the worst possible international example to those who would seek to do bad things internationally. How can we possibly look Mr Putin in the eye with any credibility when we are ourselves talking about breaching international law, as if it is a mere bagatelle? The odious reaction that we have seen to the European Court of Human Rights quite rightly stopping the odious policy of offshoring refugees to Rwanda is deeply dangerous. We are also seeing the limiting of rights to protest and indeed to vote at home; we can look forward to the Court’s judgments on those issues, too.

There is also talk in some quarters—not by everyone, but in some quarters—about “unelected foreign judges”, as if our own judges were elected and as if “foreign” has anything negative to it. The whole framework of extraterritorial judicial scrutiny is the point—it was designed in this city. The point is to ensure the enforcement of decency and proper legal standards. The rule of law is an important thing to observe at home as well as abroad.

Ukraine

Roger Gale Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat]

There is no question but that what we are seeing too often, sadly, not just in Bucha, but in many other areas, including Kharkiv and Sumy, are war crimes. They are crimes against humanity in some cases as well. The sexual violence used against women and girls is truly horrific, and it is clearly not incidental but deliberate; it is clearly an ordered attack—an absolutely vile one.

Let us look at what we need to do. We need to move from the current phase into what this is going to be, which is a campaign, in the sense that it is now going to last. I am afraid that we do not see an easy resolution, a sudden ending of this conflict, peace breaking out and liberation being achieved. Instead, we see a grinding push back of those Russian forces and the need for all of us to be able to sustain this operation to push back the Russians. That will not be achieved if we rely on ex-Soviet equipment—on the stocks left behind at the end of the cold war and the fall of the iron curtain. We need to look at a Finlandisation of Ukraine; we need to be assisting it with the full conversion of its military to a NATO standard, which we can sustain, because we have the weapons, the industry and the factories that can then supply Ukraine. We have the ability to do that because we have the mass and the firepower to sustain the Ukrainians. But we can do that only if we make a deliberate effort and choice to change from where we are now to a proper campaign footing. But this is not just about Ukraine. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary have spoken a little about how this is fundamentally not just a battle for Ukraine; it is a battle for all the world and, very particularly, it is a battle for the UK.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

Were Russia to be allowed to succeed, would Moldova not go next, with Georgia after that? Is it not therefore crucial, in the western interest, that we make sure that there is no success for Putin?

[Tom Tugendhat]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this is one of those domino moments where we can hold the advance and prevent the next one from falling, or we can watch a series of them going down.

Afghanistan Humanitarian Crisis: UK Response

Roger Gale Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Ford]

It is extremely important, when we talk about such a tragic situation, that we get the facts right about what the UK Government are doing on behalf of the British people. We have announced and already spent more than £176 million of aid, which is supporting more than 60 hospitals, providing health services to more than 300,000 people, ensuring that more than 4 million people are getting emergency food assistance and providing 6.1 million people with emergency health, water and protection. That is what the UK is already doing, and the money is going out week by week, month by month. As promised, by the end of this financial year, at the end of March, our aid will have reached £286 million.

We also announced £97 million in January. As I said last time I was at the Dispatch Box on this subject, it is incredibly important that we work with partners across the world and support the UN, which has announced the largest ever appeal. That is why we are working with it and supporting its donor-led conference.

We are also working to unlock the money at the World Bank. It is a complex issue that involves bringing different people together, but we are leading on that. We have also led on unlocking the money that is getting to the people who need it, because of the exemption we helped to introduce on sanctions.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on dragging the focus of this House away from the playground and back to the real and terrible world.

I am wearing the emblem of the genocide in Srebrenica. What we are witnessing in Afghanistan is virtually genocide by starvation. We cannot, in a civilised world, allow this to continue. Will my hon. Friend please work with the Ministry of Defence to see how we can practically provide not simply hard cash but food, tents, clothes and the things people really need, not in March but now?

[Vicky Ford]

That is an extremely important point, because we are working, as much as we can, to get aid through to the people who need it. We are working through a lot of different organisations, including the Afghanistan Humanitarian Fund, the World Food Programme, the International Organisation for Migration, the United Nations Population Fund and the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which is also funding local partners.

My colleague Lord Ahmad, the Minister with responsibility for south Asia and the UN, has also met senior Afghan women in this country to help shape the policy and the programme by making sure we hear their feedback. Our policies and programmes are also being informed by Afghan leaders, including Shukria Barakzai, Fawzia Koofi and Hasina Safi. That includes supporting local agencies on the ground, especially those focused on women and girls. Lord Ahmad met them very recently, too.

Russia

Roger Gale Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

It is clear that we need to reduce Europe’s dependency on Russian gas. In fact, I think that 3% of our gas is from Russia, but I agree with the hon. Lady that it is desirable to reduce that. The way that we need to reduce that dependency is with more investment in areas such as nuclear energy, which we are doing with small modular nuclear reactors, as well as more investment in areas such as renewables and ensuring that we are using alternative gas sources to supply our domestic energy needs.

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

Some of us are sadly old enough to be able to remember Hungary in 1953, the subsequent removal of Alexander Dubček in Czechoslovakia, more recently the annexation of parts of Georgia, and then the invasion and annexation of Crimea. All were with impunity, so far as the Soviet Union and the neo-Soviet Union are concerned; the free world simply failed to act. Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), Russia and Ukraine are members of the Council of Europe. Will my right hon. Friend use the platforms available to her within the Committee of Ministers and in person within the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to make it plain that the United Kingdom will no longer stand by and simply talk, but that we will act?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend about using all platforms available, and also about the fact that the free world needs to stand up against aggressors. The UK has played a leading role in bringing together the G7 to make a very strong statement, as well as working with our NATO allies to make clear the basis of the talks taking place next week. We are very ready and willing to use our position to make the case for severe consequences, should Russia seek to stage an incursion into Ukraine.