Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. Please do not take that to be a promise. As everybody can see, a lot of people want to speak. We will endeavour to get through everybody, as is our hope. At the moment, we think the limit is around two minutes, but should it prove necessary to change that, I will let people know.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for setting the scene. I have a different opinion from other hon. Members, but I respect their point of view and I hope that they will respect mine.

I am, and always have been, a steadfast friend of Israel. My commitment to the state of Israel is rooted in its right to exist as a secure and democratic homeland for the Jewish people. For me, that principle is non-negotiable. I hope that my remarks will reflect both my empathy and my unwavering belief in Israel’s right to defend itself.

The ICJ measures, initiated by South Africa, reflect a deeply flawed and one-sided interpretation of international law. Israel has a sovereign right, indeed a duty, to protect its citizens from the barbaric terrorist organisation Hamas. The petitioners in this case conveniently ignore Hamas’s atrocities: their deliberate targeting of civilians; the massacre of innocent men, women and children; and the use of Palestinian civilians as human shields.

I support the principle of a two-state solution, but let us be clear that peace cannot co-exist with Hamas’s continued aggression. Every time Israel has made significant concessions, whether during the Oslo accords or the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, it has been met with an escalation in violence and not with peace. If Hamas retains power, Palestine will be a failed state from the outset—one that continues to launch rockets into Israel’s towns and incite hatred against Jews worldwide. Peace will be possible only when the Palestinian leadership prioritises economic stability and co-existence over terrorism and destruction. A weakened Israel emboldens its adversaries, most notably Iran, Hezbollah and radical Islamist movements. Those entities do not simply wish for an end to Israel’s military operations; they desire Israel’s total annihilation.

The ICJ may issue opinions, but it is not infallible. We must challenge rulings that fail to acknowledge Israel’s security needs, excuse Hamas’s barbarism and seek to delegitimise a nation’s right to exist. The UK must continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel, not just in words but in actions. That is my point of view, and I hope other Members will respect it, as I will respect theirs.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

I clarify that I am imposing a hard two-minute limit, so I will ask hon. Members to sit down if they go over it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. I apologise for this, but a desire to get everybody in means that I am now reducing the time limit to one minute.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) on securing this important debate.

Last week, barrister Sam Fowles warned parliamentarians of the real risk that the UK could be in breach of international law. Given the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful and given the UK’s membership of the UN, the Government must impose sanctions on Israel to undermine its illegal occupation.

Israel is on trial for genocide, so the current partial suspension of arms licences must go further. I say it again: the UK must impose an immediate and total ban on arms export licences. Furthermore, although the Government acknowledge the illegality of Israeli settlements, they continue to import goods from them. Illegal settlement products should not be regarded as Israeli goods and should be banned from entering the UK. With the US Administration openly calling—

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask the hon. Member to sit down. I apologise—I know that he waited a long time to make his contribution. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, who has five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Calum Miller]

The hon. Member makes a powerful point to which I am sure the Minister will wish to respond.

Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) have been right to recognise the terrible level of violence that we have seen over the 16 months since the atrocities committed by Hamas on 7 October. We are moved to tears and anger when we hear of the deaths of infants in tents and hospitals in Gaza. At the same time, we are shocked and appalled to see the emaciated state of hostages such as Eli Sharabi as they are released from Hamas captivity in a gruesome pageant. There has been inhumane cruelty towards innocent civilians. That underscores why the rule of law matters. The ICC is right to consider cases against leaders on both sides. The UK should enforce these warrants.

It has been impossible for us to consider the ICJ opinion today without reference to the proposals for Gaza put forward by President Trump last week, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) highlighted. Since 5 November, Liberal Democrats have pointed out that President Trump would be unpredictable, and that the UK needed to put itself in a position of strength so as not to get swept into the chaos that the new resident of the White House would unleash.

Since the ICJ’s opinion was delivered in July 2024, the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories has worsened appreciably. Northern Gaza has been flattened and its citizens placed under displacement orders. Gaza is today riddled with unexploded ordnance, even as Palestinians return home under the fragile ceasefire. In the west bank, settlement expansion has continued, and the Israel Defence Forces have continued arbitrarily to detain Palestinians and protect illegal settlements. The Israeli Knesset has outlawed the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. Extremist members of the Israeli Cabinet have continued to call for the annexation of the west bank, and welcomed President Trump’s suggestion that Palestinians be forced from Gaza, yet the ICJ’s opinion is clear. It creates obligations on other states, including the UK, which include supporting the Palestinians’ right to self-determination, taking steps to prevent trade or investment that assists in maintaining the illegal situation, and not rendering aid or assistance that maintains the situation.

In response to that call, Liberal Democrats have repeatedly called on the Government to take the following steps: legislate to cease trade with illegal settlements in the occupied territories; sanction those who advocate illegal settler expansion or violence by settlers towards Palestinians, in particular Minister Smotrich and former Minister Ben-Gvir; restrict all arms sale to Israel, including component parts for F-35 aircraft, since those have been used against Palestinians in the occupied territories; and immediately recognise the state of Palestine. Ministers have repeatedly refused to take those steps—

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. I do not have the power to tell you to stop, but if you would not mind coming to an end, that would be good.

[Calum Miller]

I shall, of course. I am sorry, Dame Siobhain; I was taking account of the intervention. I shall be very brief.

I am most frustrated by the consistent refusal by Ministers to recognise Palestine. If the Government are serious about working with all partners to restore a pathway to a two-state solution, that cannot happen when only one party enjoys state recognition. Failing to act empowers the extremists on both sides. The time has come to recognise the state of Palestine.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I commend the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing the debate.

We continue to follow developments stemming from this case at the ICJ carefully, and note that the ICJ itself has been far from unanimous about the advisory opinion. We understand that the Labour Government’s position is that they agree with the central findings of the ICJ’s advisory opinion, but will the Minister tell us whether he thinks that such court cases are an effective way to try to bring about peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and will he be clear that under no circumstances should we draw any kind of moral equivalence between Hamas and the democratically elected Government of Israel?

Let me address the immediate situation in Israel and Gaza, which remains extremely fragile. The announcement by Hamas that they are postponing hostage releases will be a cause of concern and anxiety for the families of the hostages, and all who care about their appalling captivity. Will the Minister explain what direct engagement our Government have had with the Israeli Government, the US Administration and our partners in the region in response? The hostages held in horrific and inhumane conditions in Gaza must be returned to their loved ones, both in accordance with the terms of phase 1 of the ceasefire and in the subsequent stage. We have been relieved to see the release of the hostages freed so far under the agreement, including British Israeli national Emily Damari. I sincerely hope that all those who have been freed from captivity can now begin to rebuild their lives after the most unimaginable trauma—and nobody should doubt that trauma.

We have all seen the shocking scenes of hostages being paraded by Hamas prior to their handover, and the shocking images of the release of Or Levy, Eli Sharabi and Ohad Ben Ami on Saturday. We must also acknowledge the tragic death of 86-year-old Shlomo Mansour, who we now understand was killed during the appalling Hamas attacks on 7 October. His body has been held hostage in Gaza. We think today of his family and friends at what must be an unimaginably distressing time. The hostages who remain in the hands of Hamas are at the forefront of our minds, as are the poor families who have suffered so much and continue to wait anxiously for news about their loved ones. The news that eight hostages will not be returned to their loved ones alive is tragic. The days and weeks ahead may be very difficult for Israel and the Jewish community, and we must support them.

We must again ask the UK Government to continue to work overtime alongside our partners to exert pressure and help to remove the obstacles stopping humanitarian access to those who continue to be held hostage by Hamas. That is an important point, and it does not always receive the attention it deserves.

The Government must not jeopardise the UK’s relationship or undermine trust and confidence with the Government of Israel if they want to continue having a serious and in-depth dialogue about the present situation and the future of Gaza. I would appreciate it if the Minister could update us on the delivery of British aid to Gaza since last week’s urgent question.

As to what the future could look like, we are not even close to phase 3 of the current agreement and we should not get ahead of ourselves, but, to restate our long-standing position on regional peace, we support a two-state solution that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and the Palestinian people. Our long-standing position has been that we will recognise a Palestinian state at a time that is most conducive to the peace process. We are not at that point now, and we are clear that recognition cannot be the start of the process.

Israeli hostages remain in captivity and every single one must be released. Ensuring that Hamas are no longer in charge of Gaza and removing their capacity to launch attacks against Israel are also essential and unavoidable steps on the road to lasting peace. Our immediate focus must be getting the hostages out and getting the aid in, and then making progress towards a sustainable end to the current conflict.

If the Palestinian Authority are to have an expanded role, they need to implement the most significant reforms in their history, including to their welfare and education policies, and they must demonstrate democratic progress. That will clearly be important for their operations in the west bank, too. There are also steps we would like Israel to take, as we have said before, in relation to frozen funds and settlements. More generally, we want the UK to be actively involved in efforts to expand the Abraham accords.

I will comment briefly on the other major ICJ case, brought by South Africa, which I have serious concerns about. I do not believe it to be helpful in the goal of achieving a sustainable end to the current conflict.

To conclude, although formal determination of genocide should be based on the final judgment of a competent court, the Conservative Government when in power were very clear that Israel’s actions in Gaza cannot be described as genocide—

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

Order. Again, I do not have the power to ask you to sit down, but I would be very grateful if you did.

[Wendy Morton]

Almost there, Dame Siobhain. We will continue to carefully scrutinise the Labour Government, and I would welcome any updates from the Minister.

Hamas Attacks: First Anniversary

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jon Pearce]

I agree with the hon. Member that the courage of the families of the hostages is remarkable. So many in the House will have spoken to those families. Their strength and resolve is extraordinary and empowers all the rest of us.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous with his time in this really important Adjournment debate. I, too, had the opportunity to meet Mandy Damari, who wanted our Government to acknowledge that her daughter Emily is a British citizen and requires the support of her Government to do everything they can to allow for her release as a hostage.

[Jon Pearce]

I very much thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I, too, have spoken to Mandy, and she was clear that her daughter is a British citizen. There are four other individuals being held hostage who are connected to Britain, and they also need to come home as soon as possible.

I want to touch on some of the other groups from that day: the group of pensioners on a day trip in the Dead sea who were gunned down in Sderot after their minivan developed a flat tyre; the young partygoers massacred at the Supernova music festival, some of whom, like many women elsewhere that day, were subjected to

“unspeakable violence perpetrated with shocking brutality”,

according to the UN Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict; and the 12-year-old British-Israeli twins Yanni and Liel, who were murdered alongside their great aunt and their grandfather at Kibbutz Be’eri. So little of Liel’s body was recovered that some of her toys were buried instead. Liel and Yanni were two of the 15 Britons murdered on 7 October.

Sri Lanka: Human Rights

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Maria. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on securing the debate, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has so frequently spoken in support of the Tamil people.

I hope that I am a friend of the Tamil community: a community that is hard-working and entrepreneurial, and that has given so much to our country and our capital city. It has an almost obsessive desire to educate its children to ensure that they are the future doctors, lawyers, engineers and accountants who will make such a great contribution.

I am well aware of the tenacity of the Tamil community. In the 14 years since the end of the Sri Lankan civil war, I have stood alongside Tamils in my constituency of Mitcham and Morden on the road to justice, peace and accountability. Those 14 years have presented so many challenges and such little progress, but so much pain.

Not only have we called for accountability for the terrible war crimes committed 14 years ago, but we are calling for an end to the human rights abuses that are still being experienced by the Tamil community in Sri Lanka today. That starts with repealing the sixth amendment, which continues to be a barrier to Tamil self-determination. The sixth amendment criminalises support, in Sri Lanka or abroad, for the establishment of a separate state within the territory of Sri Lanka. Anyone convicted of violating the sixth amendment faces losing their passport and will not be able to sit for public exams or even qualify for a trade that requires a licence. It prevents Tamils at home and abroad from coming together freely to express their political aspirations.

It is not just about the sixth amendment—we need to go further than that. The 13th amendment stops elected members of provincial councils from using their powers and instead gives them to unelected governors controlled by the Sri Lankan President. That leaves Tamils powerless when the state takes ancient Tamil places of worship and converts them into Sinhala Buddhist temples. Tamils have nowhere to go.

Back in the UK, I had hoped that at the last Cabinet reshuffle we might have got a Foreign Secretary who would take some action on Sri Lankan human rights—a Foreign Secretary who had more than warm words for British Tamils calling for justice. What did we get? We got Baron Cameron of Chipping Norton, who has spent his time out of office being paid by a Chinese state enterprise to promote a commercial court in Sri Lanka, promoting a Rajapaksa-era mega-infrastructure project.

[Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind the hon. Lady that she should not be criticising colleagues who are sitting in the House of Lords.

[Dame Siobhain McDonagh]

I will then make a statement of fact: David Cameron worked on behalf of a Chinese state enterprise to promote a commercial port in Sri Lanka, promoting a Rajapaksa-era mega-infrastructure project. I do not believe that that was in the interests of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka, and I do not think it was in the interests of this country, either. My Tamil constituents deserve better.

There seems to be an attitude in the Foreign Office, which I have witnessed during Labour Governments and Conservative Governments, of there always being a need for discussion and encouragement. Nothing that I have seen in Sri Lanka over the years since the civil war suggests that the Sri Lankan Government will ever react to anything but force and determination, rather than encouragement or negotiation. Hundreds of thousands of people who disappeared during the civil war have still not been found, and not one person has been prosecuted for committing a war crime.

There are more questions than there have ever been. On occasion, it seems to me to be just ticking a box and some mealy-mouthed diplomacy. Tamils deserve a UK Government that will take the lead in calling for Sri Lanka to repeal the sixth amendment, which would give Tamils in Sri Lanka and abroad the ability to come together and call for the political solution they hope for. Then we would have a Government with a principled position on Sri Lanka.

Beneficial Ownership Registers: Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the implementation of public registers of beneficial ownership in the UK’s Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies; believes that the Government needs to respect the will of Parliament and meet the implementation deadline at the end of 2023; encourages the Government to lay an Order in Council formally requiring the UK’s Overseas Territories to implement public registers of beneficial ownership if the deadline is not met; and considers public registers of beneficial ownership to be an essential transparency measure to combat tax evasion, money laundering and other economic crimes.

This debate should not be necessary. The House expressed its view when it agreed an amendment to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 that required overseas territories to voluntarily introduce registers of beneficial ownership within two years or face an Order in Council mandating compliance. Five years have passed since the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and I moved the amendment, and the only overseas territory to comply with the legislation is Gibraltar, which I salute. While I understand that the Minister is making progress with some of the other jurisdictions, they have yet to comply with our legislation.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Journalists have revealed that the family of Asif Aziz, a landlord to my constituents in Britannia Point, Colliers Wood, manages a large property portfolio registered under dozens of companies on the Isle of Man. There is no beneficial owner listed, so complaints can never reach the landlord. We already have legislation that requires offshore companies that own properties to declare their owners on a register. Does my right hon. Friend agree that properly resourced enforcement is essential, and that having public registers of beneficial owners would make it much easier to identify and scrutinise the beneficial owners of offshore shell companies?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that to our attention. Sadly, it is an issue not just of enforcement but of definition. I bet that the landlord in her constituency owns the properties through a trust, and there is no openness about beneficial ownership of trusts. She makes a very important point.

Sri Lankan Tamils and Human Rights

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) on securing this debate. In Easter 2009, I spent my time out on Parliament Square watching London’s Tamil community beside itself with grief as it received news of relatives, friends, communities and hospitals being bombed. We heard of people lying on the beach, unable to be removed by family or community members because the democratically elected Sri Lankan Government were dropping cluster bombs on their own people. I spent my time taking London Tamil students to see the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, to prevent some of them from taking drastic action and committing suicide.

In the 13 years since then, how much has changed? There is an attitude of always negotiating, always talking, always being calm—and doing nothing. Negotiating for what? Hundreds of thousands of people have still not been found and not one person has been prosecuted for committing a war crime; there are no more answers than there were before.

Now is the time for the Foreign Office to decide whether it will carry on with its mealy-mouthed diplomacy, or whether it will use the laws Parliament has given it to take action against those who perpetrated war crimes. Our Foreign Secretary needs to come forward and be honest about his role in promoting the Chinese Government’s plan for a new port in Colombo. It does not bode well. Let us show Sri Lankans and Tamils something different. Let us take a different path and make some progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leo Docherty]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We argue for unfettered access for these inspectors and will continue to do so. In the resolution asked about by the chair of the APPG—my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), whom I commend for his tremendous activity in that office—we focused international attention on the human rights shortcomings. We also succeeded in renewing the mandate of UN human rights experts to report on these issues and to preserve evidence of abuses and violations committed during the armed conflict, so that justice can be pursued. We will continue to use that resolution as a lever to argue for positive change. I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question.

I will now talk about some of the small positive steps, because when working with countries to strengthen their human rights adherence, it is important to acknowledge any progress that has been achieved. In that spirit, we welcome steps taken by the Sri Lankan Government to address some Tamil grievances. Those steps include the release of some disputed lands and the release of long-term detainees. We welcome the Government’s engagement with Tamil representatives on a long-sought political settlement, and we have urged the Government to consider further confidence-building measures and engagement.

We welcome steps taken by the Government to improve connectivity between the north and countries in the region, including through regular flights. That should help to increase economic opportunities for the north and others in that region. We also welcome the Government’s commitment to a truth and reconciliation commission, and we encourage them strongly to consult widely and come forward with detailed proposals.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I am sure that the Minister genuinely believes the speech that he is making, but the Foreign Office has for the last 13 years been beseeching the Sri Lankan Government for an independent truth and reconciliation process. To date, that has not happened. At what point will the Minister try something else?

[Leo Docherty]

These are clearly profoundly difficult issues that will not be solved quickly, but our judgment is that we must continue with our diplomacy and our strong encouragement for the Government of Sri Lanka to come forward with detailed proposals about a truth and reconciliation commission. As unlikely as it may seem this afternoon, that is the intent of our diplomacy, and we will continue to do that. We will also continue closely to monitor human rights developments in Sri Lanka, including the marginalisation and repression faced by Tamil communities and other minorities.

UK Support for Stability in Libya

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2023 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I asked Mr Cameron, “What is going to happen to Colonel Gaddafi?” We all know how Gaddafi was killed: a convoy was leaving Sirte for the desert, and British and French military intelligence, in collaboration with the militants, got him in the tunnel and he was killed. Of course, he had to be killed. Some people said that he had to be silenced—that he knew too much. The hon. Member for Leeds North East will remember the allegations about all the funding from Colonel Gaddafi to Monsieur Sarkozy; apparently Gaddafi gave Sarkozy millions of dollars for political campaigns. He had to be silenced. I will never forget the words that Mr Cameron said to me. He sort of metaphorically patted me on the head and said, “Nothing to worry about—it’s all in hand, old boy.” Two or three days later, Colonel Gaddafi was killed.

I am no apologist for Colonel Gaddafi. He was a brutal, evil dictator who suppressed his own people, and my book chronicles the extraordinary human rights abuses that he implemented against his own people in Libya. Nobody here will shed a tear that Colonel Gaddafi is no longer running Libya or able to suppress his own people, but the reason I raise it is that we have to think about the mistakes we are making as a nation, whether that is in Iraq or Libya. Certainly in my time as a Member of Parliament, every time we have intervened in an Arab nation, rather than leaving it to the Arab League or the Arab people, and killed the dictator, what has ensued? Total chaos, total paralysis, internecine warfare, and brutality and killing that one could argue is of even greater consequence and destabilisation than what took place under the dictator. I very much hope that future generations of Members of Parliament will learn from our experiences and the mistakes we have made.

When I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee in that brief Parliament from 2015 to 2017, there was an attempt to investigate Mr Cameron. There was an attempt at that stage to investigate how he had brought us to intervene in Libya, but in reality it got us nowhere and little was done.

I would like to put it on the record how deeply disappointing it is that so few Members of Parliament are here. There is not one Conservative Member in this Chamber apart from the Minister and the Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory). Bearing in mind our responsibility as a party and as a Government for the intervention in that country and the extraordinary misery that the Libyan people continue to experience as a result, that is a very bad show from my party.

I thank the hon. Member for Leeds North East for bringing the debate here. Despite all the difficulties we are seeing in Israel and the Gaza strip and in Ukraine, we must not forget about Libya. These are our neighbours in the underbelly of the Mediterranean—in a country now being used, as a result of our intervention, for the massive trafficking of people from sub-Saharan Africa through Libya to Lampedusa and beyond. As British parliamentarians, particularly after our intervention in that country, we have a duty and a responsibility to continue to help the people of Libya.

[Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

There being no other Back-Bench speakers, I call the first Front-Bench speaker.

Ahmadi Muslims: Pakistan

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on securing this debate, and I thank you, Mr Sharma, for chairing it.

I do not wish to take too long because so many people want to contribute, which gives this debate great strength. We can be assured that Governments in Pakistan, both regional and national, will know of it; they will be watching it and it will have an impact. It is great that so many people from nearly all the parties represented in our Parliament have taken the time to be here today. I have the privilege of being chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the Ahmadiyya Muslim community. It is one of the easier tasks as an APPG officer; due to the incredible lobbying of the community, we are always quorate with very little effort.

We know about the harassment and discrimination that Ahmadis experience in Pakistan and how that percolates to other countries, including, regrettably, our own. The APPG undertook an in-depth investigation into discrimination in Pakistan. The single most depressing fact that I took from all the evidence sessions was that Ahmadis are discriminated against more strongly by younger people than by older people. Liberalism is in reverse in Pakistan, and the discrimination that the community feels is likely to be of a long-standing nature. That is in part because the Government of Pakistan have withdrawn from the responsibility to educate their young people and given the responsibility to people who hold extreme views on religion.

As one of the largest contributors to international aid in Pakistan, Britain has a role to consider how that investment is used. It took me a long time to get to the bottom of the fact that FCDO money was being used to produce books in schools that discriminated against Ahmadis. Will the Minister address the nature of investment in international development in Pakistan? How can he ensure that it does nothing that encourages the discrimination that exists from birth to death? The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington explained how that affects all levels of civil life and the community. With that, I will sit down.

Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response: International Agreement

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Monday 17th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I agree with my hon. Friend, as I almost always do. Prevention is better than cure. Why would we want to give up control over all these issues by signing up to this treaty?

I have here a quote from Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of The Lancet. He said:

“The allegation that WHO shared responsibility for the pandemic by adopting a policy of appeasement towards China has proven impossible to refute.”

There we have it. The editor-in-chief of no less than The Lancet says that we need to be extremely suspicious of what is going on and what may happen. That is a good credential for the Government to adopt in saying, “We are not going to adopt this WHO treaty under article 19; we are going to examine it more carefully, be much more circumspect, and retain the ability of our own country and our own people to decide these important issues for ourselves.”

[Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)]

As all the Back Benchers who wanted to speak have done so, we move on to the Front-Bench spokespeople. I call Anne McLaughlin for the SNP.

Russian Assets: Seizure

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I do agree with the right hon. Lady. We have a lot of Russian assets that are currently frozen, while Ukraine is screaming out for money and support to help all those devastated areas. We can bring the two together, and that is what today’s debate is all about.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I am sure the right hon. Member is also aware of allegations that a number of the people sanctioned have moved their money around into trusts to give to their children in order to avoid having their assets taken. Does he agree that the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill should be strengthened to require sanctioned individuals to disclose assets that were owned six months prior to their designation? That would prevent oligarchs such as Roman Abramovich from moving assets around and evading the sanctions.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I entirely agree. I was going to raise that point at the end of my speech, but never mind: this is a shared debate.

I fully back that proposal, which is one of the recommendations that we have to make so that the Government can jump ahead of this. Too often we have been slow and, in the six months that have elapsed, in some of those cases, people have shifted their money around into all sorts of areas. One particular individual—I was going to name him, but I will not do so now—has managed to buy flats through a Cyprus company. His name is not registered, but they own it and the money is lodged there. This sort of stuff is going on and we need to shut it down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am beginning to feel that I am making a collective speech, because the right hon. Lady’s point is down here in my notes. It is better made by her than me, but I fully agree with her as a result.

We could have got ahead of this—that is the point, as the example of Abramovich shows. Many others have drifted off, so the right hon. Lady is absolutely right: we needed to be quicker and more determined. Now, we have to sustain our determination to flush all this out while we have the opportunity. I always sense a little resistance. When we call it out, the Government say, “Ooh, we don’t know. We’ve got lots on our plate and we are doing lots of things,” but this is the time to act.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to participate in my Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall the other day. This is not just about oligarchs; it is about companies that are sanctions busting. I am aware of a Belarusian company that imports goods through Russia in order to undermine and take customers from a business in my constituency. Does he agree that, whether it is an oligarch or a business, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation and the Foreign Office should be adaptable and able to react to rogue actors, who will do everything possible to avoid the sanctions regime?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I must say, the hon. Lady’s debate was fascinating. She demonstrated that by our failure to follow this course, a UK company is essentially sanctioned because it is unable to get payment. The measures bounce back at us and honest, decent companies find themselves trapped by the failure to square the circle of the process and get everyone all along the chain. It was a brilliant debate, and I congratulate her on raising the subject on behalf of her constituents.

The Government should introduce new legislation to allow the seizure of already-frozen assets that are linked to criminality. The Russian Government have a huge amount of money of course, but many oligarchs are guilty of benefiting financially from war crimes and atrocities in Ukraine, so we should activate new legislation. Under such a mechanism, an enforcement authority such as the National Crime Agency could bring proceedings in a UK court to have property belonging to a sanctioned person involved in a gross violation of international human rights law or international humanitarian law confiscated without compensation, so that the frozen property can be used to fund reparations. That is the key.

Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation: Sanctions and Tariffs

Siobhain McDonagh Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)]

I will call Siobhain McDonagh to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered sanctions and tariffs on Belarus and Russia.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Fovargue. Sanctions and the war in Ukraine have been given a great deal of attention, and rightly so. It is fitting that just downstairs in Westminster Hall, Volodymyr Zelensky, the President of Ukraine, was able to address parliamentarians from both sides of the House. Members of all parties have been united in their response to the illegal invasion of Ukraine, and I hope we can continue that cross-party consensus today.

I want to make it clear that I have not held this debate to undermine the Government’s policies on sanctions and tariffs against Russia and Belarus. I am on board with the policy. I agree that we must isolate both Belarus’s and Russia’s economies and target the key industries that support President Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate, and I concur with her comments. Does she agree that, although we have huge compassion for the Russian and Belarusian people, who are paying the price for their dictators’ decisions, we must increase the pace of our sanctions on these nations and ensure that the price for those decisions is paid where it hurts—in the pockets of the oligarchs?

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I agree with the hon. Member. The sanctions regime is integral to Britain’s role in supporting Ukraine and holding Putin’s regime accountable for the acts of violence that it continues to perpetrate against civilians across Ukraine.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I am grateful to be able to add my voice, and that of my party, to the hon. Lady’s comments. Our concern is that the sanctions regime is not being extended far enough and specifically to countries in the developing world that are being seduced by Russia to trade with it.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I agree with the hon. Member entirely.

This winter, the people of Ukraine carried on through the difficult war that they face, and we need to back their bravery by being brave and bold with sanctions and tariffs. However, the joint sentiments are worthless if things do not happen in practice, and sadly this is the case for a business group in my constituency. I recently met SGG Manufacturing Ltd, JDUK Ltd and Alunet Systems Ltd—a small group of wholly UK-owned businesses that I am glad to see represented here today. They are based in a number of MPs’ constituencies—particularly that of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood), who apologises that he is unable to attend, but he is absolutely on board with the case that I am about to raise.

Prior to the war, the businesses were, in part, the sole and exclusive distributors of a Belarusian manufacturer. They imported and distributed aluminium extrusions and products from Belarus. For example, they supplied components for roller garage doors—not the most glamorous of products, I agree, but over 10 years these British businesses had grown their revenue to £30 million per annum. Over 10 years, they had managed to supply 30% to 50% of roller garage doors in the UK using their components.

Then, the war in Ukraine happened. In response, the businesses did the right thing. They decided to abandon their exclusive contract with the Belarusian manufacturer and sourced their components from elsewhere in Europe—a decision that was expensive, risky and lengthy but nevertheless the right thing to do. The Government then introduced additional tariffs of 35% on Belarusian and Russian goods, which made it clear that the decision by those businesses was not just the moral thing to do but the right thing to do from a business perspective—that is, if the sanctions and tariffs were implemented effectively. Unfortunately, they were not.

The original Belarusian supplier is now managing to circumvent the sanctions and is continuing to import banned products. It is also able to pay the relatively low additional tariff of 35% with ease, so it can operate very competitively in the market. The British group, based in my constituency, has played by the rules and has had to find a more expensive manufacturer elsewhere in Europe.

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

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. I am the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions, and we recently looked carefully at the implementation—the reality, as opposed to the Government’s rhetoric. We are discovering that there are big holes in what is actually happening, with far too little consideration given to the detailed implementation. We also sanction far fewer people who are guilty of transgressing our rules than the US does. The hon. Lady is on the right track, and I congratulate her on that, but perhaps she would like to press the Government further to increase the number of people and businesses they sanction and to make sure they do it properly.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman and congratulate him on all the work he does on not only Russia but China. We often work together. This debate is not about the grand scope of the sanctions, but about the nuts, bolts and garage doors of how they are working on the ground for British businesses and Belarusian businesses.

The Belarusian company appears to be stealing the British company’s customer base by avoiding the sanctions, absorbing the additional tariff and undercutting the British company by supplying at a lower rate. Most people would call that dumping, and it has led to a loss of roughly £10 million in revenue for this British company based in my constituency.

As has been said many times in the Commons, Russia and Belarus are trying to get round sanctions on an industrial scale, and this seems to be a case in point. I have detailed evidence of how the Belarusian company is evading sanctions, and I would like to state it for Hansard so that it is in the public domain. I also note that, although the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is responsible for enforcing specific cases, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is responsible for drawing up the sanctions and tariffs legislation.

As I tried to explain to the Minister informally last night, the way the company is avoiding sanctions is unbelievable: it is starting some of its goods in Russia. There is a list of sanctioned products codes for Russia and one for Belarus, and in some instances, the two lists do not match. As a result, a product could be sanctioned in Belarus but not sanctioned if it comes from Russia. That is exactly what is happening. The tariffs apply to all iron and steel commodity codes starting 72 and 73 in Belarus, but they apply to only specific iron and steel products that begin with commodity codes 72 and 73 in Russia. That means that some of the goods that the Belarusian company supplies are sanctioned if they are imported from Belarus but not if they are imported from Russia.

The Belarusian company supposedly managed to move an entire factory’s worth to Russia so that it can still import the goods sanctioned from Belarus into the UK tariff free, all the while undercutting a British business. I have been able to get hold of an email from the Belarusian company to one of those customers to prove that. It stated:

“We would like to clarify the situation with regard to the current import of sectional doors and operators to the UK.”

The company says:

“Since the UK Government has introduced economic trade and transport sanctions on Belarus,”

it has

“imported garage doors from our Russian factory”.

It states that

“shipments fully comply with import restrictions by the Government of the United Kingdom in the last months.”

There we have it. Because of the way our sanctions list has been drawn up, Belarusian companies are avoiding sanctions. They are manufacturing and shipping products that were originally from Belarus, and are now supposedly from Russia, to avoid the sanctions. I am glad that the Foreign Office Minister is present today, and I hope that the sanctions list is updated, because it is costing a business in my constituency millions of pounds.

In other cases, this Belarusian company is assigning its products a new, intentionally incorrect but unsanctioned commodity code, enabling it to import to the UK sanction-free. I got hold of an email from this company to one of its customers to prove that. The measures are quite technical, so I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I go through them in a little detail. The company stated:

“We are looking for a way to supply you with roll tubes which are currently banned from entering the EU due to their commodity code 7308905900, and it seems like we have found an option. We can bundle the roll tubes with other items. This will have a different name and a commodity code which can be imported to the EU and the UK.”

The company can change the commodity code to one that is allowed to enter the UK from Belarus, and it can evade sanctions altogether. The most egregious part is that the Belarusian company is now approaching the former customers of the British business in my constituency and offering to supply them directly, profiting and expanding its business because of the war in Ukraine. It is just unbelievable. If that is happening in one company, surely it is happening in a number of businesses right across the UK.

It is important that President Zelensky comes to Parliament to speak, that our Opposition and Government leaders visit Kyiv and that we all get together to stress how strong our sanctions and tariffs need to be. However, it makes a difference only if the detail is correct. The sanctions are effective only if the product lists are drawn up effectively and we are able to target Belarusian and Russian businesses. Tariffs are effective only if they are high enough to make goods originating from a country uncompetitive. In the recent co-ordinated package of sanctions by the US, EU and UK, only the US increased tariffs on metals by up to 200%.

As we know, Putin and his cronies will be seeking every single loophole, omission and error to try to circumvent the sanctions. It is quite clear that Russia and Belarus are actively trying to get round sanctions and absorb tariffs on an industrial scale. Currently, companies are claiming that their goods originate in Russia to avoid sanctions. That is absurd. I hope that the Minister can provide more information about that and explain how we will close the loopholes that Russia and Belarus are using.

We can have the toughest regime on paper, but if Russia and Belarus are finding ways round it in practice and costing UK businesses, we have not done the right thing. I ask the Minister to address the detail and the consequences for British business. If he is in a position to do so, I would welcome it if he gave a few minutes after the debate to the businesses that are here today.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Yvonne Fovargue (in the Chair)]

Order. If the hon. Member wishes to speak, did he obtain the permission of the Member in charge and the Minister prior to the debate?

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I am happy for anyone to contribute to the debate.

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

indicated assent.