Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 15) Regulations 2022

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2022 General Committees

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr McCabe. I rise to speak in support of the comments made by my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, on the importance of addressing the gaps that might exist.

These measures are welcomed across the House; there is strong support for sanctions against Russia and for cracking down on what had previously been a stain on our international reputation. The challenge for all of us is in the gaps that many companies and entities use to undermine the sanctions. I am struck by the fact that the Minister talked strongly about things we could do in the UK. She will have heard my colleague on the Front Bench talk about the Crown dependencies, where many of the cracks and fissures in the sanctions regime can be found, and it is important that we see action taken. It is in the secrecy of ownership in the Crown dependencies that the Russians have found the friends that they do not find among ourselves and other nations on the world stage.

It is worth looking at just how big those gaps are. A piece of work by Transparency International last year discovered 237 large-scale corruption and money laundering cases that involved six out of the 14 UK overseas territories—countries in which we have direct control and influence. That amounted to £250 billion-worth of funds diverted from some of the world’s poorest people to these entities by around 1,200 different company measures. Many of the cases involved former Soviet states, so we know the connection to what we are talking about today.

My hon. Friend set out some strong questions, and I will add to them. What conversations has the Minister had with the overseas territories about this SI and about the need for a comprehensive designation of all these companies so that there is nowhere to hide money in the way in which we see right now, which undermines the sanctions regime that we are all trying to strengthen? What progress has been made on public company registers in those Crown territories?

We all want to see a speedy end to the conflict in Ukraine. We stand firmly with President Zelensky, but we cannot do that if we turn a blind eye to the gaps in our current legislation that allow companies to flourish and money to be diverted. I know the Minister shares that concern, but we need to set out on the record what we are going to do about it. If she wants to find cross-party agreement on the need to go further, faster in closing those gaps, she will find it in this place.

Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2022

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2022 General Committees

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Hosie. I fully associate myself with the comments of Labour’s Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, on the importance of taking action on the sanctions regime.

I have a few simple questions for the Minister about the implementation of these sanctions. He will be aware that many of us have a massive interest in how, now that we have left the European Union, new regimes and forms of collaboration are enacted. As my Front-Bench colleague said, we want to see the regime work, and I hope that the Minister takes my questions in that spirit. However, there are questions, and I can see that Conservative Members also have concerns about how the measures will work.

Clearly, we previously relied on working across Europe on sanctions issues. We have talked before in this House about how assets are transferred across Europe, and how people whom we want to sanction work across different countries. Having left the EU provisions that enabled such sanctions to be enacted, it is right to introduce the regulations: they deal with a gap in our proposals on how to enact sanctions. However, the regulations are a unilateral piece of legislation. My first, very simple question for the Minister is whether he can confirm and reassure us that we will continue to get the information that we need from the European Union about those individuals to make sure that sanctions are effective? We can obviously make that commitment to information sharing ourselves. It would be helpful to hear about his conversations with the European Union and our European counterparts on this issue. It is obviously a very apposite issue at the moment when it comes to Russia and Belarus, particularly when there might not be as much of a united front as we may wish.

Secondly, and more prosaically, the regulations, as the Minister said, bring in a new power for public authorities to participate in the process. Will the Minister tell us a little more about that? In particular, the power is provisional. The regulations state that public authorities “may” disclose information. The number of public bodies that could disclose information is quite high: for example, any police officer could. Would he clarify whether that means, say, a police constable? Have police constables been given information about how they might be expected to operate under this piece of legislation? The regulations refer to

“any other person exercising functions of a public nature”.

Might we, as Members of Parliament, be required or expected to provide information under the legislation? Of course, most critically for all of us who want the sanctions to be effective—obviously colleagues on both sides of the House might have concerns about what information people might know—what happens if Members of Parliament, police constables or indeed any of these bodies do not co-operate?

As I said, the regulations say that they “may disclose information”, but they are not required to do so. Will he clarify what would happen if somebody did not disclose information? Within that environment, what monitoring will there will be of those who disclose information and, perhaps, those who refuse to do so, so that we can review how the sanctions are working? Again, it is one thing for us unilaterally to decide that we must have an operative sanction regime, but it is another thing if we do not actually know who is taking part in it and where there might be further blockages to it being effective.

The Minister talks about it being important to introduce the regulations because they would correct acronyms, for example, in legislation; there had been drafting errors—although I am pleased to see that they are not of the type that we saw in the Belgium legislation, where an entire duck soup recipe was added into legislation. But it does rather bring up one of the wider challenges, does it not, when it comes to translating EU legislation into UK law? There is so much that we were so dependent on to make our regimes effective that we have to be sure that it is done well.

Will the Minister update us on what has been happening in the three years since the legislation came in, in terms of the sanctions and the information gathering activity, when we have not had these powers? Given that we have a major piece of legislation being introduced to this House that will dispense with all forms of retained EU legislation, can he be confident that it will not affect our ability either to do that information sharing or to be able to effect these sanctions? Would he recognise that, if we are making drafting errors that require a statutory instrument to be introduced, there is a concern that any future legislation that covers translating into UK legislation does not also miss items?

A big bang approach, which is what we are going to see with this Brexit retained law legislation, may well bring up some of the problems that the sanctions legislation and this SI are trying to correct. Is he confident that there is not anything we will miss out once we have dealt with this SI? I very much hope this SI is will be effective, but I hope he will explain, in the spirit of understanding, how it will operate in person and what it might mean, not just for us as Members of Parliament, but for the police, local authority officers and maybe traffic wardens who might be asked to disclose information? It is helpful for Parliament to set out its intent now, whether it is misspelt or not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

That is helpful to hear. Will the Minister clarify something? New section 49A, for example, mentions “any police officer”, “any local authority” and “any other person exercising functions of a public nature”.

Will he clarify what level, and will there be training provided? It is quite a big request to make of a police constable to share information. Equally, this will clearly be tested because it comes across other disclosure rules. For example, there are clear guidelines about supervising officers, which do not seem to be in this legislation. What protection will there be for a police constable, for example, maybe from prosecution or censure under general data protection regulation, without clarity as to who makes the decision on what information can be disclosed, and if it is a permissive, rather than mandatory, requirement?

[Leo Docherty]

I think it is the other way around and that this will actually afford greater protection because it will make things clearer and ensure that there is no risk of GDPR being used so that a certain individual finds themselves in a regrettable circumstance. I think it will clarify. Under this legislation, the public authorities that are exposed to these sorts of issues will be required to conduct that sort of training, and they will be responsible, as we would expect.

The hon. Lady then went on to a mischievous digression, because she sought to use the unfortunate inclusion of inaccurate acronyms as a means of shaking our confidence in not just this legislation but other new legislation as we tidy up our statute following our exit from the EU. I can say that there is no duck soup in this legislation or any other. Clearly drafting errors happen in legislation; it is the way that the world works, unfortunately, but we are, as parliamentarians, amenable and available to redraft and improve, as we are doing this afternoon. Therefore, in answer to the hon. Lady’s question, yes, I am confident not only that this piece of legislation is correct and in good order, but that the vast body of legislation that will flow from our leaving the EU will also be similarly effective and accurate. On that note, I again commend the instrument to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2022 (SI. 2022, No. 818).

Sri Lanka

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Milling]

I think I have been clear throughout that we encourage all sides to find that peaceful, democratic and inclusive approach to resolving the situation. I stress to the House that the Minister for South Asia has been doing exactly that. He has been calling for that approach, but also engaging on the ground with the high commission and through all his ministerial contacts.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you, and indeed the Minister, would agree that dismissing any woman’s urgent question in this House as “silly” is disrespectful to the subject matter in hand, because we all recognise how serious the situation is.

[Dr Offord]

How dare you?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy]

The hon. Member may chunter from a sedentary position, but the women are talking now. We are talking about human rights because many of us recognise that, as the United Nations has told us, potentially more than 100,000 Tamils were killed during the 26-year genocide. The Minister will know that the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has been investigating the matter. Further to the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) asked, there is due to be a report and further criticism after the resolution at the United Nations. Can the Minister tell us whether she has had any talks with the United Nations about whether the timetable will vary? When might our constituents finally see justice for the Tamil communities?

[Amanda Milling]

Given the situation on the ground, it is a very serious matter. We are seeing deeply concerning scenes, so I am more than happy to be at the Dispatch Box answering this question. As I have said throughout, we are concerned about the human rights environment in Sri Lanka. Our concerns are wide-ranging, from the harassment of civil society groups to the range of civilian functions being brought under military control, the increased anti-Muslim sentiment and the reversal of progress on post-conflict accountability and reconciliation. I reassure the House that we lead the way with the UNHRC process and that we encourage Sri Lanka to respect democratic and international human rights standards.

Women’s Rights to Reproductive Healthcare: United States

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Milling]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As I say, this is a matter for the US. It is not within our jurisdiction, but the point is that we can rightly have a debate in this House and vote according to our own conscience.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) asks why we are discussing this decision, as it is a political debate. Fundamentally, for many of us, this is a human rights issue. Roe v. Wade gave American women a constitutional right to have an abortion. Currently, here in the UK, only women in Northern Ireland have their constitutional right to an abortion protected as a human right. But we can change that, and that is what this place and this urgent question can do today. I ask the Minister a direct and simple question. If an amendment is tabled to the forthcoming Bill of Rights to protect a woman’s right to choose for every single woman in the United Kingdom—by those of us who recognise that it will be a conscience issue, and therefore a free vote—will she join me in voting for it?

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 27th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). He brought to mind the importance of the warning that George Orwell gave us not to confuse nationalism with patriotism, which I think we all need to bear in mind during this debate. He wrote:

“One prod to the nerve of nationalism and the intellectual decencies can vanish, the past can be altered, and the plainest facts can be denied.”

Let me, in the time that I have today, try to do justice to what Orwell warned us about.

This situation has been caused by Brexit, because it was Brexit that led to the need for us to negotiate the Northern Ireland protocol. If we do not acknowledge that, we cannot start to deal with the problems that we have created ourselves. I say “ourselves” because this Government knew in advance of the problems that would arise in these circumstances. When, on 19 October 2019, the Prime Minister stood up and told us of a deal that would “heal this country”, he was not being truthful about the consequences that they themselves predicted. The question before us now is this: will the Bill make finding a solution to these problems easier, or will it inflame further an already delicate and difficult situation?

We know that the Government need the bogeyman of Europe to distract people in this country from its domestic woes, but the people of Northern Ireland deserve better from all of us. If the Government were really doing their job, they would put Northern Ireland at the centre of this conversation. They would start by bringing more of the Northern Irish communities into the conversation and the negotiation, and then go to the European Union to hear what it was saying. However, that is not what we are seeing at present.

There are five examples, from this legislation alone, of how the Government are not being intellectually decent. They cannot tell us why the Bill is a necessity—why they need this power rather than the powers that they have already been given in article 16 of the protocol to act to safeguard the UK. That, surely, was about remedying the situation, but the Bill will drive a coach and horses through the proposals that we currently have.

The Government could also start with article 16, rather than making us drag this proposal through Parliament over many months before they would get the remedies they are talking about, if they really cared about the people of Northern Ireland. If this Bill is a necessity, why is it giving Ministers huge sweeping powers that will change the rules on state aid and allow the UK courts not to send questions about the interpretation of the protocol to the European Court of Justice? The EU has never refused the UK permission to bring in a measure under the article 10 state aid rules, yet somehow this is what the Government think they need to do for the people of Northern Ireland.

The Bill will also give sweeping powers to Ministers to do things in terms of the EU protocol without any consultation with the people of Northern Ireland and without any agreement with this House at all. Why do the Government say that they need the powers under clause 19 to implement a new power or protocol without bothering to go through the parliamentary process? After all, we went through the withdrawal agreement in a few weeks and we went through the trade and co-operation agreement in a day. What is it about scrutiny in this place that this Government are frightened of? Why do they have to bring a sledgehammer to crack a nut by giving Ministers these wide powers? As the Treasury Solicitor himself said, clause 18 is the “do whatever you like” power. Others call it a Charles I power. If Ministers can do that in Northern Ireland, what will they do to the rest of the UK?

Everybody in this House must recognise that this Bill’s implications go further than Northern Ireland. When we trash our reputation on international agreements, we trash our opportunities to make the trade deals that our constituents will depend on and we risk the spectre of a trade war when this country is already dealing with the consequences of the increase in the cost of living directly caused by the impact that Brexit is having on food prices in our country—let alone the message that we send to President Putin when we try to stand up to him in one place but in another say that international rules of law do not matter.

The people of Northern Ireland are being let down by this legislation, as are the people in every constituency in this country. The failure to find a solution that puts the people of Northern Ireland front and centre of negotiating a solution for their future lets down everybody in this Chamber. We can and should do better. Everybody in this House knows that, but will we have the bravery to listen to George Orwell, to stand up to those scoundrels who quote patriotism when they mean nationalism, and finally to put doing the right thing first? I fear that in this place we will not, but I have hopes for the other place. I certainly know that many of us will not stop standing with the people of Northern Ireland and the people in our communities who will be affected by this legislation and by the implications—[Interruption.] And we will stop laughing at the British public when they are frightened about what this place is doing, and start asking what we can do to make things better. Naming those problems is a starting point. When we have people who are addicted to power and addicted to using Europe as a bogeyman, rather than solving those problems, it behoves all of us to say that enough is enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

I am.

[Stella Creasy]

Would the right hon. Gentleman be opposed to bringing more representatives of the Northern Irish political parties into the joint working groups to solve this problem? Is he actually saying that he does not want a voice in this and that he just wants to shout?

[Sammy Wilson]

The people of Northern Ireland recently spoke in an election, and the Unionist population made it quite clear that they will not accept the protocol.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is urgent that we act and I assure him that the Bill is coming in the following weeks.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Businesses and communities dealing with the consequences of Brexit need honesty and certainty, not the chaos and confusion of a potential trade war, so will the Foreign Secretary reassure them? She has repeatedly said today that what she intends to do is in line with international law and has talked about the trade and co-operation agreement. I know that she will not as yet publish the legal advice, but will she tell us which international laws she intends to abide by, what the adjudication mechanism might be, and whether the EU has agreed to it?

[Elizabeth Truss]

As I have made clear, our proposals are legal in international law and we will set out the legal position in due course.

Shireen Abu Aqla

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Ford]

I have been very clear about the actions the Government have taken to date. We continue to condemn this, we have called for an investigation, we have, through our ambassadors and the British consul in Israel and in Jerusalem, made very clear our position supporting the leaders to restore calm, the need to protect holy sites and the need for dialogue to move towards peace, and of course we always take any future measures into consideration.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister will have heard Members across the House calling for not just an impartial investigation, but an independent investigation. I will tell her why it matters: because in this modern world, independent fact checkers have been able to put together compelling, open-source evidence that points clearly to the responsibility of the Israeli forces for the murder of Shireen Abu Aqla. Given that, will the Minister confirm that the UK’s official position is that there should be an independent inquiry, not just an impartial one, so that the Israelis and the Palestinians can both have confidence in the outcomes? Will she clarify that: yes or no?

[Vicky Ford]

I think that it is really important that we work with partners across the world through the UN Security Council. It is the UN Security Council’s wording, agreed among all those countries, that calls for an impartial investigation. That is the wording that has been agreed by the UN Security Council.

Human Rights: Kashmir

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for ensuring that this debate has been granted time in the Chamber, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for the excellent way she opened, in such an even-handed manner, the debate on human rights abuses in Kashmir.

I came to have an interest in the situation in Kashmir when I was visited by a small delegation of British Kashmiri constituents at my surgery in Stockport Labour club several years ago. I have a very small minority ethnic community in my constituency, and of that small minority ethnic community the Kashmiri population is a fragment. However, I was taken by the passion and commitment of my Kashmiri community to their cause and concerns; a very similar kind of passion to that we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). That led me to look a bit further into the situation in Kashmir, and quite frankly I was shocked by what I found out. Many of the issues have already been raised in this debate; I will not repeat them, because they are already on the record and time is short.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the reports of crackdowns on freedoms of expression in Kashmir should concern us all across the House? One thing that would help to bring light, not heat, to these debates is making sure that everybody can be heard freely, especially those on the ground, and that Kashmiris can speak their mind about what is happening, because we know that at the moment that is not happening.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The most basic and fundamental human rights, which each and every one of us in the House and each and every one of our constituents enjoys and takes for granted, are denied to too many people living in Kashmir. That is wrong. As parliamentarians, as democrats and as believers in human rights, we should call out and condemn those abuses, not just in Kashmir but wherever they occur across the world.

I am particularly concerned about this seven-decade injustice because the most basic and most fundamental human right, from which all other rights derive, is people’s right to choose by whom they are governed and how they are governed. That is the crux of it. That is the right that the people of Kashmir have been denied.

I will make no particular biased remarks about who should govern the Kashmiris. I do not care whether it is India, Pakistan or the Kashmiri people themselves—that is for the people of Kashmir to decide. That is what they have been denied, and it is what they have been promised in a United Nations resolution.

I implore the Minister, who is new in post and whom I welcome to her position in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, to do all she can to use what influence the United Kingdom has to bring all interested parties to the table from the United Nations, the Commonwealth, India, Pakistan and—most importantly of all—Kashmir itself, to start talks and try to find a successful resolution.

What is clear from all the reports that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth outlined is that two wrongs do not make a right. The fact of the matter is that there are people on both sides of the line of control whose human rights, to some extent or another, are being affected and withdrawn. We should ensure that their rights are protected and upheld and that their most basic and fundamental human right—to decide by whom they are governed and how they are governed—is finally put to the people. That is why I am proud to stand here today as the chair of Labour Friends of Kashmir.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 20th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Czech explosion that led to the attribution was many years ago. The decision to attribute was the product of a long investigation by the Czech authorities, and he will have seen that we stood absolutely full square in solidarity with our Czech friends.

In the ways that I explained earlier to the shadow Foreign Minister, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), we have increased and continue to increase our measures for screening and for accountability, and of course, through the Magnitsky sanctions—which the hon. Gentleman himself has championed—we have a new means of targeting human rights abuses. To the extent that they also impinge on dirty money, which in fairness the hon. Member for Wigan spoke about, I have already made clear that we will shortly be introducing an extension to the Magnitsky sanctions to cover that.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

Eight years ago, my constituent Tyrell Matthews-Burton —a young man with a bright future ahead of him—was brutally murdered in Greece. His family have fought tirelessly to bring those responsible to justice, yet despite convictions, the Metropolitan Police tell us that the Greek authorities are the stumbling block. Will the Foreign Secretary meet me and Tyrell’s family, so that we can prove that it does not matter what colour a person’s skin, this country will always fight for justice for its citizens?

[Dominic Raab]

Absolutely. We take the consular work that we do for citizens abroad exceptionally seriously. We deal with those cases day in, day out, often below the media or public radar. I am very happy for Ministers in the Department to look again at the case she has raised to see whether there is anything further we can do. That is very difficult and always very complex, even in European countries, but we must be able to satisfy ourselves that we are doing everything we can to provide closure and accountability for the families affected.

Treatment of Uyghur Women: Xinjiang Detention Camps

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she does on the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative APPG, and I would like to wish her a happy birthday. We have made it clear that the UN human rights commissioner or another independent fact-finding body must be given unfettered access to Xinjiang. We have called for that repeatedly in joint statements and national statements at the UN. It is vital that China allows such access without delay. If, as China claims today, these allegations are mere fabrications or fake news, how can it object to granting access?

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) for securing this urgent question.

In 2018, some 80% of all inter-uterine devices used in China were implanted in women in Xinjiang province, even though they account for only 1.8% of China’s population. Forced sterilisation, rape, sexual torture and violence are happening before our eyes and are clearly documented. We know we are not the only nation that is trying to speak up on this issue. The Minister has talked about the importance of human rights access; will he update us on the conversations he has been having with the Australians, who have also been leading on this issue at the UN, in order that we can show the world a joint economic and diplomatic approach to holding China to account?

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need to co-operate on an international level, and we are. I had a meeting yesterday with the Australian deputy high commissioner and we discussed Xinjiang. It is crucial that we work together in all sorts of different multilateral fora and bilaterally with like-minded countries. As I have said previously, the impact of our diplomacy is reflected in the growing number of countries that have joined us in our statements.