Draft Sanctions (Damages Cap) Regulations 2022

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 General Committees

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to hear from the Minister on these important matters.

As has been the case with the other sanctions and measures that we have debated over many weeks and months, the official Opposition will not oppose the measure. We welcome the steps taken to expand our sanctions regime, to make it more robust and to remedy any cracks in it. The focus today is obviously on Russia, but I assume that the regulations will apply to the range of UK sanctions, because individuals who seek protracted legal means to disrupt attempts to sanction them come from a number of countries. I hope that that is the case. I am sure that the Committee would agree that the evidence against Putin and his regime, and his supporters, remains incontrovertible. We have seen the recent actions with unmanned drones, allegedly from Iran, wreaking further destruction in Kyiv, where a young family expecting their first child in a matter of months were among those killed in the senseless barbarity of Putin’s war. We must do everything possible to take action against the Russian regime, all those who facilitate and support it, and indeed, put in place measures in our own legal, financial and regulatory systems to ensure that those supporters cannot continue to support Putin as they have done.

Before I consider the specifics of the measure, I thank the Minister for his letter on crypto currencies following our previous debate. I asked whether certain entities would be sanctioned, and although I know that the Government do not like to comment on such matters, I re-emphasise the importance of cracking down on how oligarchs hide their money and attempt to frustrate Government efforts against them. Some of those efforts are through legal means, for example the measure before us, or through the use of untransparent financial mechanisms. I hope that the two mechanisms I mentioned, Tornado and Blender, are under active consideration by the Government. I hope to hear from the Minister about that in due course, and about a wider review of the use of crypto currencies and evasion.

On the regulations before us, it is absolutely right that we should be able to designate and act against all persons and entities, irrespective of their financial power or the extent of their influence. It is right to disincentivise oligarchs and other designated persons from maliciously pursuing the Government through the courts by capping the damages they could receive. It is a prudent and welcome step. We know that many oligarchs have attempted to use not only the UK legal system but others across Europe to frustrate attempts to constrain their activities. Last month, according to findings at the European Court of Justice, it was revealed that 21 Russian business people were engaged in legal proceedings across the EU in attempts to overturn sanctions on them. Even when designated, those oligarchs hold awesome financial power to take matters into their hands and to continue to act as though the law does not apply to them. To specify the damages cap, as the Government have done, is a welcome step in constraining their ability to tie up designations in legal showdowns. What has been done today is absolutely right.

I hope that the Minister will also look at the wider ways in which oligarchs attempt to use our legal systems to evade measures against them, or to intimidate those who challenge them. We have all seen the rise in strategic lawsuits against public participation—the so-called SLAPP suits—which put huge pressure on those who seek to expose the activities of those individuals. The UK remains the most frequent country of origin for SLAPPs, with 31% of cases originating in the UK, according to the UK Anti-SLAPP Coalition. I hope that not only secondary legislation such as the regulations before us, but the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which is going through the House at the moment, and other legislation will look at ways in which we can limit the ability of those engaged in nefarious activities or in attempting to support the Putin regime or other regimes around the world using our legal system either to tie up the Government and frustrate the sanctions that are being implemented or to intimidate others who would seek to take proceedings against them.

That hugely important matter reflects broader concerns that have been expressed over many years, well before this phase of the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Indeed, the issue has been raised previously by the Foreign Affairs Committee and in the Russia report from the Intelligence and Security Committee. We have frequently said that we must look at how our legal architecture, company formation agents, accountancy firms and other agents in particular are used by oligarchs to hide their wealth and their activities. We must ask about how those services are used to facilitate, support and encourage oligarchs to continue to attempt to evade Government sanctions and individuals seeking to expose them. We must question how those UK services are used to frustrate designations and regulation that might prevent those oligarchs from undertaking their activities. I hope that the Minister can comment on the use of the UK’s wider legal architecture and the Government’s plans to address that.

I also hope that the Minister can add to what he wrote to me about, namely the seizure, sequestering and repurposing of the assets of those sanctioned towards supporting Ukraine’s reconstruction and defence efforts. I understand the complex legal framework involved and why that has not yet happened, but, if I read between the lines in those letters, I have had encouraging words from the Government. I hope they come forward with the necessary measures sooner rather than later, because the needs of Ukraine are huge and we need to ensure that those responsible for this war and for the horrific atrocities of recent days pay the price and that those assets are repurposed towards Ukraine.

We welcome the regulations, and I hope to hear from the Minister about the other issues I have raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I am very grateful to both hon. Gentlemen who have spoken. Let us be clear that there has been a very broad sense of unanimity across the House on the issue. We very much welcome that support and the scrutiny offered by the Opposition parties, which can only make the legislation better and keep Government properly on our toes.

Let me start by thanking the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute who pointed out the importance of closing loopholes—he is absolutely right about that. As the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth said on behalf of the official Opposition, there has been a constant process of introducing measures and then infilling, in response to a dynamic and evolving situation, precisely to address those loopholes. The regulations we are talking about in relation to Russia and Belarus apply to conduct by UK persons including not just anyone in the UK but UK nationals outside the UK and businesses incorporated or constituted under the law of any part of the UK. Of course, it is Government policy for those measures also to be given effect in overseas territories and Crown dependencies. As the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute will he aware, a lot of work has been done in relation to Companies House to track asset movements and give the enforcement authorities extra powers and speed to crack down on some of the loopholes he mentioned.

The hon. Gentleman said that the regulations are not before time, but if I may say so, I think that is incorrect. The Government brought forward this legislation before the summer recess, and the present cap that we are discussing will apply to all proceedings brought from 4 March. There has been a staggering level of sanctions introduction over the past few months, and I could show him four or five pages of specific measures that we have introduced. Those are targeted at a large number of individuals.

The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth was absolutely right to ask about the question whether this was just about Russia. Of course not; he is absolutely right—it applies across the board. But even in relation to Russia we are talking about sanctioning more than 1,200 individuals and more than 120 entities. As my remarks about Elvira Nabiullina made clear, we are continuing to push down on designations in order to pick up people who have emerged as significant actors, or who are otherwise culpable and complicit in this dreadful invasion.

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments on behalf of the official Opposition. He is absolutely right that the recent use of unmanned drones is abhorrent and he will know that the Government and their allies are doing everything they can to support Ukraine militarily and in the field. I thank him for the questions he raised to which I responded in respect of the previous debate conducted by my colleague, the Minister for Europe. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman understands, I cannot comment, however one would like to, on specific entities, but the points he raised are absolutely well taken. His energy in pressing them is a constant source of active encouragement and support for the work we are doing and that which we have in hand.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government will look at wider measures in relation to SLAPP suits. He is absolutely right to target that question, and of course we are reviewing the matter very closely. He also asked about the question of legal architecture. He will understand that the measures we have brought in are moving towards quite a calibrated restraint on the use of legal services for commercial purposes by oligarchs and other designated persons. But it is important to preserve access to rights legal advice, because however individuals might dislike the fact, it has always been our way in this country for hundreds of years that people are allowed to have, subject to law, their day in court, and proper representation. The cap seeks to limit the effects of that, but the principle is clear.

[Stephen Doughty]

I spoke about the scope of individuals to take legal action across the EU against their designation. Can he tell me, or write to me, about the numbers involved who have attempted to take action against the UK Government for being sanctioned? That would give us an idea of the scale of attempts to undermine the sanctions regime.

[Jesse Norman]

If I may, I will discuss and consider with officials whether we can properly respond, or whether, for reasons he will understand, that information has to be retained for present purposes. I can assure him that we are not seeing a large amount of litigation at the moment, but there obviously is the potential, and that is why it is prudent to introduce a cap. As I have said, that cap is backdated. I take the point that he has raised, and let me consider it with my officials.

Unless there are any other questions, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

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

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 11th October 2022 General Committees

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I would like to thank the Minister for his comments on the measures we are debating. I want to apologise, because in a previous debate I suggested that they were not in effect. They are, of course, because of the affirmative procedure, but we are only just debating them today. Obviously, it has taken a number of months, which is a concern to me, but we will not seek to divide the Committee today. We support the steps the Government are taking to enhance our sanction regimes, in relation not just to the terrible acts of Russia in Ukraine, but to a number of the other countries that are listed in the regulations.

On the subject of Ukraine, we have all been shocked by the scenes yesterday of attacks on civilian infrastructure. I saw locations that I drove past just three and a half weeks ago that had been hit by Russian missiles. They were clearly civilian areas; these are clearly war crimes. It is utterly horrific for the people of Ukraine, and this is a serious escalation. I draw attention to my declaration of interest on that visit, which I took part in a few weeks ago with other Members from across the House.

I am pleased we are debating these measures, which will apply across the board in relation to human rights abuses and destabilising situations across the world, from Belarus to Syria, Venezuela and the western Balkans —an area I visited recently. I have seen and heard about the activities of those who seek to undermine peace, human rights, stability and democracy in that region.

Specifically on Ukraine, this is no time for complacency. In his desperation, Putin will become more erratic. Our resolve will be tested. We will continue to work constructively with the Government on all the measures we are taking against Russia, but where we think they should go further and broaden the UK sanctions regime, we will say so.

As we know, using cryptocurrencies to evade sanctions and move money around the world was already illegal under UK law. However, the changes outlined today are necessary for those evading sanctions, because users of cryptocurrencies and related services do not have to rely on regulated entities to make transactions. Although ostensibly they are treated no differently to any other type of asset for the purposes of an asset freeze, the nature of virtual currencies could make it more difficult to detect that a sanctioned party is involved in a prompt enough fashion for anything to be done about it. As I have said previously, it is crucial that we do not look just at the wording in the sanctions, because it is their implementation and application that will make the real difference in dealing with all those who are sanctioned under a range of regimes.

It is clear that the Kremlin’s tendrils of influence are far-reaching, and we must recognise that the use of digital currency is not just a means of expanding the wealth of a sanctioned oligarch or indeed a member of the state Duma who is voting through the illegal attempted annexation of Ukrainian territory. It is also a way for the Kremlin to impose its will beyond Russia’s borders and expand its malign influence into the fabric of economies, polities and societies around the world.

Through the use of crypto and other digital currencies, hostile regimes can inject capital into the democracies of the world for the purposes of swaying elections, emboldening political forces who continue to spout the lines of dictators like Putin. The US State Department recently revealed that Russia has covertly given at least $300 million to political parties, officials and politicians in more than two dozen countries since 2014 and plans to transfer hundreds of millions more, with the goal of exerting political influence and swaying elections. The document from the State Department details that Russia is paying for those in cash, cryptocurrency, electronic fund transfers and lavish gifts. They move the money through a wide range of institutions to shield the origins of the finances, through foundations, think-tanks, organised crime groups, political consultancies, shell companies and, of course, Russian state-owned enterprises.

After being asked if blockchain-based currencies could be used effectively to evade sanctions, Elizabeth Rosenberg, the US Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, was very clear. She said,

“Yes, Senator, that is possible.”

Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is a real authority in this area, said she had been worried about Russian elites leveraging cryptocurrencies ever since Putin’s regime invaded Ukraine in February. She said,

“We already knew that countries like North Korea had used crypto to skirt sanctions and launder…hundreds of millions of dollars. And Russia could easily be part of that.”

I come to a critical issue on which I would like to hear some answers from the Minister. That is the issue of so-called mixers or tumblers. Those terms refer to mechanisms that are used to jumble cryptocurrencies, holdings and transactions, making them even more undetectable.

An example is the group Tornado Cash, which is a mixing service that lets users make their Ethereum transactions untraceable, by obfuscating the origin of the transactions. The United States sanctioned that service in August, along with the Bitcoin mixer called Blender. The US Treasury is clear that those mixers had repeatedly failed to impose effective controls designed to stop criminals from laundering funds. It did something clearly and urgently about that.

I reviewed our sanctions list and currently neither Tornado nor Blender appears. I may have missed something. I would like to understand from the Minister whether those mixers and blenders are currently sanctioned, and if not, why not? Because the US Treasury has been very clear. It said on 8 August:

“Tornado Cash…has been used to launder more than $7 billion worth of virtual currency since its creation in 2019.”

It specifically referred to links to North Korea and the Lazarus Group, a state-sponsored hacking group, and to the use of Blender for similar transactions involving hundreds of millions of dollars. I fear that those mixers and blenders may have the ability to allow the cronies of Putin, who support his regime, to circumvent the sanctions we are debating today. I am concerned that it does not appear that we are taking action against those mechanisms.

I appreciate that the technology is evolving and emerging all the time but, if our closest ally has taken these measures, it seems odd that we do not appear to have done so. I am happy to be corrected if that is not the case. I hope the Minister can answer questions on that. What discussions are we having with our allies to ensure that we are at the cutting edge of methods to deal with those being sanctioned under all of these regimes, but particularly in relation to Russia and Ukraine, given the situation today, so that they are not able to evade them? I have raised the issue of evasion of sanctions a number of times in debates. I am concerned that these are wily characters and regimes who are attempting to find every single way around our measures and protections. We have got to ensure that we stand clearly against them.

Secondly, what discussions are the Minister and his colleagues having with the Treasury about conversations with the International Monetary Fund to ensure better regulation of cryptocurrencies, so that the risks around them are mitigated? We will debate the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill again shortly. I know that these matters will be of great interest to Members across the House, who want to see a toughening up of our regulation in this space. I put these proposals forward in a constructive spirit, and I hope the Minister will see it that way.

Thirdly, what further consideration has been given by the Government fully to implement the recommendations of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report, particularly on conversations with that Committee about the issue of illicit finance and cryptocurrencies? It made many recommendations but, unfortunately, the Government have dragged their heels on that. There is no reason to do that. The actions of Russia and other regimes are absolutely clear.

I have a few final remarks. We welcome the measures today that enable Government Departments and other agencies to share information and assist the Treasury and the office of financial sanctions implementation to discharge their functions, widening the definition of a relevant firm, including cryptoasset exchange providers. Those are prudent and necessary steps to take.

I thank the Minister and his colleague—the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who also covers sanctions—for their replies and detailed letters to me in answer to previous questions. I come back to the question of implementation. The Ministers have answered some very clear questions about the staffing and resourcing of both the sanctions unit in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the office of financial sanctions implementation. However, we hear from other parts of Government about further efficiency savings. Will the Minister confirm that the new roles in both of those bodies are safe and will not be quietly depleted? In fact, we need more of them, not less, at this critical time. I hope that he can reassure me on that point. We have to ensure that they, and other bodies, such as the National Crime Agency, have the resources to follow through on the implementation of the regulations.

Because we regularly debate the sanctions regime in this place, particularly in relation to Russia, I also wonder whether the Minister has anything further to say on proposals to designate United Russia as a terrorist entity, given the actions of those in that party and the actions of recent days. That proposal has certainly been put to us. Does he have any further thoughts on it?

In a letter sent to me after our last debate, the Minister’s colleague, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire, said in response to my questions about the sequestration and repurposing of assets that the Government were looking at

“what options there may be to do so and are working closely with HM Treasury to make progress.”

He also wrote:

“we are looking at what we can do in the long term to raise money for the reconstruction of Ukraine using Russian assets.”

That is a welcome statement, but we are keen to see that happen sooner rather than later. The issue was raised with me regularly on my recent visit to Kyiv, and was raised with me again by Ukrainian counterparts when I attended the Warsaw Security Forum in the past few days. I will make a declaration about that in due course.

Those issues are being raised by our Ukrainian friends and allies—and by many of our other allies. There will be huge costs associated both with supporting Ukraine in the way that we are—absolutely rightly—and with reconstruction. We must ensure that those we sanction in relation to the conflict pay the price, and ensure that our sanctions regime as it relates to all the other countries involved—we mentioned Belarus and other situations—is as robust as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leo Docherty]

I am grateful for colleagues for their constructive comments and their perfectly valid questions. I will attempt to cover off some of them as I conclude.

I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth’s characterisation of the appalling ballistic strikes from Russia on Ukraine yesterday. It is important that we put on record our absolute horror at the scale and nature of that activity, and we are as one in our condemnation of the continued barbaric impact of this illegal war on the people of Ukraine. I acknowledge his personal interest in that country.

The hon. Gentleman made the perfectly sensible point that these kinds of transactions—the sort of illicit activity that these instruments are seeking to tackle—are already illegal. What the legislation is doing is tightening up our approach to it. He asked about application. We should acknowledge the context: in our sanctions response so far this year to the outrageous Russian invasion of Ukraine, we have put in place a very robust sanctions package that includes more than 1,200 individual sanctions, more than 120 entities and 126 oligarchs, who have a total net worth in excess of £130 billion. We can feel pleased that we have been active and quite aggressive in terms of our sanctions, but there is always more to do because we are aware of the extent to which Putin and his cronies will find ways around this globally and cryptocurrencies might be one of those elements. That is why we are seeking to tighten up this particular area, but I agree with him that we must be cognisant of the extent to which Russian wealth around the world is being weaponised. The west needs to be urgently aware of that.

The hon. Gentleman used that as a good springboard to go into a discussion about so-called mixers and tumblers. I note that Tornado Cash was sanctioned recently in the US. I am confident that Tornado Cash and Blender are entities that the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire, will be looking at, but I commit to him writing to the hon. Gentleman to confirm that those two entities are under consideration.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the extent to which we are discussing with allies the mechanisms being used for sanctions evasion, and for an update on the discussions between His Majesty’s Treasury and the IMF. I will ask my right hon. Friend to include that in his letter when he has an opportunity to write.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the Minister for those comments. However, he will understand my concerns that those entities were sanctioned by the US, our closest ally, in August. It is now October; that is three months where evasion could have been going on. I appreciate his willingness to look at both those issues with his colleague. Will he commit to a wider review of all types of mixers and tumblers—I named two—that might be used in that way?

[Leo Docherty]

We are in complete agreement. I agree that this is urgent and it should be a broad consideration of the tumbler facility. I commit to an urgent update from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire on that. He might also usefully cover the finance element of the Russia report, as the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned. He then asked a perfectly valid question about staffing levels at Departments and public agencies with regard to sanctions. Having met members of the legal team earlier today, I am confident that we have some of our best people on it. It is an urgent priority and I think we have the required staffing levels.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned United Russia. I will not be drawn into giving an answer to that now, but I commit to formally replying to that question. He also asked about sequestration. That is a live topic as we consider the remarkable financial challenge of the reconstruction of Ukraine. Clearly, there is a legal context, but that is actively under consideration in the Department. We have already embarked on a great body of work in advance of us hosting the Ukraine reconstruction conference next year. Of course, it is more urgent than that, and it is something we are considering.

[Stephen Doughty]

The Minister is generous. I have mentioned the importance of keeping at the cutting edge of this. There is an important group established by Ambassador McFaul, the former US ambassador, in which a number of UK experts are involved. However, I am not clear whether there is UK Government representation in that. Will the Minister assure me that we are keeping in close contact with such groups that are trying to be at the cutting edge, to ensure we have the toughest regime possible implemented in the quickest way?

[Leo Docherty]

I commit to keeping that on our radar. That sounds like a useful proposition, so I am happy to commit to it.

I was pleased to hear questions from the hon. Member for Walthamstow. She asked some good questions about implementation, because this is all about implementation. If we cannot implement it, it will not make a difference and there is no point in doing it. I can give her absolute reassurance that we are in lockstep with our EU and US allies. This is a global effort that is intelligence-led. We each use our domestic law, but this issue is very much joined up because it is a global threat and the response that it demands is global. All our agencies are involved on a daily basis in prosecuting and pursuing this kind of threat.

The hon. Lady asked about public authorities, the balance of compulsion and them volunteering information. Our expectation is that this involves bodies such as the Financial Conduct Authority, for example. It is designed to ensure that they have a road map to being helpful, rather than requiring them to do something they do not want to do. Most people will want to be doing this; it is designed to lay out a clear pathway to information being shared urgently with the Treasury. That is our expectation, but we will measure the response and use that as a mechanism for holding to account and judging success.

Sanctions

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the new Minister to his place. I look forward to working with him on sanctions, as I have with his many predecessors. I welcome the opportunity to discuss sanctions on Russia again and I am pleased to see such a wide range of issues being covered in today’s measures, which are mainly amendments.

My first question is why so many amendments are needed. The Minister has answered some of that, as do the explanatory notes, but—I do not want this to be seen as a criticism of the officials, who work incredibly hard to put such regulations together—an extraordinary number of errors and omissions appear to have been made, as he just confirmed. That underlines the point that I have made in many previous sanctions debates about the resourcing and assistance that is being given to critical units in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and elsewhere, and whether that is enough. I know that it has been expanded and there are more officials, but we need to have the support in the system to ensure that we get such things right first time. Putin and his cronies will be—we know that they are—seeking every single loophole, omission and error to try to circumvent them. We must not allow them to do that. I will come to further comments about that in due course; I hope that the Minister will explain that in his closing remarks.

Obviously, in the last few weeks, we have seen remarkable progress by Ukrainian forces in the east and south of the country in an incredible counter-offensive. Indeed, Ukrainians have shown extraordinary courage, strength and ingenuity in the face of Russian aggression. Those efforts, thanks to our support and that of others, are thankfully bearing fruit. As we enter a new phase of the conflict, it is more important than ever to show our firm resolve to stand behind Ukraine in every way, not only in the military domain but politically, economically and diplomatically as well as, crucially, in the consequences that Putin and his cronies must face for their illegal and barbarous actions.

As I mentioned in the previous debate, I have just returned from a trip to Kyiv and the surrounding area. I refer again to my impending entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a guest of Yalta European Strategy. I was deeply moved by the spirit, courage and bravery shown by not only President Zelensky but all the Ministers, officials, Members of Parliament, members of civil society and Ukrainian citizens. I returned with a deep sense of urgency, a personal commitment and a solemn duty to do everything that we can to end President Putin’s egregious display of aggression, violence and cruelty, which we have sadly seen so brutally in the scenes from Izyum—the mass graves, the torture and the stories coming out of there. We heard in the previous debate about sexual violence. On our visit, we heard some truly horrific things and we saw with our own eyes the destruction of civilian infrastructure.

The former Minister, now Foreign Secretary, informed me in May that 150 individuals were working full time in the sanctions taskforce in the FCDO and that the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation had at least doubled in size, but I have tried to get further clarity about the resourcing going in. I asked about that in the last two debates and I was promised a letter by the Minister. I have not had that and I hope that the new Minister can chase that up and get some answers. We support these sanctions and the measures, but it is only right that the Opposition can scrutinise and understand whether the Government are properly resourcing them. What extra financial resources have been given to those bodies? What conversations has the Minister had with the National Crime Agency to ensure the proper enforcement against those who breach the sanctions regime?

In the previous debate, I asked about the potential circumvention of sanctions. Numerous allegations have been put to me about a range of industries, such as the steel industry—we have discussed measures on those sorts of products and there are measures in these regulations—where Russia is attempting to use third countries potentially to export steel and other key products, some of which are ending up in the UK and countries across the west that are imposing sanctions. That is an absurd situation and I hope the Minister can provide more information about that and about what we are doing to close the loopholes that Russia is attempting to use. We can have the toughest regime on paper, but if Russia is in practice finding ways around it, that is not acceptable.

I was struck on the visit to Kyiv by the importance of ratcheting up the sanctions. Indeed, many of the measures proposed in these regulations are about expanding the sanctions, and that is a good thing. However, it is crucial that we work with some of the best minds around the world to look at other areas where we can bring pressure to bear. Indeed, McFaul, the former US ambassador to Russia, and others, including from the Ukrainian Government, have a working group looking at additional ways in which they can expand these sanctions and make them tougher. I was concerned to be told that there is apparently no UK representative on that group. Can the Minister clarify why that is the case? We need to have somebody on that group, because we need to be leading, with the United States and others, including our friends and allies in the European Union, to ensure that we have the toughest, broadest and deepest regime, and that we think about innovative ways in which we can really hit those people around Putin who are providing the backing financially and otherwise for his actions in Ukraine.

In the detail of the sanctions packages being announced today there are many welcome things—prohibiting the import of oil, coal and gold and the export to Russia of maritime equipment, oil refining technology, jet fuel and other materials. Those are absolutely critical and the Labour party obviously welcomes the Government’s movement on them. However, one area that did raise some concern for me was the prohibition of the export of goods which have

“potential use for internal oppression”.

Obviously, it is a good thing that that is included in this package, but I have to ask why there was any possibility that UK public or private bodies were ever providing Russia with materials that might be used for internal oppression in the first place. I hope that the Minister can explain to us what kind of exports have been going on. This matters, because this war did not start just seven months ago; it started in 2014 or far before that. We have known of Putin’s internal repression against democratic opposition and others for years, so I seriously hope that we have not been providing support to him that could have been used to quash internal opposition in Russia.

The explanatory note refers to micro-organisms and toxins. Again, I want to understand what assessment has been made of the volumes of any such materials that have made their way from the UK to Russia, and why that change had not been brought to the House sooner. These are very serious matters and—particularly given Russia’s record of using weapons of mass destruction, including in this country—I seriously hope that no UK company has been exporting any materials that have got to Russia in this way. The designations in SI No. 792 are welcome, but I come back to the issue of swiftness and responsiveness, and why—seven months into this phase of the war—we are only debating such a designation today.

I ask the Minister, and I have asked this in all the previous debates on sanctions, whether he has any further specific proposals not only to freeze assets, but to confiscate and sequester those assets—not least because of the huge costs involved in continuing to support Ukraine, which we absolutely must do, but also because of the clear costs there will be in reconstruction and making sure that Ukraine can develop and survive after this war is over. Indeed, this request was made to us by many of those in the Ukrainian Government, other officials and Members of Parliament from many parties while we were in Kyiv just weeks ago. They want to see that done. It has been done in a number of countries, and other countries are looking at how they can sequester and use assets. I know that it is not straightforward and that it might require further legislative change, but can the Minister provide some clarification?

We have had the issue raised of travel by individuals designated under these sanctions regimes, whether the issuing of tourist visas to Russians should be allowed—I certainly do not think it should be—and of designating Putin’s United Russia party as a state sponsor of terrorism or as a terrorist organisation, just as we have Hezbollah, Hamas and other parties in other locations that are sponsoring terrible and heinous acts of aggression and crimes against humanity. What are the Government’s thoughts on those proposals?

The scope of these sanctions measures is of course wide, and I think it shows the resolve we have to tackle those who are backing Putin, but we must deal with the wider ecosystem around those who are backing him. I know that the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill has been published today, but we have to tackle the whole ecosystem of the London laundromat and all those individuals who have been backing and sustaining his regime. I certainly hope that in debates to come we will see tough action taken in that regard.

Overall, Labour wholeheartedly supports the measures outlined today, and I hope the Minister will answer some of my detailed questions. Our 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. This winter, the people of Ukraine will weather the even more difficult storm of the brutal, egregious and unconscionable war of aggression that they face, and we must back their bravery by being brave and bold with sanctions, and by not providing succour for any of those who are supporting such aggression.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in this very interesting debate. It is a testament to the intense interest and passion that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has raised in this House that, even on topics as apparently technical as this one, we could have such a vigorous and energetic debate.

Let me pick up as many as I can of the points that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) spoke truly about how highly effective sanctions have been so far, as evidenced by the Treasury Committee. I would say that it is more like turning off a light, but the danger is that the dimmer switch may be activated the other way. That is one thing that we are constantly dealing with. I will say a little about it more generally, partly in response to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), because this is an evolving situation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned Bill Browder, a very interesting and brilliant man whom I have met. The idea about opening books is a very interesting one. We have a lot of interesting ideas in this House; one of the strengths of the open parliamentary debate that makes our system so much stronger than the Russian alternative is that we are willing rapidly to evolve our response to public opinion and to such suggestions, for which I thank my hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend also made a point about crypto that I think was right. It is important to say that crypto-assets are treated in exactly the same way as any financial asset. We therefore expect these measures to be as widely respected by entities, even if enforcement proves to require further work.

[Stephen Doughty]

I have just received notice that on 11 October we will be debating another set of amending regulations on sanctions—not only against Russia, but against a whole bunch of regimes—to deal with the very fact that crypto-assets are not treated in the same way as other financial assets for the purposes of sanctions. In fact, there appear to be a whole series of loopholes that the Government are only getting around to dealing with on 11 October. We really need to move a lot faster. We need to be up to speed with what is actually happening and with how people are using these markets.

[Jesse Norman]

If I may say so, I do not think that it is possible to move faster than having a debate within two days—in fact, a day and a half—of Parliament’s resumption after the interval following the unfortunate passing of Her late Majesty the Queen. The rules apply. As a further rebuttal to the shadow Minister’s point, my reply to the suggestion that something can somehow be made perfect, as though it were set in stone forever, is “Of course not.” This is a rapidly evolving situation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) talked about lawfare. He is exactly right that some very well-heeled and well-resourced individuals are using all their resources, as corporates and as individuals, to try to thwart us. That is why the response must continue to evolve, and it will.

On the point raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation in the Treasury has more than doubled in this financial year. The response that is being made is being taken very seriously, and there is a continuous effort to build sanctions capability across Government.

I take the point that the hon. Gentleman made about advice for the higher education sector. I can also tell him that a very effective team in the Department for International Trade is helping businesses in this country to deal with this issue, which, again, we take extremely seriously.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, when referring to lawfare, mentioned Freshfields. I was sorry to hear the name mentioned, given the respect in which that firm is held across the country. I wish it were not true, if it is—I hope it is not—but it was interesting that my hon. Friend mentioned it.

Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2022 General Committees

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I welcome the Minister to his first of our discussions on sanctions regimes. He will know from the record that when we have debated them in the past, the Opposition have always approached them in an entirely constructive manner. We will not seek to divide the Committee today, but I want to raise a number of issues and ask the Minister some questions.

We have always supported the Government’s course on sanctions and on taking the toughest and deepest possible action against those who are taking direct action in Ukraine—in the case of Russia—but also those who are aiding and abetting, as is the case with Belarus. Where we have thought that sanctions could go further and be stronger, we have made that argument, and we will continue to do so. I thank the team in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and others who have worked on putting together the sanctions, which obviously required an intense amount of work.

We have wholeheartedly supported the Government; indeed, the shadow Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), has just been making that clear in the Chamber following the statement on military support for Ukraine. The economic, diplomatic and political pressure that we bring to bear on Russia and those aiding and abetting it is also crucial, so these are welcome measures against the despotic regime of Lukashenko in Belarus.

The House may have been in recess for the last few weeks, but the war against Ukraine and its people has raged on, claiming more lives, wreaking further destruction and continuing to undermine the global rules-based order. We have seen horrific reports of the forcible transfer of Ukrainian civilians, the separation of families and so-called filtration camps. A recent report by Human Rights Watch exposed that more than 3.4 million Ukrainians had entered the Russian Federation from Ukraine, including more than half a million children. Deep concerns have been raised with me by Ukrainians and others about what is happening in those camps. I hope that the Government give that due consideration, as well as the bulk of the illegal armed action that is taking place in Ukraine, in the measures that we take.

It is very clear that, although Russia is the principal perpetrator of aggression towards Ukraine, the Kremlin is not acting alone, as the explanatory notes to the measures clearly set out. Those who aid and abet the Russian regime—Putin’s regime—must be held to account, which is why it is crucial that we approve these measures today. Lukashenko has long been a pawn of the Putin regime, and his brutal, corrupt and autocratic grip on Belarus has made it a regional pariah, undermining democracy at home and peace and stability abroad, particularly in the near region.

We have only to look at the perilous diversion and grounding of Ryanair flight 4978, the irrefutable rigging of the 2020 presidential elections and the many repressive measures taken against the Belarusian opposition, and indeed civil society and those who want freedom of speech in Belarus itself, to show that Lukashenko shares Putin’s penchant for tyranny, repression and disregard of both domestic and international law. That was set in train by the formation of the so-called Union State between Belarus and Russia, which has facilitated the use of Belarusian territory and infrastructure to launch attacks against the people of Ukraine.

Although Belarusian forces have not been committed, as the explanatory notes make clear, Lukashenko’s complicity in the war cannot be overstated. He effectively allowed Putin to invade Ukraine via Belarus, he has surrendered the use of his country as a platform for air raids and missile strikes, and he has tied the regime’s future to a war that has led to the death of thousands of civilians. That has been known from the very first days. We all saw the evidence for what they were doing—it is there, as clear as day—and we have seen some horrific actions in recent weeks, including the launch of missiles towards Ukraine.

The Prime Minister stated that it was the Government’s intention to apply sanctions to Belarus on 24 February. That was confirmed by the Foreign Secretary the same day, so I have to ask the Minister why it took until the start of July for the sanctions to be brought into effect, and why it has therefore taken until today for the Committee to be given the opportunity to debate them. I do not doubt the Government’s intention, and nor do I criticise what they are putting forward, but time and again we have been lagging behind and not moving at the necessary speed. If it is a question of resourcing for the excellent teams in the FCDO and elsewhere that have been doing this work, the Government really need to catch up.

After our most recent debate on sanctions, the Minister’s predecessor, who is now the Education Secretary, assured me that the sanctions taskforce at the FCDO contained 150 permanent staff, and that the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation had doubled in size. Can the Minister confirm how many permanent staff are now in OFSI and the sanctions taskforce? Has the Department has assessed staffing levels again, and are they sufficient to provide the swiftness that we need? The Ukrainian people do not have time for these sorts of delays when it comes to countries such as Belarus and individuals in those regimes who are taking these actions. We need to move swiftly. If it is a question of capacity, I urge him to look at whether more permanent staff can be brought in urgently.

I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay about the number of individuals being targeted, which seems small compared with the number of those who we know are involved in the Belarusian regime, and potentially in orchestrating and authorising these actions against Ukraine and in support of Putin. I hope that the Minister will answer that question about the numbers involved, come back to us in due course, and keep the measures under constant review. With the measures against Russia, the names of individuals have been regularly updated. I hope that that will occur in relation to Belarus and others.

Lukashenko had the gall the other day to congratulate Ukraine on its independence day. I was marching with the Ukrainian representatives and refugees in Cardiff just last week. Lukashenko said that Belarus will

“continue to stand for the preservation of harmony”.

We know that is absolute nonsense, because less than a month prior to those words being issued he fired 25 missiles, hitting targets in the Chernihiv region and around Zhytomyr on the day when Ukraine celebrated its statehood day.

I echo the words of Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, who condemned the attack, saying:

“Lukashenka can’t fool anyone. He is guilty of crimes against Belarusians & Ukrainians & must be held accountable.”

She rightly stated that Lukashenko is effectively allowing Belarusian lands to be used as

“an aircraft carrier for Putin.”

Our actions here in the UK must match that bravery and the starkness of what she and those who work around her, who have often been put at immense personal risk, are setting out.

I also want to ask the Minister about the statement that was made in November 2021, when the sanctions against Belarus were last debated. The then Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), stated that our

“actions work best when combined with other diplomatic and economic measures, and the UK has assisted independent media and civil society organisations in Belarus”.—[Official Report, 4 November 2021; Vol. 702, c. 1076.]

Can the Minister explain what support is being provided to Belarusian civil society, much of which is being targeted by Lukashenko, to supplement and complement the sanctions that are being debated today? Clearly, the support that has been offered has not been enough to stop the repressive activities that we have seen, as well as what he has being doing inside Ukraine.

Thirdly—I have made this point in many debates on this subject—what consideration is being given to moving beyond the freezing of assets, travel bans and so on to the seizure and repurposing of the assets, whether Russian, Belarusian or otherwise, of those who are directly implicated in the illegal war against Ukraine? We know that demands for reconstruction, humanitarian support and other forms of support for Ukraine are immense, and they are increasing. There is a fiscal reason for ensuring that we get additional resources in, but many people are rightly asking why some assets will sit there, effectively dormant, without being seized and repurposed. What further consideration has been given to that?

In the impact assessment, there is specific mention of issues relating to Belarusian steel and iron products. I am pleased to see those measures. It has been suggested to me—I wonder whether the Minister can shed any further light on this—that materials are being exported from Russia and Belarus via third parties in the steel and iron market, and potentially making their way to our shores and those of allies. It would be deeply concerning if such sanctions-busting activity was going on, either through the rebadging of products or by misleading people about their origins. If the Minister does not have the details today, I would welcome a letter from him on that. What measures have been put in place to ensure that diversionary routes are not being used to send products—particularly high-value products—that originated in Russia or Belarus to our shores? How will we ensure that the measures set out in the regulations are absolutely robust and secure?

The explanatory memorandum states that air and space goods have not been included, as they were in the measures against Russia, because

“Belarus does not have the exact same role as Russia in the war against Ukraine.”

That strikes me as slightly odd. We ought to be taking the toughest measures. It is very clear that, although Belarus has not committed its own troops, it is part and parcel of what Putin is doing, in providing a launchpad—that so-called aircraft carrier—to use against Ukraine. I cannot understand why we would then give Belarus an exemption on aviation and space goods. I recognise that that is probably a fairly small part of its market, but we should not be giving it any scope whatsoever for economic benefit from products that are either directly or indirectly linked to the actions that are taking place in Ukraine. I hope that the Minister can explain why that exemption has been made.

It is clear that Lukashenko must feel the pressure from the west as much as he does from the east. We therefore welcome the overall package of sanctions that the Committee is considering today, which represents a considerable step in the right direction. The war is continuing for far longer than was ever estimated at the beginning. I fear that it will only be protracted and worsen in the months ahead, so we must ensure that our sanctions regime can expand in real time, in real response to the measures taken by Russia with the assistance of countries such as Belarus and the Lukashenko regime. We fully support the regulations. We will not divide the Committee, but I hope that the Minister can answer some of my questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rehman Chishti]

Yes. I thank my officials for the note over here, but let me just answer that point. I am trying to multitask in reading, reflecting and answering; hopefully my lawyer’s training helps in that regard. I get the point raised by my hon. Friend. I think the officials get the point. We have to do everything we can. I have tried to give an overall picture with regard to the number of individuals, but his point is that looking at the scale and size of the country, we have to do everything we can to ensure that as many of those individuals who need to be held accountable are held accountable. I get that, and no doubt officials here get that, and it will be taken back and looked at. I will write to him specifically on that point with further details so that he gets the fullest answer.

I want to address another point raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, about why we are replicating measures made on 28 April. Why are we doing it now? His point was with regard to the timing of the different regulations. The new measures are the latest in a co-ordinated package of measures that the UK has introduced in response to Belarus’s support for the Russian invasion. The point I made earlier was that we put a number of measures and designations into play prior to the invasion. The new criteria that we have put in place extend and broaden the group of individuals who can be held accountable for the unacceptable behaviour of aiding and abetting Putin’s financial actions, and supporting the aggression in Ukraine.

Since the invasion of Ukraine, we have launched a series of sanctions targeting Belarusian individuals and organisations who have aided and abetted this reckless aggression. We designated 47 Belarusian individuals and seven Belarusian entities under the Russia sanctions regime. We also introduced a 35 percentage points increase in duties on a range of products imported from Belarus. Those measures are in addition to the wide range of measures that we have already imposed on Belarus under our Belarus sanctions regime, which include sanctions on Lukashenko and members of his family, and on other individuals and entities.

With regard to the third point that the hon. Gentleman raised on the issue of steel, iron, aviation, space and goods, I will take that matter away and make sure that it is answered as fully as I can, to do justice to the answer, rather than reflecting on it now. I will make sure that he gets a full answer on that specific point.

[Stephen Doughty]

Will the Minister give way, briefly?

[Rehman Chishti]

I will raise the point with my officials tonight, to make sure that it—irrespective of what may happen tomorrow or the day after—can be put into the system today and fully looked at. I say that to my officials as the Minister at this point in time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rehman Chishti]

Sure. I am grateful, Mr Hosie. I was trying to reiterate that the point was so important that it needed to be conveyed, taken away and looked at. I get the point on that very basis.

[Stephen Doughty]

I did get a helpful letter on 17 May from one of the preceding Ministers, who is now the Education Secretary—who knows what he will be doing tomorrow? He gave me some further detail on the resourcing, and helpfully said that the task force now has 150 members of staff. Can the Minister give some clarity on whether they are permanent or temporary staff? Secondly, there was no detail on when the new staff—the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation—are going to be in place, just that the recruitment had commenced. It is crucial that we boost those numbers as quickly as possible. These are complex measures and I know that is why some of them take some time. We have got to have the resourcing in place to ensure that they can be brought forward speedily.

[Rehman Chishti]

With regard to the answer given by the former Minister on the figures, I want to be frank and clear, because it is a specific question on the numbers and details that the hon. Gentleman has asked. I can ask officials to look at that specific point, and at the breakdown he has asked for. In my early days, when I came in as Minster, I went down and met and thanked the sanctions team. The work that they do in the evolving circumstances is with the latest information and evidence available. We have increased the numbers of staff and officials working on sanctions. The question that the hon. Member asked is about a specific breakdown; I will ensure that he gets a full update regarding that specific point.

[Stephen Doughty]

It is not just the Minister’s Department; it is also the Treasury, because, crucially, if any of these sanctions are to work in practice, it is also about companies and individuals, and for those who might be trading or engaging with them to be properly informed and have the right information to actually implement them. Crucially, UK businesses, and others, who might have had partnerships or engagement with Belarusian individuals must have that information, so I hope that the Minister will raise it with the Treasury.

[Rehman Chishti]

I will ensure that every Department that is relevant and connected, with regards to the imposition of sanctions and the figures that he has asked for, makes sure that it answers his question fully and frankly because I think that is absolutely important. In my time in this role, I have tried to engage with parliamentarians across the House and now the questions must be fully answered. If I have missed any specific points raised by any Member, I will ensure that the officials read the document and come back and answer those specific points.

My hon. Friends, it is the responsibility of the United Kingdom and our allies to support Ukraine and take tough action against Putin and those who support his illegal invasion. In co-ordination with our allies, we continue to introduce the largest and most severe economic sanctions that Russia has ever faced, and that we have ever imposed. I am led to believe that the latest figures we have, regarding the situation in Ukraine and Russia and the sanctions that we have imposed, is more than 1,000 individuals and more than 100 entities.

On a recent visit to Canada and to the United States, I have had conversations with our counterparts to ensure that we do all we can, in a co-ordinated manner, and in line with the criteria set by the British Parliament, to impose the swiftest and firmest sanctions that we can regarding individuals, whether in Belarus or in Russia, linked to the aggressive, unacceptable behaviour that we are seeing in Ukraine. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has committed to going further, and we will continue to do so until Putin ends this war of aggression. It is a matter for Putin to end it. Therefore, until that happens, we will do everything that we can, using all possible levers, to ensure that those who are responsible for that unacceptable behaviour are held to account.

I thank the Committee for their insightful contributions and support for the Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2022. I hope the Committee will support the regulations. I know the Committee has said it will, but I say that again, and thank the Committee for its support regarding the regulations. On the points that have been raised by the Opposition spokesman and others, I will ensure that the officials take those away and respond to them in as full a manner as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the Republic of Belarus (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 748).

Human Rights Abuses and Corruption: UK Sanctions

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) not only for securing this critical debate but for their assiduous leadership on these matters across the House. I also welcome the Minister to his new role. I am delighted that we are engaging in such important discussions before the House rises for the summer, and I thank Members across the House for their thoughtful and valuable contributions to the debate.

Let me begin by reiterating Labour’s support for the Magnitsky sanctions regime introduced back in 2020 and acknowledging the constructive nature of interactions between the Government and the Opposition on, for example, the implementation of sanctions on Russia since its illegal and barbarous invasion of Ukraine. Indeed, I have just received a summons to a debate at the start of the new term on sanctions on Belarus.

Where the Government have got it right, we have supported them, but where we believe they should and could have gone further, we must say so. I express my heartfelt condolences to the family of Sergei Magnitsky. If we are to honour his memory, the full force of our sanctions regime must be utilised to root out and condemn human rights abuses worldwide. Across the House, we know that sanctions work only when the UK works multilaterally to hold the perpetrators of abuses to account by leading and drawing on our historic and defining global partnerships, not least with the United States and the European Union. That has rightly been raised by Members across the House today.

The foreign policy of the next Labour Government will be grounded in securing the rights of people across the world and ensuring that Britain plays a crucial international role in advocating for the rule of law and, particularly when it comes to human rights, working with others and not lagging behind. This matters now more than ever, because we stand at a crossroads: a global trend towards authoritarianism and human rights abuses could prevail if we do not utilise every weapon in our diplomatic and legal arsenals to counter it.

Freedom House articulated this clearly in its most recent “Freedom in the World” report, which concluded:

“The present threat to democracy is the product of 16 consecutive years of decline in global freedom...As of today, some 38 percent of the global population live in Not Free countries, the highest proportion since 1997.”

There are so many examples to list. Colleagues across the House have done an exceptional job of providing a sense of the dangers in the global picture and how our sanctions regime must match them.



Of course, in Ukraine, Russian forces have committed egregious and heinous abuses in the deliberate targeting of civilian areas, the systematic use of rape as a weapon of war, and the use of mines and explosive equipment to murder innocent people returning to their homes. We are now hearing shocking stories about the forced relocation of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian citizens, including children, into the Russian far east, and the tearing apart of families in a brazen and appalling attempt to undermine and wipe out Ukrainian society.

We have supported the Government’s sanctions regime, which is levelled at Putin’s inner circle, oligarchs and the profiteers of the regime, but I want to put on the record that the unity between the Government and Opposition on this issue is not uniformity. I had some frank discussions with one of the Minister’s predecessors—the right hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), who is now the Secretary of State for Education—when we believed that the broadening of the sanctions regime did not come quickly enough and when there were clear cracks in the system or a lack of resources.

Let me follow up on the issues that I have raised consistently. What is the Government’s latest position on the seizure and repurposing, as opposed to merely the freezing, of the assets of those who have been sanctioned? Indeed, are any considerations being given to the repatriation of revenue to support humanitarian and reconstruction efforts in Ukraine?

I have just returned from an extremely useful trip to the western Balkans. It is clear that the situation in that region is very dangerous and fragile. Indeed, the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Christian Schmidt, has warned of the real prospect of a return to violence. Many in the House will recall the scale and severity of the human rights abuses committed in both Bosnia and Kosovo, which I visited in the 1990s. Labour will continue to support the Government in levelling sanctions at those throughout the region, such as Milorad Dodik, for their role in inciting tensions recently.

As has been mentioned, we must hold those in Nigeria to account for the appalling crimes that have been committed—not least the shocking events in 2020, when military forces opened fire at the Lekki toll gate in Lagos. The then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), called on the Nigerian Government to investigate the reports of brutality at the hands of the security forces, yet to date the Government have failed to impose any sanctions in response, despite their having received, as I understand it, detailed evidence from Redress and Nigerian partners that identifies the perpetrators. We have heard in recent days about the shocking sentences handed out to three gay men in northern Nigeria, who were sentenced to be stoned to death. Surely we must take action against those who perpetrate or threaten such horrific abuses.

After the military coup in Myanmar, the Government took the welcome decision to implement further sanctions against Burmese military organisations—but that took two months, despite egregious crimes being committed against the population in real time. Is it an issue with our existing sanctions regulations, which need to be modified to cope with crises in real time? Or, as I alluded to earlier, are there often simply too few people at the FCDO and the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation to ensure prompt and consistent responses? I know that the number in the FCDO unit has increased, and I pay tribute to the officials who do such excellent work in this policy area, but we are lagging behind the United States and others in terms of the investment and resources that we put in. The staff numbers at the OFSI are simply not enough. We need to see better co-ordination among the OFSI, the National Crime Agency and other enforcement bodies to ensure a consistent approach.

Let me turn to a fundamental point that a number of Members raised: why is it the case that the UK has sanctioned only 20% of the perpetrators of abuses who have been sanctioned by the United States? I cannot understand how we are so far behind one of our closest allies. According to Redress and the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions, there has been a slowdown in the use of Magnitsky sanctions in recent months. The ramifications are immense.

We have heard about Xinjiang, where the human rights abuses have shocked the world. I pay tribute to those from all parties in the House, many of whom are present, who have been consistent in raising those abuses. However, from the party secretary who has orchestrated the brutal crackdown on the Uyghurs and other religious minorities to the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, which runs the mass coercive-labour programmes throughout the region, there have been exemptions that are frankly staggering. Why have the Government held off? What more do they need to see to do the right thing?

[Chris Bryant]

Another problematic issue with the UK lagging behind others is that sometimes people move their assets in case the sanctions come to them as well. We have seen significant cases, one of which I raised with the Foreign Secretary when she appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee recently: in the case of Sistema, the individual simply gave half his material goods to his son and managed to escape the sanctions. Why are we so slow?

[Stephen Doughty]

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

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

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Rehman Chishti]

The hon. Gentleman says that that is not true. I am very happy to have that conversation with him and officials, but my understanding is that for the number of sanctions we have applied in connection with Putin’s illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, the figures are about 1,000 individuals and 100 entities. In my understanding, that is the largest number of any international partner in the world.

[Stephen Doughty]

I asked the Minister a very specific question. Canada has sanctioned Alexander Lebedev, so will he confirm whether or not the UK has done so?

[Rehman Chishti]

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I conclude by reflecting on the words of Winston Churchill:

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

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

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

Prime Minister’s Meeting with Alexander Lebedev

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Ford]

As I said earlier, I take national security and the security of our citizens extremely seriously, which is why it is absolutely vital that the Government continue to have Foreign Office Ministers in place. I have inquired as to whether or not there are further details of the meetings—these alleged meetings—and I do not have any further details at this time.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given that the then Foreign Secretary went from the NATO meeting to these meetings, did he have any Government papers in his possession at the time? Secondly, we know that the Prime Minister has been very careless in the past—I think his mobile phone number was publicly available for 15 years. Did he have his personal electronic devices with him at the time? If he did, were they searched and examined by the security services after that meeting?

[Vicky Ford]

As I have said, I do not have any further details at this time. I have asked to see whether there are further details, but I do not have the details at this time. The Prime Minister, however, has announced that he is stepping down and will be making a statement shortly, as we know.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman is conflating two fundamentally different issues. The world should be clear that it is Vladimir Putin alone who is creating these problems with his blockade of grain exports from Ukraine. He could turn on the tap of food to the global south tomorrow, and we demand that he does. We will continue to work with our international partners, including the United Nations, to try to facilitate those grain exports, but the world should be clear that it is down to him and that the Russian blockade of the Black sea and Sea of Azov ports is creating that hunger. He should be held accountable for it.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I agree with much of what the Minister has had to say. The shadow Foreign Secretary and I met a delegation of Ukrainian MPs last week and heard at first hand the devastating impact Russia’s illegal actions are having on civilians across Ukraine. May I bring the Minister back to a point I have raised with him a number of times? We need to stay the course in our support for Ukraine, and the whole world needs to stay the course with Ukraine. That will involve substantial costs. Will he look again at not only freezing Russian assets but their seizure and repurposing to ensure that we can support humanitarian and reconstruction efforts in Ukraine?

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman and I often disagree—that is the nature of being in different parties—but on this issue he is absolutely right that there is a unanimity of voice across the House. I can assure him that we are looking at the issue he raises on seizures and repurposing the value of those seizures. Nothing is off the table. The pain and suffering being inflicted on the Ukrainian people by Putin and his faction must be paid for, and paid for by them.

Council of Europe

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dame Maria. I thank the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) for securing this debate at a critical time for democracy and the rule of law across our continent. I agree that it is a shame that this debated in the main Chamber; I hope that can happen in due course.

It is perhaps arguable that the work of the Council of Europe has never been as critical as it is today, whether that is on human rights, the rule of law and democracy, or, of course, in its crucial election-monitoring role or through the many other activities it undertakes. Not only do we face the pressing threat of Russia’s illegal war against the people of Ukraine, but we see attempts to sow disharmony, undermine democracy and foment tensions elsewhere, whether in the western Balkans, Moldova, or the Caucasus—all, of course, within the geographic remit of the Council of Europe.

We have had some excellent speeches today. I echo the hon. Member for Henley in thanking our officials, the permanent representative, our judge, and all those who play a part in delegations, many of whom are represented today, including many of my hon. and right hon. colleagues on this side of the House.

I want to recognise the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) and the work he does, and his recognition of the Council of Europe’s role for many member states in the huge, historic shift from the time of fascism and communism to where they have come to today. He spoke about Turkey and others—I will come on to those—and made a powerful statement about the importance of the ECHR and its judgments, and the role that we played in creating it, while also recognising the need for reform, for example in the length of time for judgments.

The right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) made some powerful remarks about the importance of the Council of Europe and its geographic reach. He rightly referenced the expulsion of Russia—something I think we would all agree with. He also referenced other issues, such as Cyprus. I had the pleasure of visiting Cyprus recently and agree with many of his comments about the need to resolve that conflict and return to the plan for a bizonal and bicommunal federation.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is also important in this context to have as much contact as possible, through the Council of Europe, with Russian human rights campaigners and activists, so that they feel that there are people who are interested in the difficult situation they find themselves in?

[Stephen Doughty]

I think that the right hon. Gentleman points out the importance of maintaining contacts with all those who are opposing Putin’s regime. Indeed, I think that Vladimir Kara-Murza was mentioned. That is a case that we are all deeply concerned about. It is important that we maintain contact through many bodies, including the Council of Europe, with those who would stand up for democracy and human rights in Russia and against the actions of the Putin regime.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) for the work he does as a rapporteur. He made some very important points. I would reference his point on the attacks on the judiciary in the UK; I think that some of the comments we have seen are very damaging. He, like many others, raised the issue of the ECHR and Rwanda, which has obviously been a crucial point.

On that, I echo the comments of the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper): there is no point in the Government blaming anyone but themselves on this issue. Ministers have been pursuing a policy that they know is not workable and that will not tackle criminal gangs. Despite that, they paid Rwanda £120 million and hired a jet that now has not taken off, all because they wanted someone else to blame in a confected row. They ignored the warnings about the policy, including on the potential treatment of torture victims—which of course is a crucial issue for the Council of Europe. It has rightly been referenced in this debate, but I think the Government need to take a hard look at themselves to understand why they are in the position they find themselves in this morning.

The Council of Europe has done excellent work in many areas since its foundation. I mentioned the Committee for the Prevention of Torture, which makes unannounced visits to places of detention. The Committee of Social Rights also verifies that rights to housing, health, education and employment are being implemented. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale mentioned the anti-corruption work of GRECO, and the Council of Europe also works with other bodies, including the OSCE, the EU, the United Nations and other international bodies, which use Council of Europe reports in pursuing their own excellent work in these areas.

The ECHR itself—I would say this again as a salutary warning to those who make unwarranted attacks on the ECHR—has delivered more than 16,000 judgments. Let us remember the wide range of those judgments, including on the right to life, the prohibition of torture, the prohibition of slavery and forced labour, the right to liberty and security, the right to a fair trial, the right to respect for private and family life, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, the prohibition of discrimination, and indeed the protection of property. Of course, one of the Court’s most high-profile cases was its ruling that Russia was responsible for the murder of Alexander Litvinenko. That is the scope of the ECHR’s work and it needs to be more fully understood. As has been mentioned, the abolition of capital punishment—something I have long campaigned for—has been a precondition for accession to the Council of Europe since 1985. Indeed, the Council of Europe has played a critical role in ensuring that we do not have the death penalty in member states.

The Istanbul convention has rightly been referenced, and I have a question for the Minister on that. We need to acknowledge that violence against women is a human rights violation and a form of discrimination. The Council of Europe has carried out work on the fight against discrimination for reasons of sexual orientation or gender identity. These are critical issues, particularly when we see backsliding by some members. This is a matter that I hope the Council will pay increased attention over the months and years to come.

I reiterate Labour’s unshakeable commitment to maximising opportunities to work alongside allies and partners on issues of human rights, the rule of law and democracy through as many multilateral institutions as possible, and a critical institution is the Council of Europe. Today’s world is too precarious and, frankly, dangerous to operate unilaterally, as unfortunately we have seen the Government do on too many occasions recently. I hope the Government and the Minister will reiterate our commitment to working through the Council of Europe on these issues, because we face some deep threats across our continent and the world, and the Council of Europe will be key to tackling them.

Beyond reiterating its solidarity with Ukraine and expressing an unwavering commitment to its sovereignty, the Council adopted an action plan for Ukraine, including measures to protect displaced people, to support legal professionals, to document human rights violations—which is critical when we see some of the horrific atrocities currently taking place in Ukraine—and to protect the rights of vulnerable groups, including children and the Roma. As the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said, it is important that links with civil society in Russia and Belarus are strengthened. That grassroots work is critical in fighting back against the Putin war machine and the Kremlin’s unrelenting disinformation campaign across Europe.

[Geraint Davies]

Would my hon. Friend accept that it is important to accept the credibility and importance of the statutory role of the Council of Europe’s Court? If other countries fail to abide by these rules, that could collectively undermine the fundamental values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law that we are trying to push forward. The Government should think twice before putting stuff in the media about the Council of Europe and the convention when they are found in need by the Court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

I agree with the principles of what my hon. Friend is saying, and that applies to judgments of other international courts, including the International Court Of Justice, which the Government have also been taken to task over on a number of issues. I mentioned Ukraine, which is crucial in our focus, but the situation in the western Balkans is also very serious at the moment—the Minister is nodding her head. The Council of Europe has been playing a critical role there in strengthening judicial processes and promoting peace and democracy.

The case of Turkey has been mentioned. The Committee of Ministers’ decision to launch infringement proceedings against Ankara over the Osman Kavala case demonstrates its commitment to the Council’s central values without fear or favour. The hon. Member for Henley rightly referenced wider concerns about Turkey and its infringement of civil and political rights.

[John Howell]

Will the hon. Member join us in supporting Kosovo’s membership of the Council of Europe, which will be coming forward later in the year?

[Stephen Doughty]

I certainly would. I plan to visit Kosovo in the near future, and I am sure that that will be an issue on the agenda during my visit there and to the western Balkans. That is something I certainly support.

I want to end by asking the Minister a few questions. Can she give us some reassurances about the Government’s wider commitments to the Council of Europe and the ECHR? The Prime Minister has refused to rule out leaving the ECHR. We have seen the many trailed proposals about a so-called Bill of rights, which could diminish the role of the ECHR and undermine its positions. There is a serious risk of undermining some crucial human rights that we all enjoy. Also, it is worth mentioning the crucial role that the ECHR played in the Good Friday agreement. I would like to see the Minister give some reassurance on that point.

Secondly, can the Minister explain the reasoning behind the Government’s reservation of article 59 of the Istanbul convention, which protects migrant and refugee women from domestic abuse and violence? Finally, given the point I made about working together with allies, and given the scale of the challenges we face across Europe and the world, will she assure us that the Government will stop the unilateral approach that they seem to have drifted towards in recent weeks and months and, instead, work together?

Georgia and the War in Ukraine

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2022 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) for securing this crucial debate at a critical time for Georgia and Ukraine, and I thank everyone for making excellent contributions.

Three weeks ago, I was proud to attend the celebrations for the 30th anniversary of the re-establishment of diplomatic relations between Georgia and the United Kingdom. I have been honoured today, and on many occasions recently, to speak for the Labour Front Bench in defence of the people of Ukraine, who continue to endure Russia’s barbaric invasion with heroism and great bravery. As has been mentioned, there are very warm relations between Georgia and the UK, but particularly with Wales. I have enjoyed some excellent conversations with the ambassador here in London in recent months since taking this position.

I reiterate Labour’s resolute commitment not only to NATO, but more broadly to defending the values of peace, democracy and liberty, which are being courageously protected in Ukraine and which I know are the aspirations of the people of Georgia, too. That has been demonstrated in their great sacrifice and huge contribution alongside us all in Afghanistan, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) referred to. That must be remembered, and the sacrifice acknowledged.

Our support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia is as solid as it is for Ukraine. There are marked parallels between the two countries’ experience in recent years at the hands of Russia, and that has made the UK’s diplomatic solidarity, support and engagement with all the countries in Russia’s near orbit all the more essential.

When it comes to the need for unity across the west in the face of Putin’s malevolent and clear intent to re-establish the wider territorial bounds, as he sees them, of the Soviet Union, or some sort of historical claimed area of influence, the alarm has been sounding for well over a decade. Russia’s war against Georgia in 2008 was dubbed by many the first European war of the 21st century. That was a haunting premonition that more would follow if that illegal and unjustified belligerence went unchecked and if other countries dared to seek their own paths and destinies, as they should be able to do. It must now be absolutely clear to all of us that the collective western reaction to those events in 2008 provided Putin with one of the green lights that he sought. We are monitoring his character and intentions intently today, but his playbook—as the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), speaking for the SNP, said—has been implemented time and again. As Russia invaded Georgia illegally in 2008, the world largely watched on in silence. Hundreds of people died in that illegal annexation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. We know how this works: Putin and his cronies heighten tensions, exploit and enable so-called secessionist movements, sow discord, spread misinformation, provoke chaos and capitalise on the ensuing turmoil.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I, too, should declare an interest as one of the recent visitors to Georgia—and a great and enlightening visit it was as well. During our trip, I spent some time in the main museum in Tbilisi, where there was an exhibition about the Soviet era. We often forget that Georgia has long-standing experience of the naked violence and aggression that comes from across the Russian border. While it enjoyed a few years of independence after the first world war and the break-up of the Russian and Ottoman empires, it was brutally reinvaded by the Soviets and people were mercilessly murdered in cold blood, so this is not the first time that Georgia has experienced what can come from its neighbour across the border. We often forget the lessons of history there.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point to that history. It is of course the history of many others in the near orbit of Russia, including in the Baltics. Now, yet again, we see a false, so-called referendum being used next month to attempt to formally bring one of those illegally occupied regions into union with Putin’s Russia. The ceasefire agreed back in 2008 was undoubtedly tipped in favour of Putin and, in the weeks and months that followed, I am sorry to say, the west went back to a business-as-usual approach in its dealings with Moscow. We failed to implement tough enough sanctions or to punish such egregious behaviour. Indeed, the US led the way in “resetting” relations with the Kremlin, and continued to treat Russia as a wayward partner rather than a belligerent adversary.

We cannot continue to make these mistakes if we are to end this diabolical trend of interference and invasion. And, of course, let us not forget the human cost. We saw the persecution of ethnic Georgians in Russia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the indiscriminate killing of civilians and the deliberate targeting of urban centres, the waging of a concerted information war to skew and misrepresent the actions of the invaders, and the displacement of 200,000 people. Does any of that sound eerily familiar? It is exactly what we are seeing yet again, so the warning signs were there and it saddens me greatly that we ignored them. We cannot afford to do that again and again.

Rightly, since 2008, Tbilisi, under different Governments, has pushed strongly for closer links with the EU and NATO, to attain the diplomatic and military assurances that it would be protected should it face such threats again. Obviously, membership of either organisation is unlikely in the immediate future, despite the clear attitudes of the population, which have rightly been referenced, and the passion there for close alliance with us. We need to do all we can to facilitate that dialogue and direction.

Georgia has been forced into a very difficult position when it comes to the war in Ukraine, but, despite the expected tension between Kyiv and Tbilisi, I was encouraged to see Georgia’s support for the 2 March UN General Assembly resolution condemning Russia’s illegal attack; support for Russia’s expulsion from the Council of Europe; and backing for the International Criminal Court probe into war crimes against the people of Ukraine. Those are encouraging signals, and we should absolutely recognise their significance. I certainly hope that Georgia can go further, but that requires us also to get involved and to proactively and consistently support all those who face these very difficult choices, particularly in the near neighbourhood of Putin’s Russia, and who need our support economically, diplomatically and in security terms.

I read the article by the hon. Member for Huntingdon that gave us a preview of his speech. It was a very interesting and important article. Fundamentally, if Georgia is to have the confidence to definitively support Ukraine’s resistance, and if the international community is to speak with one voice, clear assurances must come from countries such as the United Kingdom and others of support in multiple domains. If we want to ensure a network of liberty, democracy and peace, we have to invest in it urgently. With that, I have three questions, in conclusion, for the Minister. Can the Minister say what additional measures the UK is taking now to support Georgia diplomatically, economically and, crucially, in terms of security guarantees?

The focus has rightly been on Moldova in recent days, given the imminent threat that country faces. However, we know that the threat can be anywhere in the near neighbourhood of Russia at any time, as seen in Putin’s actions. What is our medium and long-term strategy for the likes of Georgia or, indeed, as mentioned, the western Balkans? What are we doing to reopen the Black sea fully? It cannot be right that Russia alone is able to dominate that crucial maritime domain.

We have heard about the impact on grain and trade, which affects Georgia and other countries bordering the Black sea. We have seen the despicable alleged theft of Ukrainian grain by the Russians in recent days, which has much wider consequences for the rest of the world, as rightly identified by the hon. Members for Huntingdon and for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). What are we doing to block the sale of that illegally seized grain, get the Black sea back open for trade, and ensure that Ukraine and others, including Georgia, can access their trade routes? Finally, what are we doing to build on and enhance the historic friendships and bilateral trade between the UK and Georgia? We have heard so much about that positive relationship. It is clear, in all the relationships that many of us have enjoyed, that the appetite is there from the UK and Georgia, and it is needed more than ever in these difficult times.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will, just before I say my last words.

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

The hon. Gentleman has not quite been saved by the bell. A point that was put to us several times throughout our visit was that one of the things that could facilitate greater trade between the United Kingdom and Georgia would be to establish a direct air link between the two countries. In intervening on the hon. Gentleman, may I press the Minister on what she can do to help in that respect?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman puts an important question. I hope the Minister can address that point, because we must have those links open—not only for trade, but for relationships based on culture and friendship that we know are there—to enable people to travel easily between the UK and Georgia. I hope the Minister has something to say about that.

Today we have covered two important countries and the implications of Russia’s actions towards both. The United Kingdom has to stand united and resolute with our allies and friends around the world, be that Ukraine or Georgia.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

We are grateful for advance sight of the statement from the Foreign Secretary, and I apologise on behalf of the shadow Foreign Secretary, who is unfortunately self-isolating due to covid.

It is over two and a half years since the Government negotiated and signed the withdrawal agreement. That deal included the Northern Ireland protocol, which required, by its design, some trade barriers and checks in the Irish sea. That was clear from the outset and it was a choice by this Prime Minister and by the Government, yet now, barely two years later, the Government are trying to convince people that their flagship achievement was not a negotiating triumph, but a deal so flawed that they cannot abide by it. Either they did not understand their own agreement, they were not up front about the reality of it, or they intended to break it all along. The Prime Minister negotiated this deal, signed it and ran an election campaign on it. He must take responsibility for it and make it work.

The situation in Northern Ireland is incredibly serious. Power sharing has broken down, Stormont is not functioning and political tensions have risen, while people in communities across Northern Ireland face rising bills as the cost of living crisis deepens. The operation of the protocol has created new tensions that do need to be addressed by listening to all sides, as well as to business and to consumers, and both the UK Government and the EU need to show willing and good faith. This is not a time for political posturing or high-stakes brinkmanship.

Everyone recognises that the situation in Northern Ireland is unique, and we want checks to be reduced to their absolute necessary minimum and for them to properly reflect trade-related risks. It cannot be right, for example, that goods leaving Great Britain that have no realistic prospect of leaving Northern Ireland, such as supermarket sandwiches, face excessive burdens, and the EU needs to understand that practical reality. Unnecessary barriers will only hamper business, inhibit trade and undermine confidence and consent.

The Good Friday agreement was one of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government. It is absolutely essential that it is protected. That is why we need calm heads and responsible leadership. We need a UK Government capable of the hard diplomatic graft to find solutions and an EU willing to show flexibility. The right response to these challenges cannot simply be to breach our commitments. It is deeply troubling for the Foreign Secretary to be proposing a Bill to apparently break the treaty that the Government themselves signed just two years ago. That will not resolve issues in Northern Ireland in the long term; rather, it will undermine trust and make a breakthrough more difficult. It would drive a downward spiral in our relationship with the EU that will have damaging consequences for British businesses and consumers. It is Cornish fisherman, County Down farmers and Scotch whisky makers who will lose out, holding back the economy while growth forecasts are already being revised down.

But this goes beyond matters of trade. Britain should be a country that keeps its word. The rest of the world is looking at us and wondering whether we are a country that they want to do business with. When we seek to negotiate new deals abroad, do the Government want to make other countries question whether we will keep our end of the bargain? There are wide-ranging and damaging repercussions, undermining our ability to hold others to account for their own commitments, when we should be pulling together in support of Ukraine, for example, not fuelling divisions with our European allies.

The right approach is for the Government and the EU to work together to find practical solutions to these problems, and to brief the media less and to negotiate more. There is no long-term unilateral solution, and only a solution that works for all sides and delivers for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland will have durability and provide the political stability that businesses crave and the public deserve. We believe that should begin with a veterinary agreement that would eliminate the vast majority of checks on produce going from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. New Zealand has an equivalence agreement, and it should not be beyond the Government and the EU to negotiate one that reflects the unique circumstances in Northern Ireland.

We would also negotiate with the EU for more flexibility on VAT in Northern Ireland, to fully align Northern Ireland VAT rules with those of Great Britain. We would use that to take VAT off Northern Ireland energy bills, funded by a one-off windfall tax on oil and gas producer profits, to help ease the cost of living crisis.

If the Government are determined to plough on with the Bill that the Foreign Secretary has proposed, will they agree to prelegislative scrutiny by the Foreign Affairs Committee, and will they set out clearly to the House why this does not break international law?

Labour wants to make Brexit work and for Britain to flourish outside the EU. We want the Government to take responsibility for the deal they signed, to negotiate in good faith and to find practical solutions, not take reckless steps to prolong uncertainty in Northern Ireland and damage Britain’s reputation. We want the EU to show the necessary flexibility, to minimise all barriers, and to work with the UK Government and listen to all sides in Northern Ireland. That is the right approach, that is the responsible approach, and it is what is in the long-term interests of the people of Northern Ireland, and indeed of the whole of the United Kingdom.

[Elizabeth Truss]

Our priority, as the United Kingdom Government, has to be peace and stability in Northern Ireland and protection of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It is vitally important that we get the Executive back up and running and functioning, and that we fix the very real issues with the Northern Ireland protocol.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s acknowledgment that there are issues with taxation, with customs, and with procedures and bureaucracy. Fixing those issues does require the EU to be open to changing the protocol. As yet, and I have had six months of talks with Vice-President Šefčovič—my predecessor had 12 months of talks—the EU has been unwilling to open the protocol. Without that, we cannot deal with the tax issue, we cannot deal with the customs issue and we will not sort out the fundamental issues in Northern Ireland. It is our responsibility, as the Government of the United Kingdom, to restore the primacy of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement to get the Executive up and running.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question about legality, we are very clear that this is legal in international law, and we will be setting out our legal position in due course.