Women’s Rights to Reproductive Healthcare: United States

Stephen Farry Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Milling]

I have been pretty clear on my own personal opinion on this court judgment, but it is a court judgment in the US, which is not within our jurisdiction. The Prime Minister was very clear at the weekend on his view in seeing it as a backward step. One of the interviews that he gave was on CNN, so I think he has been pretty clear on our views.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

One consequence of the US Supreme Court decision is that more women will have to travel from one state to another to access an abortion. Here in the UK, due to the absence of fully commissioned services in Northern Ireland, we still have women having to travel from Northern Ireland to England and Wales to access their reproductive rights. This has a particularly serious effect on people who are in poverty or in coercive relationships. In that respect, will the Minister work with the Northern Ireland Secretary to ensure that these services are properly commissioned by no later than the end of July?

[Amanda Milling]

As I said in answer to an earlier question, in July last year the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland directed the Health Department in Northern Ireland to ensure full provision of abortion services there.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Stephen Farry Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 27th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

This is an extremely bad Bill. It is unwanted, unnecessary and, indeed, dangerous. A number of Members have referred to Orwellian double-speak; we should add that there is also some Alice in Wonderland thinking to what is happening here.

The Foreign Secretary’s approach to opening this debate was deplorable and did not take the issues entirely seriously. As well as the process by which she has reached this point being extremely disappointing, her engagement in Northern Ireland has been incredibly selective. She has chosen an echo chamber to reinforce her own prejudicial views on the way forward rather than to engage with the entire community in Northern Ireland.

The Bill is opposed by a majority of Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and, indeed, of voters in Northern Ireland. The business community is deeply concerned about many aspects of the Bill and it is not even effective in getting the DUP to recommit to an Executive. Some Members have lauded the words today from the DUP leader, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), but if Members listen carefully and read Hansard, they will find that what he said was full of ifs, buts and maybes. If Members read those words carefully, they will see that they do not commit to returning to the Executive any time in the near future.

[Ian Paisley]

Such a cynic!

[Stephen Farry]

I hear those words from the Bench behind me rather than anyone trying to refute what I am saying. That tells its own story.

The protocol is a consequence of the Government’s decisions on Brexit, and particularly of the decision to go for a hard Brexit. It also reflects the fact that the DUP pursued Brexit without any real consideration of the impact on Northern Ireland and the reality that any hard Brexit would require some form of special arrangements for our part of the world. A hard Brexit poses some particular challenges to the whole notion of a shared and interdependent Northern Ireland. It has to be recognised that Northern Ireland is a diverse society. The protocol is by no means a perfect solution, but it offers Northern Ireland the opportunity of a soft landing, given all the tensions Brexit brings to it. It brings opportunities in terms of dual access to both the GB and EU markets, but of course it also has its challenges. We must do all we can not only to maximise the opportunities but to address the challenges.

The Bill is very far-reaching. It immediately disapplies some aspects of the protocol and gives Ministers the ability to disapply others. It brings major consequences: it threatens Northern Ireland’s access to the EU single market for goods. The business community sees the dual regulatory system as unworkable. I hope that Ministers have heard from the Dairy Council, the meat producers, the Northern Ireland Food and Drink Association and Manufacturing Northern Ireland, all of which have expressed major concerns in that regard.

The loss of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice will also bring consequences. The protocol is not the same as a free trade agreement: it is a different type of beast. It is about us having access to the single market as a region. It is not a neutral situation that we have to almost tolerate; it is to Northern Ireland’s benefit because the most likely outcome is a situation in which other parts of the European Union do not treat Northern Ireland’s goods as having free access. We may need the European Court to enforce access for our businesses, so let us not throw it away without thinking through the consequences.

The Bill risks a trade war with the European Union—I do not want to see that but it is a potential risk—and undermines relations with the United States of America. The rules-based international order is of fundamental importance to the UK and the wider world and we mess with it at our peril. The Government have been disingenuous in a number of aspects related to how they have sought to defend the Bill. This is not about defending the Good Friday agreement. Brexit was a threat to the Good Friday agreement; the protocol is a response to protect it against that situation. There is not a choice between the protocol and the Good Friday agreement; the two can be reconciled if people wish.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

The hon. Member says that the protocol is designed to protect the Good Friday agreement. The north-south institution has collapsed, the Assembly is not meeting, the Executive is not functioning adequately and, in the words of the Irish Foreign Minister, east-west relations are at their lowest ebb for years. How is the protocol doing in protecting the Good Friday agreement?

[Stephen Farry]

I rather suggest that the right hon. Gentleman lies at the heart of all four of the outcomes he just listed, in the sense that DUP Ministers pulled out of the north-south institutions, they pulled out of the Executive, they are not allowing the Assembly to meet and, frankly, east-west relations have been poisoned by both the Government and the comments from a number of Unionist Members in Northern Ireland in recent years.

On the other issues used to justify the Bill, one of the first things the Government say is that they cannot reduce VAT on renewables in Northern Ireland—“This is an outrage!” I have looked into the matter, and the Government’s own figures suggest that the entire net value of the measure for Northern Ireland is a sum total of £1 million per year. The Government also have the option of going to the European Commission to ask for flexibility. Have they done that in the past three months since the Chancellor made the announcement? No, they have not. It is clear that they prefer to have this manufactured grievance rather than trying to find a genuine solution.

The Government say that no proper negotiations have happened over the past 12 to 18 months. Why is that the case? The Government have not approached the matter in good faith, so negotiations have stalled. They now say that they cannot proceed unless the EU says it is up for the renegotiation of the protocol. That denies the fact that there are three different ways in which things can be fixed that are all consistent with the protocol as it currently stands. First, there are flexibilities inside the protocol. We have already seen progress on the issue of medicines, but the Government, for their own reason, refuse to acknowledge the progress that has been made. I wonder why that is the case.

Secondly, I agree with other Members that article 13(8) of the protocol exists to allow the protocol to be superseded in whole or in part. I understand that that was put into the protocol at the request of the UK Government. That provision can be used but it has to be done by negotiation and mutual agreement.

Thirdly, we can do things in terms of supplemental agreements to the trade and co-operation agreement, such as a veterinary agreement. Again, those options have not been pursued. There are plenty of options out there that the Government can pursue entirely in keeping with the EU’s current negotiating mandate. People say that there is no alternative to this Bill, but there is: it is to go back and negotiate in good faith to build trust and partnership with the European Union.

Let us think about this for a second. Will this Bill improve trust and partnership? Will it make those negotiations any easier? No, it will make them harder, because every practical solution that I agree with depends on the EU and the UK trusting each other, and that is not where the Government sit tonight.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Farry Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

7. What recent discussions she has with EU representatives on the adequacy of the Northern Ireland protocol.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

17. What recent discussions she has had with (a) EU representatives and (b) the US Administration on the Northern Ireland protocol.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Elizabeth Truss)]

We have been clear with the EU that the Northern Ireland protocol needs to change in order to uphold the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, ensure that we have a free flow of goods from east to west, and protect the north-south relationship. Our preference is for a negotiated solution, but in the absence of the EU being willing to change the protocol, we are pressing ahead with legislation.

[Elizabeth Truss]

We are clear that our legislation is both necessary and lawful, and have published a Government legal statement laying out exactly why that is. Our priority as the United Kingdom Government is the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and we know that the Northern Ireland protocol is undermining that agreement. We have not seen the institutions in Northern Ireland functioning since February, and we know that the issues caused are baked into the protocol—namely the customs provisions and the VAT provisions—so we do need to change that.

As I have said, we remain open to negotiations with the EU. That is our preferred course, but they have to be willing to change the issues that are causing real problems for the people of Northern Ireland.

[Stephen Farry]

The business community in Northern Ireland is clear that they want to see mutually agreed solutions, and that those are the only way in which they can protect their access to the EU single market. The key ingredient in all this is trust and partnership. The Minister’s Bill is entirely counterproductive in that respect, so what is her strategy for getting back around the negotiating table with the European Union to find those mutually agreed outcomes?

[Elizabeth Truss]

We are very open to negotiations with the European Union, but they have to be prepared to change the protocol itself. The problems we have with customs and people in Northern Ireland not being able to access the same VAT benefits as people in Great Britain are baked into the protocol itself, and the legislation we have introduced, with green lanes and red lanes, protects the EU single market. It does not make the EU any worse off, while at the same time enabling free-flowing trade from east to west.

We need to achieve both of those things. I want to do so through negotiations, but we have been trying for 18 months; as yet, the EU have refused to change the protocol itself, and we simply cannot allow the situation to drift. We cannot allow more trade diversion, and we cannot allow the undermining of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Stephen Farry Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I can assure my right hon. Friend that we will take action to ensure that the arbitration mechanism is in place for Northern Ireland, as it is in the trade and co-operation agreement, rather than having the ECJ as the final arbiter, which it is at present. He is right to highlight the article today by Lord Trimble. We need to go back to the original thinking behind the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which was about treating the communities of Northern Ireland with equal esteem to make sure that we have successful arrangements in place to protect peace and political stability. That has to be this Government’s priority.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

The protocol represents Northern Ireland’s soft landing from this Government’s decision to have a hard Brexit. Let me be very, very clear: in Northern Ireland there is a majority of voters, MLAs and the business community who want to see the issues with the protocol addressed in a pragmatic way, through building trust and partnership with the European Union, and not through damaging unilateral action that will damage the UK’s international reputation, including with the United States. Specifically on the European Court of Justice, does the Foreign Secretary understand that if she tinkers with that jurisdiction it will force Northern Ireland out of the single market for goods and undermine Northern Ireland’s ability to trap investment in terms of our dual access to both the European Union and Great Britain?

[Elizabeth Truss]

What we are proposing for Northern Ireland is a dual regulatory system that encompasses either EU or UK regulation as those businesses choose, which reflects its unique status of having a close relationship with the EU while being part of the UK single market.

Bosnia and Herzegovina: Stability and Peace

Stephen Farry Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the concerning political situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina; expresses its support for institutions set out in the Dayton Peace Agreement, and the office and work of the High Representative, Mr Christian Schmidt; and supports continued efforts by the UK Government and its allies to ensure peace and stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina and to uphold the provisions of the Dayton Peace Agreement.

Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina is not inevitable, yet today we find ourselves closer than ever to conflict in the Balkans. We see the rise of hatred, division, sectarianism and the ugly beast of nationalism. We see fears rising, and still-raw wounds being ripped open. That is why I have called for today’s debate.

I believe that all of us in this place have one common responsibility as parliamentarians, to protect our nation, but we also share the responsibility to seek to prevent loss of life and to uphold human rights. With the resolve of once-stalwart partners now in question, now more than ever Britain, and we in this place, must stand up and be counted.

More than 26 years ago, the same hatred, sectarianism and nationalism brought bloodshed to Bosnia. More than 8,000 Muslim men and boys were massacred, women were systematically raped and the lives of more than 100,000 people were taken in a war led by greed and inhumanity. In that war, 57 British soldiers were murdered. I stand here today because that loss of life, those murders and attempted extermination of the Bosniak people, cannot be repeated, and because those whose voices were stolen deserve that we should learn from their silence.

We are here today because peace in Bosnia is under threat, but conflict is not inevitable, and this House can make a difference. Deterrence diplomacy can make a difference. Today we seek to raise our voices to help prevent loss of life, and to uphold human rights and peace, because Britain and this House have an opportunity to prevent history from repeating itself.

Some 26 years ago, the international community secured a fragile truce. The Dayton peace agreement was signed, and in Bosnia a shot has not been fired in anger since. Bloodshed gave way to peace—a fragile peace, but a peace that prevented further loss of life. Over the past few months, however, the leader of Republika Srpska, Milorad Dodik, has put the Dayton peace agreement under enormous strain. He has long worked to systematically undermine the very instruments of stability that he is mandated, as the Serb member of the presidency, to protect.

Dodik has publicly repudiated the Office of the United Nations peacekeeper-in-chief, the UN High Representative, threatened to withdraw Republika Srpska from federal institutions and threatened to withdraw Bosnian Serbs from the armed forces, the judiciary and the police forces. Meanwhile he is significantly increasing military spending, militarising the police force and holding illegal independence day celebrations, showing off vast arrays of submachine guns.

What instigated the crisis we now see unfolding? Ultimately, it was Dodik’s refusal to stop his shameful and insidious campaign of genocide denial and glorification of war criminals. In July, the then High Representative banned the denial of the genocide that took place at Srebrenica. The war crimes that took place during the Bosnian war, and in particular in Srebrenica, are the most heinous committed on European soil since the second world war.

Under Milošević, the ethnic cleansing of Bosnia was industrial and the motive clear: extermination. I believe that this House is united in agreeing that what took place was a genocide. It is important that we say so here in this place, the mother of all Parliaments, and that the UK and our Parliament give the High Representative our full support in ensuring any genocide denial law is implemented. Amid that backdrop, I hope it is already abundantly clear to Members why the Dayton peace agreement must be upheld.

Some have rightly noted that the Dayton peace agreement merely froze the results of the ethnic cleansing, and did not represent a true healing. We have probably all asked ourselves whether there should be a redrawing of the lines if that would bring down tensions, but it would be a grievous error. That would be to give ethno-nationalism, hatred, and ethnic cleansing a victory, to say that communities cannot co-exist, that we will reward division and hatred as forms of negotiation, and that the policies of ethnic cleansing in the ‘90s were not only successful, but are now being mandated. I am deeply concerned about reports that there is a growing view or opinion in Brussels, and even in America, that Bosnia and Herzegovina should be split, and the Republika Srpska allowed to secede. If that is true, it is entirely contrary to the Dayton peace agreement, and contrary to our principles that we share as members of the international community. It would, in effect, enshrine the results of 1990s ethnic cleansing.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate, and I agree with what she is saying about not redrawing boundaries that have now been established for more than 25 years. Does she recognise that one way that we can perhaps try to evolve the Dayton agreement is through trying to build up civil society in Bosnia, particularly on a multi-ethnic basis, and to encourage and support those voices to come together and try to create more of a shared vision for Bosnia in its entirety as a single entity?

[Alicia Kearns]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but I had a chilling conversation this morning with the UN High Representative, who joins us today from the Gallery. He said that civil society is not where it should be, that it is chilling how divided it is, and how it is not able to bring people together. But yes, the Foreign Office should be looking at exactly how we support civil society, as should all our allies.

There have been increasing noises that the EU will also accept negotiation on genocide denial and electoral law, accommodating Dodik’s appalling undermining of state institutions and stability. I hope the House will join me in condemning those sentiments without qualification, and that the Minister will make representations to her European Union counterparts that any such split would be unacceptable. No deal can be done as long as the threat of secession is used as a bargaining chip. I wish also to acknowledge that Dodik does not have unanimous support for his behaviour, and it is important that we do not internationally accept his position as representative of the will of Serbs and Bosnian Serbs. There is opposition. Only a couple of weeks ago he tried to pass laws that would undermine the Dayton agreement, and his majority unravelled.

Before I turn to my asks of the Minister, I wish to thank her, as well as my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary, for their engagement on this situation over the last two months, and I put on record the alacrity with which they have responded to the concerns raised. I commend them for inviting the High Representative, Christian Schmidt, to the UK, for putting Bosnia on the agenda at the NATO ministerial meeting in Riga this week, for arranging two ministerial visits to Bosnia just this week, and for announcing this morning a special envoy for the western Balkans. But I now turn to my further asks, and I urge the Minister to build on that track record urgently and raise the situation with her American counterparts who, only this morning for the first time, tweeted their concerns about this issue. Yes, it is just a tweet, but words and diplomacy matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Lloyd]

I do not disagree, but look at the progress we have and have not made in Northern Ireland. This takes time, but it is a real issue. That is why we cannot let Bosnia and Herzegovina disappear off the radar again as other crises move in and out. Belarus matters—as the Minister knows, I am deeply involved in Belarus—and I can name conflicts all around the world, but this issue in the western Balkans also matters.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the role he played as shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In the light of the comparison that he is making, it is worth stressing that there are similarities with the Good Friday agreement, which did lock in identity back in 1998, and to some extent, has not evolved, as Dayton also has not. However, the key issue is how we build up the civil society and try to create the overall sense of a Bosnian identity and work on shared and integrated education and other areas that he supported Northern Ireland in during his time in post.

[Tony Lloyd]

I am grateful for that intervention because my hon. Friend leads me on to my next point, which is a simple one. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton said, importantly, that Dodik is not the voice of every Bosnian Serb. We have to make sure that we speak to the majority of Bosnian Serbs and say, “There is a different future. It is not Russia—it is not with Moscow. It is not even with the mad voices coming from across the border in Serbia. It is something very different.” But we have to give the incentives that we promised but never delivered on, and we have to think seriously about what that means. We cannot offer European Union membership—it is not in our gift—but we can think about NATO, which is certainly a possibility, although NATO cannot interfere in internal conflicts in any easy way. However, there has to be conversation with the decent people among the Bosnian Serbs to make sure that they can see a better future that eschews the kind of nationalist rhetoric that will damage them and permanently lock Bosnia and Herzegovina into a past that is unthinkable and deny it a future that is possible.

There are big things to play for. This debate is an important part of that. Let us give the very clear message that we do care. We will not go away. We want the Bosnian Serbs to work with the Croats and the Bosniaks to guarantee that future. Yes, let us rethink the structure around Dayton in as short a time as we can. Let us make sure, if necessary, that we sanction the individuals, such as Dodik, who would do harm. And let us make sure that we simply do not let this disappear once again from the agenda.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Stephen Farry Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I appreciate that, Mr Speaker.

My hon. Friend will know that the UK has zero tolerance for holocaust denial, wherever it comes about. I can assure her that we will continue working with our international friends to ensure that the Republika Srpska understands that its actions are unacceptable and that there will be consequences if they continue.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

I worked in Bosnia in the late 1990s with political parties and civil society. Does the Minister recognise that one of the downsides of the Dayton agreement was that it institutionalised political difference and crowded out any multi-ethnic voices from the political space? What more can the Government do today to support civil society, especially on a multi-ethnic basis, to have a more powerful voice to combat the forces of division in Bosnia?

[James Cleverly]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about the Dayton accords. They serve an important function in underpinning peace; I do not think that they were ever envisaged as a permanent structural solution to the situation. Ultimately, our focus at the moment is on the High Representative and his work in the here and now. The future evolution of a political and social structure in Bosnia and Herzegovina is a subject that we will need to look at once we have resolved the current issue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Farry Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)]

10. What diplomatic steps she is taking to support the safe passage of (a) UK citizens and (b) Afghan nationals from Afghanistan.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

21. What steps her Department is taking to assist vulnerable Afghans leave Afghanistan to places of safety.

[The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)]

The Government continue to do all they can to ensure safe passage of eligible individuals who wish to leave Afghanistan. The UK has had constructive engagement with near neighbours, led by my noble Friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon. British nationals continue to be facilitated and supported in their exit from Afghanistan, including through Qatar Airways flights. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met Afghan evacuees and the Qatari authorities on this very issue on her recent trip.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Farry]

Outside the ARAP scheme and within Operation Pitting, a number of other people were called forward for evacuation. Can the Minister give the House full transparency in terms of how many people were actually called forward, how many people were evacuated, and how many of that cohort still remain in Afghanistan?

[James Cleverly]

Since 28 August, over 500 more individuals eligible to come to the UK have been able to leave Afghanistan, as well as more than 400 British nationals and their dependants. We have assisted over 135 British nationals and their dependants to leave Afghanistan on Qatar-chartered flights. The total number of people who may be eligible is almost impossible for us to assess with clarity.

Global Human Security

Stephen Farry Excerpts

Tuesday 13th April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I very much welcome today’s debate and pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for tabling this discussion, in which I want to raise a number of key points.

Fundamentally, this is about a reconceptualisation of security, away from essentially—in some respects, almost purely—national security towards human security. Historically, international law and security have largely been framed through the lens of the nation state. Threats have been considered in terms of the effect of aggression, or things such as economic warfare, on the autonomy of states. Obviously those are still realities in many respects, both for the UK and other states around the world. None the less, it is important that we change our assessment of threats and do so in a way that reflects our changing values.

Many speakers have referred to the importance of human rights. If we are to conceive human rights as genuinely universal, that cannot be just a theory. We must try to live that out in practice, and that means having a serious conversation about what it means to be secure. There are multiple dimensions to that, including someone’s personal autonomy and dignity, their economic prospects and prosperity, the most fundamental of which is their food security, and their opportunities, not least in education—educational opportunity for girls is a theme that many Members have been keen to stress—as well as basic freedoms and rights, and also more recently, with the realities of climate change, environmental security.

But this is not simply a question of altruism. We have to recognise our interdependence with what happens in the rest of the world—with our closest neighbours, but also with those much further afield. There are three major interlinking themes, which we are all very conscious of at present. One is the looming climate change and the climate emergency, and what we need to do by 2050 to ensure carbon neutrality. We cannot simply view that through the lens of the UK alone; we have to ensure that the world is moving at the same pace. The UK has a particular responsibility, as one of the states that industrialised first and that has historically been one of the greater polluters, to show leadership and bring others with us. We also have issues with migration flows and how destabilising they can be, so we must understand the reasons why people are often pushed to flee from their own societies.

Then we have the issue of pandemics. We do not know what lies in the future, even whenever we think beyond covid, but that reinforces the importance of seeing health security in a global sense, because the UK can never be fully safe unless the rest of the world is properly vaccinated. It is therefore important that the UK builds upon what I acknowledge to be strong leadership through COVAX and does more to try to ensure that the rest of the world is keeping pace with the UK.

Over the last number of decades, we have seen a range of conflicts and war zones around the world, and many of those have involved gross abuses of human rights right through to ethnic cleansing and genocide. We have to be honest that at times there has been a certain selectivity in terms of how different states around the world have responded.

I remember growing up in the 1980s and seeing the images from Cambodia on TV screens, and how that conflict was essentially parked by the great powers because it did not suit anyone’s interests to get involved. In effect, genocide occurred as we looked on with a degree of futility. More recently in the 1990s, we saw the situation in Rwanda where it was blatantly obvious what was happening and a full-scale genocide took place within a matter of weeks, but the world looked away because it was not viewed as an issue of national interest or people had been exhausted by interventions that had taken place elsewhere.

Other conflicts, even the situation in eastern Congo through to Yemen today, have not received the same degree of attention that other war zones have received from the international community because other interests have come to pass. Often where we have intervened or sought to use our influence, these have not been the ones where the greatest loss of life has occurred. Of course, where we have taken action has been important and was the correct decision to make, but we have at times turned a blind eye because we did not have either the capacity or the will to address certain situations. When we have intervened, it has been due to overspill issues or where the UK has had historical interests and relationships, or what used to be termed the CNN effect where TV cameras have shamed the world into action—leaving other situations where TV cameras perhaps have not been present without proper due attention.

I am not being naïve in suggesting that we move away entirely from the traditional national security lens. Clearly, there are huge threats out there that we would have to be alert to and address, and those are in many respects state-based threats from both Russia and China. However, the balance needs to change and the integrated review should be a pivot in that respect. We need to see a greater focus on international aid and humanitarian assistance, as well as on UN peacekeeping.

It is important that we return to the responsibility to protect doctrine that was developed by the United Nations in the early 2000s. Intervention has become somewhat scarred and undermined by a number of missteps that have occurred in more recent years, but it may be important that we return to that concept and see how it can be reapplied. We need to look at how we can ensure the sustainable development goals are properly developed and fully implemented by 2030.

On a more conceptual basis, we also need to think through what needs to happen in evolving international law, moving away from its roots in national security and issues around nations. We need to reform the United Nations and reconceptualise the concept of national interest.

Human Rights Update

Stephen Farry Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend, and I certainly agree with that statement. Indeed, the UK, alongside the United States and Canada, has reiterated the calls in a common statement today to precisely that effect.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]]

Article 2 of the convention on genocide sets out five different aspects of genocide. I hope that the reluctance to invoke the term “genocide” is not based on avoiding the widespread responsibilities that arise from that under international law. Will the Government now automatically grant refugee status to all Uyghur people fleeing to the UK?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. Asylum applications are quite rightly done independently, rather than just on a political whim. He refers to the definition in the genocide convention. Before coming to the House, I worked on war crimes, including in The Hague. It is very rare that a tribunal has found human rights abuses to amount to genocide because of the specific legal definition, but we do think the right thing is that a tribunal, whether it is domestic or international, makes that judgment.

Counter-Daesh Update

Stephen Farry Excerpts

Thursday 4th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]]

I join in the commendation of many of the actions of the UK Government and, of course, our armed forces. Ultimately, we need a stable and sustainable solution in Syria, Iraq and the wider middle east. On the one hand, we sadly have countries such as Russia and Turkey pulling in negative directions, but on the other hand we have the opportunity of a new Administration in the United States. What consideration is being given to the convening of some form of international conference, possibly under the auspices of the United Nations, to renew diplomacy and find a common way forward?

[Dominic Raab]

That is an interesting idea. Whether something under the auspices of the UN as a whole would be the right way to go is another question, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the new US Administration is actively engaged with partners. The President has made a clear and palpable virtue of consulting not only European partners but many others. Ultimately, many of the challenges that we are talking about result from strategic tensions that need to be resolved and, ultimately, they can be resolved only through diplomatic initiatives. The hon. Gentleman is right to put the emphasis on that, on top of the vital military work that we do and the humanitarian relief that supports and buttresses those efforts.