British Council Staff: Afghanistan

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Milling]

The ACRS will prioritise those who have stood up for our values, such as a democracy and women’s rights in Afghanistan, as well as the most vulnerable groups, including ethnic and religious minorities. We are providing that support for women and girls. The Government have already evacuated thousands of women and girls—for instance, female judges, women’s rights activists and a girls’ football team. Women and girls have been immediately prioritised for resettlement through the resettlement scheme.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I declare an interest, in that I worked for the British Council for 12 years. It is a brilliant organisation that does a huge amount to promote the United Kingdom around the world, and it is deeply disappointing that the UK Government are taking such short-sighted action in cutting the funding to the British Council, leading to the closure of dozens of overseas offices. On the point of the urgent question today, given the huge sacrifices that British Council staff and contractors have made, what discussions has the Minister had with her colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office around expanding the eligibility criteria for the ARAP scheme to include British Council staff and contractors?

[Amanda Milling]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to praise the work of the British Council. It has been instrumental in the work in Afghanistan to support the UK mission there. Ministers across Departments such as Defence and the Home Office are in constant contact, but as I have set out, employees have already been able to resettle to the United Kingdom. The contractors will be eligible based on their risk.

Ukraine

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Ford]

We have signed the Budapest memorandum. The Russians have signed the Budapest memorandum. Russia is clearly in breach of its commitment under that memorandum.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Foreign policy begins at home—our ability to project influence around the world depends on the credibility, integrity and transparency of our Government and our economy here at home—and yet London is awash with dirty Russian money, and the Government have failed for almost two years to implement the recommendations of the Russia report. Will the Minister explain why the Government are dragging their feet on that, because it connects directly to our ability to achieve the objectives that she set out on Ukraine and beyond?

[Vicky Ford]

I absolutely refute the suggestion that we are dragging our feet. We already have a number of sanctions in place. We work with our international partners—we are a leading voice, for example at NATO last week—and we will continue to do so. I will not comment on specific future sanctions, because to do so would make them ineffective. However, I have made it very clear that any incursion into Ukraine by Russia would be a massive mistake and would lead to severe consequences, including severe economic sanctions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Milling]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. We have taken robust action in relation to human rights issues in Xinjiang and Hong Kong, and we have imposed sanctions on those responsible. As I said, no decisions have been made on Government attendance at the Beijing Olympics and Paralympics in 2022.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that, over the weekend, documents emerged that clearly demonstrate that the orders to commit genocide in Xinjiang are coming from the very top of the Chinese Communist party, including from Chen Quanguo and President Xi Jinping himself. For several months, Opposition Members have been calling for a full diplomatic and political boycott of the Beijing winter Olympics in response to those atrocities, but the Government continue to sit on their hands. In the light of this profoundly disturbing new information and amid deep and growing concern about the treatment of tennis player, Peng Shuai, does the Minister think that it is appropriate to send members of our royal family to the Beijing Olympics to rub shoulders with the very people who are orchestrating these horrific crimes against their own people?

[Amanda Milling]

As I said in previous answers, we have taken robust action in response to our concerns. The hon. Gentleman raises a number of issues including that of Peng Shuai, the tennis player. We have imposed sanctions, but in terms of attendance at the winter Olympics, no decisions have been made.

Afghanistan: Inquiry

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Thursday 4th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) for securing this important debate and for his commitment and leadership as Chair of the Defence Committee. I also thank right hon. and hon. Members and their staff across the House for the hard work and professionalism that they have shown, given the tremendous difficulties that they have faced in getting their constituents, family members and other vulnerable people out of Afghanistan over the past few months. Parliamentarians and caseworkers alike can be enormously proud of their efforts, which have shown the House at its best.

Of course, the real heroes of Operation Pitting are the British and American servicemen and women, and those from other allied countries, who worked around the clock in unimaginably difficult circumstances to stand up for the values that we as a nation hold dear by evacuating British nationals, along with the brave Afghans who have supported UK operations in Afghanistan and who have stood up and campaigned for the values that we cherish and hold dear. We all saw the harrowing images from Kabul. It is clear that our country, and particularly our Government, owe those members of our armed services and our diplomatic corps a tremendous debt of gratitude for the work of not just the past few months, but the past 20 years.

The right hon. Gentleman made an eloquent case for the need for a wide-ranging inquiry into Britain’s role in Afghanistan. We agree with the principle of the need for an inquiry, but it is our firm view that the failures that need investigating are primarily those of political leadership that started with the Trump-Taliban Doha agreement. Let me set out why.

First, there is broad agreement that the decision for Britain to join the NATO-led and US-led invasion of Afghanistan was utterly just and right as a response to the most devastating and brutal terrorist attacks on liberal democracy in modern times. Those attacks killed 2,977 innocent civilians, including 67 British citizens, and we were right to defend our national security.

We must never underestimate the pivotal role that our armed forces played in ridding Afghanistan of al-Qaeda, in removing the Taliban from power and in succeeding in the hunt for Osama bin Laden. It can never be said enough that while there was a British presence in Afghanistan, there was not a single terrorist attack on the west from Afghan soil. That is a fine collective achievement of which we should be truly proud.

What our servicemen and women did kept the rest of us safe—it is as simple as that. They also gave Afghan women and girls a level of freedom, education and empowerment that they would never previously have imagined. Let it never be said by anyone that those British soldiers died in vain. We must be absolutely clear on their achievements and their contribution.

Secondly, reports by the Select Committee on Defence already cover in detail the events on the ground in Afghanistan prior to the Trump-Taliban Doha agreement; its fourth report, “Operations in Afghanistan”, has proved particularly valuable to gaining insight and learning lessons. Of course, the armed forces may wish to undertake their own investigation into events to learn lessons from a military, operational and tactical perspective, but I believe that this House has a duty to focus on the political leadership and decision making that took place in the run-up to the Trump-Taliban Doha deal and afterwards, up to the present day.

Thirdly, the time and scale of an inquiry spanning 20 years would be almost unmanageable. I know that the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East said that we cannot use Chilcot as a yardstick, but the reality is that we are not clear on what other yardstick we would use, which is why Labour proposes a very defined scope, based on the milestone of the Trump-Taliban deal. The Chilcot inquiry into Iraq covered eight years of UK activity, beginning in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq; it took seven years to complete. If a similar model were applied to Afghanistan, an inquiry could take up to two decades to complete.

We cannot wait for two decades. Justice delayed is justice denied, so we must prioritise and use the time as effectively as possible. We know that removing the Taliban and defeating al-Qaeda was the right thing to do, but we know that the Doha agreement and events since have been utterly catastrophic, so let us focus on that important and in some ways deeply regrettable chapter in our history. We know that the Taliban are the root cause of the death and destruction that, unfortunately, has come to define Afghanistan since the 1990s, but we need to understand why they were able to defeat the Afghan army at such a shattering scale and pace.

What should the inquiry into the period from February 2020 onwards focus on specifically? Labour proposes the following. First, it must concentrate on learning the lessons from the Doha agreement up to 31 August. Why was there such a failure of diplomacy and of political leadership? Perhaps, on that point, the Minister can help me with a few of the questions that should certainly form part of the inquiry. We know that the Defence Secretary welcomed the Doha agreement between the Taliban and Donald Trump, but what did the UK Government know about that agreement ahead of time? The then Foreign Secretary said that

“we are following the negotiations”—[Official Report, 4 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 415],

so clearly the UK Government were not at the table, but were Ministers even consulted on what was being discussed in Doha?

Despite our Prime Minister doing everything he could to cosy up to Donald Trump, it seems that our Government were left out in the cold. What does that say about the Prime Minister’s ability to build and maintain relationships with our key strategic defence and security partners?

Why were the Afghan Government not only locked out of the negotiating chamber, but completely blindsided by the result of the negotiations? Imagine an Afghan soldier on the ground in Afghanistan seeing the US sidelining their democratically elected Government to do a dirty deal with a misogynistic and murderous bunch of tyrants. No wonder morale collapsed in the Afghan army from that time onwards.

Did the UK Government challenge President Trump on his decision to fatally undermine the Afghan Government and military? We need to know what communications the UK had in the months before the 31 August withdrawal date and what concerns it expressed about the risks that UK and US forces faced.

On 20 April, Labour’s shadow Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), told this House:

“Now, with the full withdrawal of NATO troops, it is hard to see a future without bloodier conflict, wider Taliban control, and greater jeopardy for those Afghanis who worked with the west and…women”.—[Official Report, 20 April 2021; Vol. 692, c. 853.]

Why were Ministers not listening to our shadow Defence Secretary? On 8 July, the Prime Minister said:

“I do not believe that the Taliban are guaranteed the kind of victory that we sometimes read about.”—[Official Report, 8 July 2021; Vol. 698, c. 1107.]

Complacency was rife. Naivety was rife. The consequences were tragic.

Why did the then Foreign Secretary ignore messages from the UK ambassador to Afghanistan, the courageous Laurie Bristow, that made it clear that the Taliban advance was imminent? Warnings began in early July, but the message of most significance came on 2 August, when the ambassador wrote:

“The gloves are off. We are entering a new, dangerous phase of the conflict.”

Previously, on 22 July, the principal risk report by the then Foreign Secretary’s own Department had warned of rapid Taliban advances. Why did he feel that the most appropriate response to those messages was to go on holiday and refuse to make vital calls to his counterparts in other countries?

Secondly, the inquiry should focus on the immediate aftermath of the withdrawal—the months that we are living through right now. Why have so many colleagues failed to get adequate responses from the Foreign Office and Home Office helplines on behalf of their constituents? How many more vulnerable Afghans do the Government have on their list of people who need to be supported to leave the country? Why is the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme still not open for applications? Is it because the Government actually have no intention of ever opening it for applications? Are they in effect pursuing an operation of tapping on the shoulder, rather than opening the scheme up for applications, because the response would be so overwhelming? If so, the Minister should inform the House. Transparency is vital in this matter—lives are at stake.

Have the Government done enough to engage regional powers such as Pakistan to secure safe passage for those who are attempting to flee? How can we ensure that we direct financial and humanitarian support directly to Afghan services such as hospitals and schools, so that we can bypass the illegitimate Taliban regime? What leverage do we have as a result of the frozen £10 billion of reserves that the Afghan Government would have had in the west? What should we be demanding from the Taliban? What conditions should we be insisting they fulfil in return for the unfreezing of those funds?

Finally, the inquiry must focus on understanding the full implications of the Afghanistan withdrawal for Britain’s place in the world, and how it might affect our defence, foreign policy and national security. The British Government’s actions over the past 18 months have not been befitting of a country that has always been an influential voice at the top table of global affairs and that rightly prides itself on being one of the world’s major military powers. We therefore need to know the impact of the Taliban takeover and of the resurgence and insurgence of ISIS-K on the security of the British people.

What strategy are the Government putting in place to deal with terrorist threats from abroad, in Afghanistan and beyond? We need a laser-like focus on countering terrorism if we are to avoid a return to the days before 9/11.

What impact have the Conservative Government’s actions had on the reputation of Britain internationally, and the levels of trust between the UK and its allies, and how can we rebuild our reputation as an alliance maker rather than an alliance breaker? Are we still a country that is genuinely committed to defending the international rules-based order? Are we happy to see the world descend into anarchy? Will the UK be trusted to stand up for places such as Taiwan as China seeks to further its authoritarian influence?

Britain can still look forward to being a proud internationalist country with a proud internationalist future, but this isolationist Conservative Government appear to be intent on diminishing our great nation and diminishing the alliances that are so important to the status and the voice that we have. We therefore commend the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East for his call for an inquiry, while urging him to look at the possibility of narrowing its scope in terms of the specific timeframe that we are discussing, because we believe that that is the best way to hold accountable those who should be held to account, and to ensure that we use all our resources as effectively as possible, because justice delayed is justice denied.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cleverly]

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office takes very seriously the inquiries from Members from every part of the House, and we seek to answer them in a way that informs Members without compromising security or, sometimes, the discreet work that the Department has to do.

The simple fact is that multiple inquiries are being conducted by the Committees of the House into the functions of the Government. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East is leading the inquiry by the Defence Committee that will cover what happened after the US agreement with the Taliban in February 2020—the exact period of time that the hon. Member for Glasgow South mentions. It will also cover the planning and execution of the withdrawal of UK forces and the evacuation of UK nationals and Afghanistan nationals who worked with the British armed forces.

The Government’s view is that these initiatives offer ample scope to address the most important questions. The hon. Member for Aberavon, who knows that I have a huge degree of respect for him, has suggested a more limited inquiry—one that would be limited to a timescale that would prevent it from looking at the role his party might have played when it was in government. While the final stages of the deployment are important, if his proposal were to be taken forward, I think that people might see it as partisan and cynical. As the Prime Minister told the House on 8 July, we do not think an inquiry in addition to those multiple other inquiries is the right way forward.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being very generous. Just to be clear, what I said in my remarks was that there had already been multiple inquiries into the Afghan intervention preceding 2010—some by the Defence Committee. He himself is commending the work of the Defence Committee in making inquiries. We are saying that it is important to prioritise and that we need something that does not take a massive amount of time, as Chilcot did. We are saying this in a genuine spirit of bipartisanship; I am certainly not attempting to be cynical or party political in any way.

[James Cleverly]

I will take the hon. Gentleman at his word. Being an honourable Member is not just some loose title; he is genuinely an honourable gentleman and I take him at his word.

The Government welcome the close interest in these events that the House has taken. We will study recommendations of the inquiries by the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Defence Committee and others with great care. The military campaign in Afghanistan over the past 20 years claimed the lives of 457 British service personnel, but we must never forget that it saved the lives of countless others. We can be proud of what we achieved, in step with our NATO allies, and today we are doing everything we can with our partners to protect those gains, to ensure the UK’s security and to help the Afghan people in their time of greatest need.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I assure him that we hold the Taliban to their word. They will be judged on their actions, rather than just on what they have said. Clearly, they now find themselves the de facto Government of Afghanistan. We have made it clear that the support from us and the wider international community will be contingent on their behaving in a way that they have said that they intend to behave. We will always base our decisions on Afghanistan on the facts on the ground, not just on the words of Taliban spokespeople.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Like the shadow Foreign Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), I welcome the Foreign Secretary and her team to their places.

It has emerged that our ambassador in Kabul sent a series of diplomatic cables to the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), in July and August, warning him that Kabul would fall at pace and with little resistance. The former Foreign Secretary’s response to those urgent telegrams was to go on holiday. Will the new Foreign Secretary assure the House that she is putting early-warning systems in place across her Department to ensure that such a catastrophic failure of decision making is never allowed to occur again? Will she commit to coming to the House within the shortest possible timescale to make a statement outlining our political, diplomatic, economic and security strategy for Afghanistan, as opposed to making policy on the hoof, as her predecessor did?

[James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman takes the opportunity to talk about things that have been widely discussed in this House, rather than about the future. That is of course up to him. The former Foreign Secretary explained his actions and there is nothing much more that I can add. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the ministerial team that she leads remain entirely focused on ensuring that where we can exert influence to bring about peace and stability in Afghanistan, we will continue to do so.

AUKUS: Impact on Anglo-Chinese Relations

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies. I would also like to thank the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for securing this important debate on a crucial matter.

Hon. Members will recognise that we live in an increasingly uncertain world. Liberal democracy is no longer the only show in town. In fact, a study for the University of Gothenburg showed that for the first time since 2001, democracies are outnumbered by authoritarian regimes. That was before the coup in Burma and the Taliban’s advances in Afghanistan.

We are duty bound to respond to the world as it is, not how we would like it to be. The UK and its allies therefore need to wise up, not to provoke and inflame tensions, but to deter aggressive and bellicose behaviour that threatens British interests and those of our allies and our liberal democratic values.

It is in that spirit that Labour Front Benchers welcome AUKUS and its increased defence co-operation with our allies. Australia and the US are two of our closest security partners, and sharing resources and intelligence and co-ordinating with democratic allies should always make Britain safer. However, this partnership will only make Britain safer if the UK Government enter into the agreement with a view to AUKUS complementing the defence and security responsibilities we already share with a large number of our other allies. The Labour party supports AUKUS, but we must be absolutely clear that it should not create a perception that we are turning our backs on our other democratic partners and allies. The UK Government must therefore make clear to the other two members of the Five Eyes partnership, Canada and New Zealand, that we value those relationships, and that AUKUS will enhance, rather than diminish, the work of the Five Eyes.

Even more critically, we must re-assert our unwavering commitment to NATO and the European security partnerships that are of such fundamental importance to the security of the British people. It was therefore troubling to see the way in which AUKUS was announced: in a cack-handed manner, without our European partners being properly informed or consulted. It seems that we disposed with the diplomatic norms that are expected of a close ally. The conduct around the deal has caused considerable damage to relations with France, much of which should have been foreseen and could have been avoided. Diplomatic rows that allow NATO to be weakened do not serve our interests, but play directly into the hands of others. France is a crucial NATO ally: for example, British and French soldiers are currently serving side by side in Mali to counter terrorism and support UN peacekeeping. The world is crying out for the UK to get back to its long-established role as an alliance builder, yet for every relationship this Conservative Government try to strengthen, they tend to damage another. This is not the way to go about international relations, or to run a proud and influential country such as ours.

To be clear, it is the Labour party’s view that it absolutely makes sense to develop our political and economic ties in the Indo-Pacific. We support building deeper partnerships across the region, particularly with its democratic Governments, but this Government are tilting—or, more accurately, lurching—because they are unbalanced, because they lack the anchor of a strong and effective relationship with Europe. While the UK lacks that anchor, we continue to risk the threat of increasingly powerful headwinds blowing us off course. It is therefore critical that this AUKUS arrangement does not mean resources being redirected from Europe to the Indo-Pacific, and that it strengthens our NATO alliance and other strategic partnerships.

The Government must stop setting up false binaries. We need an alliance-based foreign policy that strengthens our ties with Europe, our ties with the democratic countries of the Indo-Pacific, and the transatlantic relationship. It is not either/or that is the basis of a successful alliance-based foreign policy, but both/and. Can the Minister make a firm commitment today that her Government will maintain that same level of resources and engagement with NATO in the decades ahead? Can she also be clear about how she intends to rebuild those critical relationships, most notably with France?

With the AUKUS partnership going ahead, it is of course vital that Britain gets its fair share of the economic benefits. Jobs and investment simply must come to the UK, and the Government must put the interests of British workers front and centre during this 18-month proposal period. Will the Minister outline how in the eyes of her Government, UK businesses, communities and workers stand to benefit from the AUKUS programme in tangible terms?

Given the sensitivities involved in sharing nuclear technology, it is important for the deal to be pursued in a way that is consistent with all our international obligations. The Government must ensure that AUKUS meets all our commitments under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and adheres to relevant International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. Clearly, we recognise that Australia has no intention whatever to acquire nuclear weapons, nor does AUKUS enable that in any way. However, questions have been asked about the use of highly enriched uranium as a component of the deal, because of the precedent that might be set that other countries might seek to take advantage of, given that UK and US nuclear submarines operate using such uranium. Will the Minister therefore confirm whether the intention is to use a submarine design that requires highly enriched uranium and, if so, whether that material will be supplied from the UK?

More broadly, AUKUS should be matched by stronger efforts to support nuclear non-proliferation arms control and multilateral disarmament. The global non-proliferation architecture has come under increasing strain in recent years. Ministers have been bystanders, publicly doing and saying nothing. Before, the UK was a leader of global efforts to promote multilateral disarmament. It is high time for us to rediscover leadership of the issue.

AUKUS has been billed as wider co-operation between the UK, the US and Australia beyond the collaboration on submarines, but there has been precious little detail about what that will involve. How do the Government intend to make the partnership meaningful in other areas, in particular on broader technological co-operation?

The wider context of the agreement is the threat to an open and secure Asia-Pacific region. China’s recent actions pose risks to UK interests and to our allies. China’s increasingly aggressive stance threatens a stable trading environment, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. It is important to address those risks. We have seen increased tension in the region, threats to freedom of navigation, efforts to undermine international law in the South China sea and completely unreasonable economic and diplomatic pressure applied to Australia simply for calling for an international inquiry into the origins of covid-19.

China’s aggression towards Taiwan is deeply troubling. We have seen a big increase in the number of Chinese fighter jets and bombers buzzing Taiwan’s air defence identification zone in a clear attempt to intimidate Taiwan’s democratically elected leaders. The country in the region that is destabilising the status quo is China—let us be in no doubt about that—so China’s calls about other countries destabilising the status quo are deeply ironic. Those moves raise tension in the region and create the risk of an accident or miscalculation that could have dire consequences. The UK Government and our allies need to make it clear to the Chinese Government that such actions are dangerous and counterproductive.

AUKUS is not about provoking China, but about deepening co-operation between like-minded allies who share a commitment to each other’s security and a vision of a peaceful and open Indo-Pacific region. After the Government’s failed “golden era” approach, the UK must now ensure that the new arrangement increases rather than decreases our ability to influence China. The Labour party will take a strong, clear-eyed and consistent approach, seeking to co-operate with China where we can on issues such as climate change and global health, while standing firm in defence of human rights, freedom and security. On security, we believe that AUKUS in tandem with NATO can play an important role in rebalancing a relationship that, under consecutive Conservative Governments, became far too weighted in favour of Beijing, to the detriment of the British people.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Amanda Milling)]

Thank you, Mr Davies. You are absolutely right that David Amess will be sorely missed by everyone in the House. I, too, put on the record my sincerest condolences to his family. We are thinking of them at this really difficult time.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) for securing the debate. I am also grateful to Members across the House for this wide-ranging discussion on such an important matter.

I will pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan), whose first time it is in Westminster Hall. This is my first time in Westminster Hall for about three years—I think I secured a debate on a very different subject, which I had to have cancelled when I was appointed to the Whips Office. As I say, it has been a wide-ranging debate, and I want to be clear at the outset that AUKUS will help to support peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region. It is not aimed at any one country. As many Members have mentioned, the defence and security relationship between the UK and Australia, as with the United States, is long-standing. Both are trusted allies with whom we share a vision for the world. For more than 70 years we have worked together, along with other allies, to protect our shared values and to promote security and prosperity. The formation of AUKUS recommits us to that vision.

A number of Members have mentioned the non-proliferation treaty, and there have been some claims that AUKUS will lead to nuclear proliferation, undermining the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and fuelling an arms race. I can assure hon. Members that AUKUS will do no such thing. The programme will be consistent with our international obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which we, like the US, take extremely seriously. Australia remains committed to its obligations as a non-nuclear weapons state, including to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Australia has impeccable non-proliferation credentials, and it has made it clear that it does not and will not seek to procure or manufacture nuclear weapons. Australia is committed to the highest safeguarding standards, to ensure the safety and security of nuclear material and technology.

I turn to the integrated review and the wider Indo-Pacific tilt. The integrated review underlined the UK’s commitment to diplomatic security and economic engagement across the Indo-Pacific region. By 2030, the Indo-Pacific will represent more than 40% of global GDP. I returned at the weekend from a tour of the Philippines, Singapore and Japan, in my first visit to the region as Minister for Asia. I saw at first hand the enthusiasm of our Indo-Pacific partners for greater UK engagement. The deployment of the UK carrier strike group is an embodiment of our commitment to the region’s security, and I had the pleasure of visiting HMS Queen Elizabeth in Singapore. I eventually got on board the aircraft carrier. I remember visiting it when it was being built in Scotland, I think in late 2015—I had to go to Singapore to get back on to the aircraft carrier. I was able to discuss our commitment to the region’s security with Commodore Steve Moorhouse, the commander of the carrier strike group.

We have recently become a dialogue partner of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and applied to join CPTPP, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham mentioned. CPTTP membership is a key part of the Government’s plan to position the UK at the centre of a network of modern free trade deals that supports jobs and drives economic growth. AUKUS is further demonstration of our long-term commitment to the Indo-Pacific region, helping to build closer and deeper partnerships. It is on that basis that we will have further collaboration, which will help to enhance our joint capabilities and operations. The UK has a range of enduring security interests in the Indo-Pacific and many important defence relationships, and AUKUS will supplement them.

The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) mentioned NATO. The UK and US are already leading members of NATO, the world’s most important defence alliance. The work done by AUKUS will support our shared goals in new regions. AUKUS is good for NATO and good for Euro-Atlantic security. As the Prime Minister said in his statement to the House, the UK’s commitment to NATO is “absolutely unshakeable”. That in no way affects our commitment to European security or to NATO.

A number of Members mentioned Taiwan and the recent tensions in the Taiwan strait.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Will the Minister give way?

[Amanda Milling]

I am struggling for time, as I need to give my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham time at the end.

We are clear that the numerous Chinese military flights in recent weeks near Taiwan are not conducive to peace and stability in the region. We need a peaceful resolution through constructive dialogue by the people on both sides of the Taiwan strait. We have no diplomatic relations with Taiwan but a strong unofficial relationship based on dynamic commercial, education and cultural ties. We support Taiwan’s participation in international organisations where statehood is not a prerequisite. We are also committed to defending the UN convention on the law of the sea in the South China sea. In September 2020, my predecessor set out our legal analysis on the South China sea in full to Parliament for the first time. We objected to Chinese claims that we consider inconsistent with UNCLOS, which we have reiterated in subsequent statements.

I will turn briefly to UK-France relations, which was mentioned by both Front-Bench speakers. We have a long-standing security and defence relationship with France. We are close NATO allies and have an excellent history of operational co-operation. The Defence Secretary spoke to his French counterpart before the announcement. We will continue to consult each other daily on international defence and security arrangements.

Turning to China, as the integrated review made clear, China’s increasing power and international assertiveness is likely to be the most significant geopolitical factor of the 2020s. As G20 members with permanent seats on the UN Security Council, we must work together, from increasing trade and rebuilding the global economy to co-operation in science innovation. Co-operation with China will be vital to tackle transnational challenges, particularly climate change and biodiversity loss. But as we engage, we will not sacrifice our values or national security. China is an authoritarian state with different values from the UK. The Government consistently take action to hold China to its international obligations and commitments, including responding robustly to its human rights violations in Xinjiang and its breach of the Sino-British joint declaration in Hong Kong. We will continue to speak and take action to promote our values and protect our national security. Working with international partners, we have imposed sanctions in respect of Xinjiang and led joint action at the United Nations, while continuing to build our domestic resilience.

I am conscious of time, as I want to give my hon. Friend a couple of minutes to wind up. AUKUS opens a new chapter in Britain’s friendship with one of our closest allies. The project will help safeguard the security of the Indo-Pacific, and make the world a safer place.

Human Rights: Kashmir

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), and the Backbench Business Committee, for the opportunity to have this important debate. I also thank all Members on both sides of the House who made such passionate and eloquent contributions, and I welcome the Minister to her place and congratulate her on her appointment.

The conflict in Jammu and Kashmir has been going on for 72 years; it is the world’s longest unresolved conflict. It dates back to 1947, and it is defined by a long and tragic history of political and military conflict. In that year, the British state was, as the departing colonial power, a signatory to the instrument of accession, which gave Kashmir a high degree of autonomy—

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on that really important point. Many of my constituents in Luton South say that the UK has a vital role to play in this international issue, and that it should not just be left as a bilateral issue. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Stephen Kinnock]

Absolutely. It is not just about an historical responsibility; it is also about the fact that we have so many ties that bind us now, in 2021, so there is an opportunity to work with our friends and partners in India and Pakistan, and with the Kashmiri people, to find a peaceful solution.

At the same time, in 1947, India was granted control over Kashmir’s foreign affairs, defence and communications. Since then, we have seen countless UN resolutions, plus many other diplomatic interventions, each attempting to resolve the Kashmir conflict. Perhaps the most significant was the Simla agreement, which was concluded following the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971. The Labour party strongly supports the conclusions of the Simla agreement, in particular its conclusion that issues involving India, Pakistan and Kashmir should be negotiated between the parties and that no state should deploy force or act unilaterally.

[Imran Hussain]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I apologise to my hon. Friend, but I am going to run out of time.

[Imran Hussain]

It is on that point.

[Stephen Kinnock]

If my hon. Friend can make his intervention extremely short, I will give way.

[Imran Hussain]

I thank my hon. Friend; it is on a very important point. Does he agree that the Simla agreement, as important as it is, does not take precedence over United Nations resolutions?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I think it is important to see Simla and the UN resolutions as a framework for peace. What is very important in all those resolutions is that the agreements and peace negotiations have to be between all the parties. That is the key point about not taking unilateral action, which I will come to.

The Labour party does not interfere with the internal affairs of other nations, but we do seek to uphold what we see as universal values; namely, respect for the rule of law, support for democracy and the promotion of universal rights and freedoms. Where we see those principles being violated, we will comment, and we will urge other Governments to take action and change course.

Fifty years after Simla, we recognise that the situation on the ground is deeply troubling. By some accounts, as many as 95,000 people have been killed in the last 30 years alone, and Kashmir is recognised as the most heavily militarised place in the world. It is deeply distressing that Kashmir has become a political football in a sordid game of great power competition between India, China and Pakistan. What a dangerous game that is, given that each of those nations holds nuclear capabilities.

[Mr Steve Baker]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I am going to have to push on.

On 5 August 2019, the Indian Government’s Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act unilaterally revoked article 370 and replaced the autonomous state of Jammu and Kashmir with two new union territories governed directly by New Delhi: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. What followed was an Indian army-imposed lockdown in Jammu and Kashmir, lasting until February 2021, in tandem with a communications blackout. The lockdown and the internet ban had a far-reaching impact on every aspect of life for the Kashmiri people; education, health services and media freedom were all undermined. The Indian Government maintain that their decision to unilaterally revoke article 370 is an internal matter, claiming that such actions do not interfere with the boundaries of the territory or the line of control, and citing security concerns based on attacks by what New Delhi believes to be Pakistan-backed militant groups. Indeed, we all recall with great sadness the tragic suicide-bomb attack on 14 February 2019, which targeted Indian soldiers in Kashmir.

However, the Labour Party recognises that those who are opposed to the revocation of article 370, and the subsequent lockdown, are understandably angered by what they see as a unilateral act of aggression on the part of the Indian Government. There can be no doubt that that unilateral action was counterproductive in terms of trying to achieve a peaceful and just long-term settlement. Furthermore, in line with Labour’s commitments to universal rights and the rule of law, we urge the Indian Government to consider carefully the impact on the individual rights and freedoms of innocent Kashmiri citizens when taking such significant action.

I also make clear that the Labour party will always speak up vociferously in defence of the human rights of the people of Kashmir. On that note, we recognise the hardship faced by those living in Pakistan-administered Azad Kashmir, where the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Elections Act 2020 clearly contravened universal freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly. In a letter to the Muslim Council of Britain on 8 May, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the Leader of the Opposition, made it clear that all sides must play their part in ending the conflict. He wrote:

“Our position on Kashmir has not changed. We support and recognise previous UN resolutions on the rights of the Kashmiri people but maintain that if we are to find a lasting settlement…that can only be achieved”

by

“India and Pakistan working together, with the people of Kashmir”.

It is with that in mind that I have the following questions for the Minister.

First, since taking up her new role, has she yet sought to impress on her Indian and Pakistani counterparts the need for a plan to demilitarise the larger Kashmiri region? On that note, has she met yet with the high commissioner for India? Did she make clear the need for the Indian Government to uphold human rights in Jammu and Kashmir?

Secondly, what meetings has the Minister had with human rights organisations about the situation in Jammu and Kashmir? Does she give support to the work of the International People’s Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Kashmir, which seeks to address the human rights situation?

Thirdly, do the Government have any plans to send a delegation to Jammu and Kashmir to assess the human rights situation and to report back to Parliament? Her predecessor said that the Government were looking to do that once the pandemic allowed.

Finally, will the UK Government commit to doing all they can to support and work with representatives from India, Pakistan and Jammu and Kashmir, including all five regions, to deliver justice, peace and resolution to that terrible conflict? I welcome her again to her place, and I look forward to hearing her answers.

Beijing Winter Olympics and Chinese Government Sanctions

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

First, I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for putting forward his motion today and for securing this important debate. Today, I want to set out the Labour party’s position on the genocide that is taking place in Xinjiang—according to all the available evidence we have, it is happening—and to also set out why we wholeheartedly support the motion before the House today.

In a little over six months, the global spotlight will fall on Beijing as the city plays host to the 2022 winter Olympics. The games should be a celebration of sporting achievement and a powerful symbol of our shared humanity, but next year’s event will take place under a dark shadow. There is now an extensive and undeniable body of evidence pointing to the relentless state-sponsored persecution of the Uyghur Muslim minority in Xinjiang province, including the mass detention of more than a million people, first-hand accounts of forced labour camps, the enforced separation of children from parents and harrowing reports of forced sterilisation. We have heard first-hand testimonies from brave Uyghur women speaking out about their experiences, and we have seen the important in-depth research from academic Adrian Zenz that uses the Chinese Government’s own publicly available data on Xinjiang’s population change. Who can forget the film shown to the former Chinese ambassador on “The Andrew Marr Show” of shaven-headed, blindfolded Uyghur being hoarded on to trains by Chinese officials at gunpoint?

The evidence is both compelling and overwhelming, and until the Chinese Government allow UN investigators full and unfettered access to Xinjiang to carry out their investigations, this is the evidence that we in this House and this Government must use as the basis for our opinions and subsequent actions. In April, it was this evidence that led this House to determine that genocide was being committed against the Uyghur people, a matter on which Conservative Members were shamefully instructed to abstain by the Government.

Now we are approaching the point at which a decision must be made regarding the Beijing winter Olympics. There are some who would argue that politics and sport should not mix, but from National Football League star Colin Kaepernick taking the knee and Marcus Rashford shaming the Government into U-turning on free school meals to the England football team’s united stance against divisive dog-whistle politics this week, we have seen that many issues do transcend the divide between sport and politics.

This is not a new phenomenon. We only need to look back to the 1980s, when the sporting world played an integral role in piling pressure on the South African Government to end its racist apartheid agenda. I am not sure how Conservative Members feel about this given the position that the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, took on the matter, but as a huge British and Irish Lions rugby fan and as an internationalist, I still feel tremendously proud of the stance the Lions took. Their refusal to tour South Africa throughout the 1980s is irrefutable evidence of the power of sport to deliver progress and positive change.

Now is the moment to harness that Lions spirit and send a clear message to the Chinese Communist party that oppression and discrimination can never be tolerated. Today, Labour is calling for a political and diplomatic boycott of the Beijing games, as set out in a letter from my hon. Friends the shadow Foreign Secretary and the shadow Culture Secretary to their opposite numbers on 7 July.

The Olympic games have of course become a symbol of our global interconnectedness, bringing together athletes from across the world to compete under the Olympic values of excellence, respect and friendship. At their best, they are a testament to sport’s ability to bridge divisions of culture, language, geography and race. Yet while many sportspeople have chosen to use their platform to show solidarity or to amplify the message of causes and movements, it would be wrong to expect them to sacrifice years of hard work and dedication to make up for the inaction and failings of their Government, nor would calling for a sporting boycott or for the cancellation of the 2022 games be fair on the Chinese people, who are not responsible for the atrocities being committed by their Government. We need to be absolutely clear that Britain stands in solidarity with the Chinese people against oppression, and that this solidarity can be strengthened by enhanced cultural understanding between western and Chinese people and communities. This is why a political and diplomatic boycott is without doubt the position the Government must adopt.

Over the past year, along with international allies, the UK Government have rightly supported calls from the United Nations for unfettered access to Xinjiang in order to conduct a full investigation into the treatment of the Uyghur, yet China has remained unmoved. That is not to say that the UK Government’s demands have been particularly strong. As is so often the case with this Conservative Government, strong rhetoric is yet to be matched by meaningful action, and I will come back to that in my questions to the Minister shortly.

On the assumption that access to Xinjiang will not be granted by 14 September, the start of the next United Nations General Assembly, Labour has made it clear that no member of the royal family, UK politician or senior official should attend the games, as we cannot expect those individuals to be put in a position where they are serving to legitimise attempts by the Chinese Government to sportswash, to take the word of the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), the genocide that is being perpetrated against its own people. In short, sending royals or officials to Beijing in February would not be fair on those individuals, would not be right for our country and would be a betrayal of the Uyghur people.

Today’s debate is an opportunity for this House and the Government to take a clear and unambiguous stance against the atrocities being committed by the Chinese Government by supporting the motion. I urge all those on the Government Benches to support the motion and send a clear message about what kind of country we are—a nation that stands against genocide and for human rights.

It is clear that Conservative Members are divided on this issue. I commend any hon. Member on the Conservative Benches who takes a stand against the Government’s weak approach on China, which is rooted in the type of naivety and complacency that have epitomised the approach of successive Conservative Governments over the past decade, from the so-called golden era to the present day.

With that in mind, I have the following questions for the Minister. Does he think it is right that the Prime Minister is set to put members of the royal family and, by association, Her Majesty the Queen in the awkward and uncomfortable position of appearing to endorse a regime that is responsible for genocide? Why are the Government doing all they can to avoid votes in Parliament on China? Is it because they recognise that they are on the wrong side of public opinion and on the wrong side of opinion in this House?

What recent pressure have the Government put on the Chinese Government to allow UN investigators to enter Xinjiang province? Where are the Magnitsky sanctions on Chen Quanguo? It has been a full six months since the Foreign Secretary announced a supposedly urgent review of export controls on UK products sold into Xinjiang. When will we see that report? When will the Government make genuine, substantive legislative changes to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to toughen up supply chain due diligence?

Will the Minister send a clear message that, by the time of the next UN General Assembly meeting, China must have not only granted full and unfettered access for the UN to Xinjiang, but removed the entirely unjust sanctions that have been placed on Members of this House and of the other place by the Chinese Government? And will he take steps to ensure that China is not awarded the 2030 World cup, bidding for which begins in June 2022?

If global Britain is to mean anything, it should mean upholding our values and defending human rights, no matter where in the world they are under threat. For too long, the Government have been naïve, complacent and inconsistent in their approach to China. Today’s debate should be a turning point that leads to actions, not words. To do otherwise would be to hand the Chinese Government the propaganda coup that they crave, at the expense of our country’s reputation and obligations.

A genocide is taking place in Xinjiang. This Government now have a choice. Are they going to look the other way and send senior representatives to Beijing in February, or are they going to take a stand and understand that sending those representatives would be a betrayal of our values? Enough is enough. It is time to draw a line in the sand. We on the Opposition Benches recognise that, and that is why we shall be supporting this motion today.

Draft European Union and European Atomic Energy Community (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2021

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2021 General Committees

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie. I appreciate the Minister’s introduction of this statutory instrument, which we are happy to support. Like him, I believe that outside the EU, we need to use opportunities to build a better relationship between the UK and other countries. Of course, the European Union is very much included in that consideration. We need to foster strong ties with our allies and partners across the channel, and we hope that the instrument will make a contribution to rebuilding some of the bridges that have, unfortunately, been burned over the last few years.

The legislation will give immunity to certain representatives and staff from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community in the UK following the recent co-operation agreement within that framework. It is a welcome step forward that that has been agreed and is being put in place, but the Government’s approach to the issue has been slow and reckless to the point of unnecessarily souring that relationship.

We recall reports at the beginning of this year that the Government were not rapidly expediting the process of granting diplomatic status to the European Union, and I think it is rather shameful that they took so long to ensure that our relationship with the EU was put back on a proper and formal footing. In the end, it came across as petty political point scoring, which soured a relationship that was already going through a very challenging process of negotiation. I do not think that helped to move our rapprochement with the European Union in the right direction. What is done is done—that is water under the bridge—and there are lessons to be learned for the future on trying to build a positive and constructive relationship.

I have some technical questions. First, the instrument was laid before the House on 17 May, and the commencement article states that it will come into force

“on the day after the day on which it is made, or the day on which the Agreement enters into force for the United Kingdom, whichever is the later.”

I assume that the agreement is in force, and therefore that the powers in the statutory instrument will commence forthwith, but will the Minister clarify the precise date on which the immunities will be brought in as a result of this secondary legislation?

Secondly, the explanatory memorandum states that Scotland will pass its own legislation owing to devolved competence, but when will the Scottish piece of this jigsaw puzzle be put in place?

Finally, the Government have confirmed that, as part of the agreement, information on the EU will be provided regularly. What sort of information will it be? How will that be shared and what will be contained within in? It would be useful to hear that from the Minister. The bottom line is that we welcome the statutory instrument and the Minister’s introduction of it.

Detention of Jagtar Singh Johal

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 30th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. As the shadow Minister who has been lobbying the Government on this issue, I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) for securing this vital debate about his constituent Mr Jagtar Singh Johal. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) and for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for their important contributions.

The Labour party is deeply concerned about the Indian police’s incarceration of British citizen Jagtar Singh Johal, who has been held without trial for more than three and a half years. Although the Labour party does not involve itself in the internal matters of other countries, we will always stand up for human rights, democracy and international law everywhere, and we will always stand up for British citizens wherever we feel that their rights and freedoms are being violated. We value our country’s long-standing relationship with India, which we see as an important partner in the decades ahead on trade, security, climate change and, critically, the joint promotion of democracy, human rights and upholding international law. However, a strong relationship is worth having only if it means that each Government are able to engage frankly with the other and to challenge each other and take robust positions wherever necessary.

That brings me to the issue we are discussing, which is the deeply troubling case of a UK citizen incarcerated for more than 1,300 days without trial, and with the threat of the death penalty looming over him. Jagtar’s story is heartbreaking, as has been the experience of his wife and wider family, not least his brother, whom I have had the privilege of meeting on a number of occasions over the past year. We have all heard the facts of the case, and they are deeply disturbing for all manner of reasons. It is also worth noting that the United Nations shares our concern. On 29 January 2018, the UN working group on arbitrary detention, the special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, and the special rapporteur on torture sent an urgent representation to the Indian Government. It expressed concerns over the lack of detail on the factual and legal basis for Mr Johal’s arrest and detention, and it questioned the measures that are being taken by the Indian authorities to safeguard him from torture. On 9 November 2019, the United Nations working group and special rapporteurs sent an urgent representation to the Indian Government, insisting that there had been over two years of delay through an unfair legal process, and that the Indian Government must provide the right to due process, a fair trial and independent medical examination, yet there has still been no movement towards either a fair trial or Jagtar’s release.

Given the facts of the case and those UN interventions, I find it astonishing that the Foreign Secretary has refused to meet the family and that the Government Minister responsible in the other place has refused on two occasions to answer my questions on whether the case amounts to arbitrary detention—first, in a letter that I sent to him last autumn, and then in a letter in January of this year, which took the Government three months to reply to. I therefore ask the Minister today whether the Government recognise Jagtar’s incarceration as a clear case of arbitrary detention. The UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has made it clear that in death penalty cases where the detainee is detained on spurious grounds as a political statement, or in circumstances of clear human rights violations, the detainee’s country should make representations to the detaining state that the detainee should not be in detention or facing charges at all. Are the UK Government acting on that guidance? Do the UK Government intend to implement their own policy?

Three and a half years is more than enough time to gather evidence and bring a case to trial. Jagtar’s continued incarceration is a clear and obvious breach of international human rights law. He is clearly a victim of arbitrary detention and as such should be released immediately. The UK Government must also remind the Indian authorities that international human rights law prohibits the reliance on evidence that has been gathered under torture. Jagtar and his family have been through far too much already. Today is the moment for the UK Government to demonstrate that they are genuinely committed to standing up for a British citizen whose human rights are being violated.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I would be most grateful if the Minister could conclude his remarks no later than 5.47 pm, so that the Member in charge has time to sum up the debate.