Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2024

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, following the very valid points made by noble Lords in this short but important debate, I offer the Government support for this. The Government were caught by a timetabling aspect, with the Summer Recess and then the conference break, so it is positive that they have ensured that there will be some parliamentary scrutiny and the ability for Members to ask questions on these matters. We have just seen the value of raising these pertinent points.

The Minister will not be surprised that I support these measures. He and I have been in many debates—in fact, all the debates on the Russian sanctions when the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, was the Minister—and there was consensus across the Committee. I will ask a few further questions that have not been asked so far, and will perhaps emphasise some of the points that have been made.

First, I return to the issue of enforcement. Not for the first time, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked questions that I was going to ask. I would be grateful if the Minister could give an update on the securing of frozen assets that could be put to good use by Ukraine in this conflict. The Minister was a doughty campaigner on Chelsea when he and I were asking the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, about this in the Chamber. An update would be very useful. Is it still the case that we need to change any of the legislative or administrative processes in the UK so that we can carry out the repurposing of frozen assets into secured assets that can be put to use, around which consensus was sought in the G7? Or is it the Government’s position that we look purely at the EU proposals on the interest of assets—or, if assets are sold, that we use some of that? An update would be useful.

I periodically monitor the website of the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, which is tasked with ensuring that the sanctions regimes we put in place in the UK are properly enforced and policed. It is interesting that only one enforcement for circumventing UK sanctions has been carried out this year, to the tune of £15,000; since 2022 and the full invasion of Ukraine, there have been only four, totalling £60,000. Given the scale of the impact of the sanctions regime that the previous and current Governments have indicated, is it the Minister’s view that this is an accurate reflection of how the sanctions are being enforced?

We could look at it in two ways: either there is circumvention and the enforcement is not effective; or the UK is remarkably good at getting all our businesses to adhere to all of the sanctions. There may be an element of truth in both, but what is the Government’s assessment? That speaks to the valid point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about the opportunity for a fundamental review not just of the overall impact of the sanctions—including an assessment of the impact of the sanctions, given the fact that they are in place until we rescind them—but of their enforcement.

The second aspect I wish to ask about is the services provided, either those in the shadow fleets or those that can now be determined under the sanctions regimes. I strongly support the Government with regard to not only persons who are directly or indirectly in the enterprises or linked with the fleets but those providing financial services to them. Why have the Government taken the view that legal services are not included in that? We all know that London in particular is the home of many legal services that have been part of the grey area of advice when it comes to these sanctions. I would be grateful to hear whether the Minister has any comments on that. We would certainly be supportive of ensuring that there is no loophole when it comes to financial services that can be masked as legal services; we need to ensure that there is no loophole for that.

I also wish to pick up on the point about our support for those in the fleets as far as the oil or dual-use goods on the shipping are concerned, as well as with regard to our position on the countries where they are landed. The point was made eloquently that many of those are our trading allies. I know that the Government have previously had frank—I hope—conversations, but surely we are now beyond the point of having frank conversations; we need to be considering actions.

In that regard, I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on the news from the end of August that the United States is moving towards secondary sanctions on those operating on financial services in jurisdictions where it believes that the sanctions regimes are being circumvented. I believe that secondary sanctions on financial institutions would be effective; I would be grateful if the UK were part of that. Indeed, what is the Government’s current position on considering secondary sanctions? This is obviously a sensitive diplomatic area, but I believe that it is important.

Can the Minister address a question that I asked his predecessor on jurisdiction? I acknowledge that these measures are UK-wide but I asked previously about the overseas territories when it comes to shipping and potential licences that are exemptions to them. We know that, when certain tankers land in overseas territories, they can operate under a different regime. I would be grateful for clarification that they are also covered by these sanctions.

I wish to ask a minor question regarding limited exemptions. Obviously, we know that there should be the capacity for some kind of exceptions in the regulations, but, to prevent an exception becoming a loophole, can the Minister confirm that the exceptions in these sanctions are defined across the G7 and our partners, so that there is no distinction between exceptions under these sanctions and those in the United States or the European Union? If the Minister could respond to these points, I would be grateful.

My final point is that the Government have our full support in ensuring that there is as much consequence for the Russian war economy as possible. No UK entities, whether in the City of London, finance, shipping or insurance, should have any part in supporting the Russian war regime. We continuously support the Government to ensure that there are no limits to what we can do to ensure Ukraine’s support.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, there is a great degree of unanimity on this subject because I, too, very much welcome these regulations. I particularly welcome the Minister’s assurance that the United Kingdom will continue to stand with Ukraine. These sanctions will clamp down on Russia’s so-called shadow fleet by targeting 17 Russian oil tankers. I very much welcome this action because, no matter how sly and cunning Russia may seek to be, I am pleased to see that the United Kingdom and its partners will continue to sanction Putin’s Government appropriately.

However, this is, of course, very much a game of legislative whack-a-mole: every time we clamp down in one area, another seems to pop up. I am particularly interested in hearing the Minister’s reply to the excellent questions from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. It seems blindingly obvious that India and Turkey, in particular, are circumventing these sanctions by helping Russia to “launder” its oil into the rest of the world. I hope that His Majesty’s Government are raising these matters at the highest level with the Indian and Turkish Governments. I would certainly be supportive of any further action that the Government take because it is very important that the Russian war machine, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, correctly described it, is clamped down on. We should target any entities in the UK or the overseas territories that are helping it to do this, either in these regulations or in future ones.

Having said that, although we fully support these regulations, I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions in consequence. The regulations allow the Government to take a similar approach to that of the US Government and implement asset freezes against actors engaging in what is otherwise lawful activity. The law firm Eversheds Sutherland has claimed that the expansion of the designation criteria

“has the potential to create a considerable burden on entities from a due diligence perspective”.

That could just be special pleading, but I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response. Eversheds Sutherland also claims that it

“will not be enough to rely on sanctions screening”

to comply with these regulations, and that the UK Government have

“potentially created significant challenges for UK … businesses”.

Can the Minister inform the Committee as to what steps have been taken to help UK businesses comply with the regulations? What level of due diligence is required?

On this point, a briefing published on 28 August by Eversheds Sutherland stated that no persons have been designated under the regulations, as has been made clear. Can the Minister confirm whether that is still the case?

As I said, we fully support these regulations. I ask these questions purely in the nature of wanting to see their enforcement be as effective as possible. I will continue to support the Government and to hope that they will go further, if necessary, so that any UK entities, companies or businesses involved in helping the Russian war machine face the strongest possible action. We support the Government in this, but I would welcome the Minister’s assurances and answers to some of the questions that have been asked.

Gibraltar-Spain Border Checks

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I remind the House that it is 10 minutes of Questions now.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, Gibraltar is our gem in the Mediterranean, our strategic asset and, most importantly, a proud member of the British family of nations. Last Friday’s reports that the Spanish police were insisting on stamping passports and border checks are concerning. Let me be clear: whether this was due to a local Spanish border official and not the central Government, as the Minister for Development said in the other place, there should not be checks at the Gibraltar-Spain border. Can the Minister outline what steps His Majesty’s Government are taking to ensure that this does not happen again? Crucially, what discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with his Spanish counterparts on this matter?

The Gibraltar Broadcasting Corporation has reported a statement from the Spanish Foreign Minister that, for the UK-EU relationship to strengthen, it is important that the British Government say yes to Spain’s proposals on Gibraltar. This is concerning, as it seems to be a thinly veiled threat: “Accept our terms over Gibraltar or lose out”. Can the Minister assure this House that he will not abandon the people of Gibraltar and their desire to remain British? This incident at the Gibraltar-Spain border comes only a week after the decision to hand over our sovereignty of the Chagos Islands. Some might say that this is a coincidence, but it is easy to see the links. I ask the Minister to reassure this House in no uncertain terms that Gibraltar’s sovereignty is for the people of Gibraltar to decide and no one else.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

I have no problem at all in reiterating the double lock that this Government are committed to in relation to Gibraltar. We will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. We will never enter into a process of sovereignty negotiations with which Gibraltar is not content. Absolutely—there are firm commitments there.

I have a long association with Gibraltar. I have represented the workers in Gibraltar for many years, so I know what their wishes are. The current negotiations with the EU are making very good progress. The Foreign Secretary has had regular meetings with the Spanish Foreign Secretary. Those negotiations are at a point where we hope to make rapid progress. The idea that this negotiation has anything to do with BIOT is absolute nonsense, as the noble Lord well knows. It is a completely different arrangement. I will not go into details because other noble Lords might have questions in relation to that, and I will leave it to them.

Gaza Crisis

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, in July, the new Government resumed funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which had been suspended by the last Conservative Government. In August, the UN then admitted that some of its staff may have been involved in the 7 October Hamas massacre and fired nine of them. What is the Minister doing to ensure that UNRWA properly vets its staff? Does he agree that it is completely unacceptable that UK taxpayers’ cash may have been used to finance those Hamas atrocities?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord knows that this Government, and the last Government, recognise the essential role of UNRWA in distributing aid into Gaza. However, that does not take away the concern about those who may have participated in the horrific events of 7 October. We have supported the Colonna review and will be ensuring that UNRWA and the United Nations take actions to ensure that that report is fully implemented. We are working with the Secretary-General and have resumed funding based on those assurances. It is appalling that nine members of UNRWA were involved in those atrocities, and we welcome UNRWA’s decisive action and support its decision to terminate the contracts of those individuals. This Government are absolutely committed, as were the previous Government, to ensuring that we can get aid into Gaza where it is most needed, and UNRWA is the vehicle to do that.

Sudan

Lord Callanan Excerpts

Friday 13th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow on from an excellent and powerful contribution from the noble Lord. This has been an extremely sobering debate, with some excellent contributions. I was struck by how many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, have visited the area—I made a note of the noble Lords, Lord Alton, Lord Ahmad and Lord Bellingham, the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Ashton, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, and, I am sure, a number of others. I feel at a bit of a disadvantage speaking in this debate and not having visited Sudan, although I have been to many other African countries. Many noble Lords have witnessed the tragedy of that country, and their insight has been very moving and has greatly aided our insight during this debate.

As many noble Lords have said, this dreadful war has now been going on for almost two years—there have been other tragic things in Sudan in the past, but this particular war has been going on for two years. The conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the paramilitary group, the Rapid Support Forces, has already seen the deaths of up to 150,000 people, and 10.2 million people have been displaced, as many noble Lords have said, both internally and to other unstable areas in neighbouring Chad, Ethiopia and South Sudan, where they are adding to the already overcrowded existing refugee camps.

Fighting has been widespread throughout the country—let us remember that this is a nation three times the size of France. Much of Khartoum has apparently been destroyed and many other cities have been severely damaged. In a country still grappling with the legacy of events in Darfur from two decades ago, this really is a tragedy. I thought that it was summarised well by the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, who said that both sides in the conflict are guilty of war crimes. The RSF is accused of atrocities against civilians, including killing, rape and pillage, while the SAF aircraft have reportedly bombed civilian targets and critical infrastructure. Even before the current conflict, Sudan was home to more than 1 million refugees, the second highest refugee population even in Africa. Now, alongside the impact of climate change on food security, the World Food Programme estimates that the civil war has left half of the country, some 25 million people, in need of humanitarian assistance, creating what has been described as the world’s largest hunger crisis.

Despite the growing urgency of the humanitarian situation, sadly, hopes for an imminent resolution to the war are reportedly slim, particularly given the fact that the SAF did not even bother to send any representatives to the recent ceasefire talks in Switzerland. Instead, there now seems to be a serious likelihood that the conflict will get worse, pushing millions more into famine and potentially seeing the violence expanding to neighbouring countries such as Chad and South Sudan, which would barely be able to cope with such things. Of course, as has been said by many noble Lords, this could result in a further large-scale exodus of refugees from the region.

There are numerous challenges facing the international community in trying to alleviate this situation—mainly the lack of safe, consistent and unimpeded humanitarian access, which has to be one of the biggest problems that organisations such as the World Food Programme face in scaling up their assistance. Until recently, the Tine crossing into North Darfur was the only authorised cross-border route from Chad. The World Food Programme has said that the arrival of the rainy season has massively slowed the transport of vital aid via that crossing. Convoys have been slowed by muddy, near-impassable roads and forced to reroute where bridges have been damaged or destroyed. On 15 August, the Transitional Sovereignty Council announced the reopening of the Adre border crossing from Chad for three months. We should welcome that; it will help in the supply of humanitarian aid. This crossing is the most effective and represents the shortest route to deliver humanitarian assistance into Sudan, particularly the benighted Darfur region, at the scale and speed required.

I am pleased to say that, since that crossing was reopened for humanitarian convoys, WFP trucks carrying more than 1,200 metric tonnes and enough food supplies for nearly 105,000 people—still only a small proportion of those who need help—have crossed into the Darfur region. The World Food Programme is working to get food for half a million people through the Adre crossing and into the hands of people across Darfur as soon as possible. Can the Minister update us on what assistance the UK is able to provide to that excellent work?

Sadly, both warring parties are hampering the delivery of aid. The SAF and the Government of Sudan have imposed lengthy clearance processes and bureaucratic hurdles, while there are many challenges in RSF-controlled areas, with security threats to aid convoys and attempts to elicit bribes or fees for granting access—appalling conduct. We can be proud that the UK, particularly under the previous Government—and, I am sure, under the current Government and the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who is doing a superb job—is one of several countries working to resolve the current crisis. We have issued several joint statements alongside the US and Norway and, as many noble Lords have pointed out, we are the penholder on Sudan in the Security Council. I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on the current situation and what work is going on; I am particularly interested in hearing his response to the questions posed by my noble friend Lady Anelay on financial assistance.

I am sure that the current Government will continue to be a vocal advocate for accountability for perpetrators of atrocity crimes. As many noble Lords have pointed out, there have been reports of widespread sexual violence and child recruitment. Due to some excellent open-source reporting, we have some detail of who on the ground is responsible for these crimes. We continue to press both sides to honour fully the commitments made in the Jeddah declaration, including allowing unhindered and safe humanitarian access and complying with obligations under international law.

The UK has already imposed two rounds of sanctions on the SAF and three on those operating under the authority of the RSF. In April, we announced three further rounds of sanctions. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how the further work to extend those sanctions regimes is going. The UK is in good hands under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Collins; I know that he will do a superb job following on from my colleague and noble friend Lord Ahmad. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to some of the excellent points made in the debate today.