Oral Answers to Questions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I am extremely sorry to hear that terrible news from the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. I suggest we have a meeting outside of the House to discuss the best way forward; I will be very happy to meet him to do that.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

What assessment have the Government made of the role of far-right parties in Israel’s new Government, as they are Netanyahu’s principal coalition partner? Will UK Ministers be meeting representatives of those far-right parties?

[David Rutley]

As I have already highlighted, Israel is one of our closest partners and we will continue to have a close working relationship with the new Government. It would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage, ahead of the Government’s formation.

Human Rights Abuses and Corruption: UK Sanctions

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who have done so much on this issue, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the debate. As has been suggested, it might be polite to call the Magnitsky sanctions a work in progress. This should be an issue that brings all of us together, from all sides, and on which we should be able to reach agreement, but, as we have heard, there is a gap between the rhetoric and the reality in the way in which the sanctions have been implemented thus far. Indeed, in some instances the rhetoric is not even there.

The introduction of Magnitsky sanctions was a positive step in guaranteeing consequences for those around the world who think that they are above the law. It is just unfortunate that the Government have failed to use them to their full potential, or to apply them equally. The horrific scenes that have emerged from Bucha, and many other places in Ukraine, over the last few months are a reminder of our duty to ensure that the people who carry out such atrocities and violations of human rights should be isolated and ultimately brought to justice.

We have heard about the “drop-off” in the general use of Magnitsky sanctions—which are still relatively new—but more broadly, we have seen the Government’s targeted sanctioning of the bankrollers of the invasion of Ukraine become sluggish. In March, the Lord Chancellor and the former Housing Secretary, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), told us that they supported a move from a freeze on assets to pursuing the seizure of assets. They specifically mentioned the seizure of homes belonging to oligarchs to house Ukrainian refugees, but I am afraid we heard no more about that. The Prime Minister said that the aim of the sanctions programme was to “hobble the Russian economy” so that the war became untenable. He also promised that, until Putin responded by withdrawing from Ukraine, he would continue to go further in his efforts. Despite the sanctioning of individuals, I do not think that we have seen that followed through.

On corruption, I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s statement yesterday on the Government’s intention to tackle SLAPPs. The measures both to limit costs and to introduce a public interest test and an early strike-out all seem sensible. As always, the devil will be in the detail.

In their response to the call for evidence, the Government recognised:

“Many respondents who reported that they had experienced SLAPPs said that they had been investigating and/or writing about issues of corruption, financial crime and associated issues.”

They also said:

“The subject matter of work that sparked SLAPPs was not limited to corruption, however. Other respondents spoke of work on human rights violations, notably at the hands of corporations, and environmental issues as being the subject of SLAPPs.”

These powerful people, with access to unlimited resources, have been using SLAPPs to silence criticism and stop the reporting of their shady tactics. The Government are still considering whether to include a penalty for those who have brought forward a SLAPP case. Perhaps where a proven record of corruption can be found, the use of Magnitsky sanctions would be an effective and instant deterrent.

It is important to ensure that the UK applies sanctions on the grounds of both human rights and corruption. There has been a heavy focus on Russian oligarchs, but there are many other atrocities happening around the world. Magnitsky sanctions were used against some of those involved in the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, but Saudi Arabia continues to violate its citizens’ human rights as part of its regime, and no further sanctions have been applied.

We have double standards on occupation. We speak out quite rightly against the occupation of Crimea and Donbas, but we say and do much less in relation to the occupation of the Palestinian territories and of Western Sahara. We have already heard about the increasingly urgent situation in Hong Kong, where citizens are detained and imprisoned for simple opposition and free speech in relation to the Chinese regime, but we have done very little other than issue platitudes.

We heard earlier during business questions about the appalling record of the Bahraini regime. There are many such regimes around the world. It is not a coincidence, I am afraid, that we are only willing to speak out, and sometimes act out, against those around the world who are not our friends. We should be able to speak up equally about those countries with which we have traditionally had closer relationships.

In summary, we should do more, we should do it equally and we should also do it quickly. We should not have to rely on journalists like Tom Burgis, Bill Browder and Catherine Belton to do the Government’s job for them, and they should not be the victims of much of this oppression. As we go forward, I hope that the Government will be listening and that they will act, particularly by bringing forward early legislation in relation to yesterday’s statement. It will not be easy, because public interest defences and cost capping are difficult concepts to put into law. If the Lord Chancellor is still in post at the beginning of September and we have the Bill of Rights, as was promised in today’s business statement, I do not want this issue to be compromised by association with that very controversial and, in my view, unnecessary piece of legislation. Nor do we want to see the anti-SLAPP legislation used to cover for the press barons who would use it to abuse in their own way. Why cannot we have cost capping where claimants as well as defendants are being abused? That is something for the Government to go away and think about.

I welcome very much this debate and I am very grateful to those who secured it. We just need to see some movement from the Government now.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Rehman Chishti)]

This is my first appearance at the Dispatch Box; I do not know whether it will be my last. First, I want to pay real tribute to the work of our brilliant United Kingdom Foreign Office officials, who work day in, day out around the world on advancing the United Kingdom’s interests. All in the House will want to join me in paying tribute to them, and specifically their work on sanctions—thank you.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this important debate. I know from speaking to both of them their commitment and passion about doing everything that we can to stand up for human rights. I pay tribute to the work done by all colleagues in the House to advance human rights, as well as—I look to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—freedom of religion or belief.

I thank the all-party parliamentary group on Magnitsky sanctions for all that it does. Three of the recommendations made through its secretariat, Redress, were considered by the sanctions team at the Foreign Office and designations were made with regard to those specific cases. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda is suggesting certain figures with his fingers, but the specific numbers have to meet specific criteria.

On what the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) said, yes of course I absolutely pay tribute to Bill Browder, who is an inspiration. He did amazing work on getting the United Kingdom where we need to be on the Magnitsky sanctions. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), the former Foreign Secretary, for working with Mr Browder on a bipartisan basis to take the agenda forward. I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for saying that he wants to work together on a bipartisan basis, and I very much look forward to working with him.

We stand in full support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and all in this House and the other place who have been sanctioned by foreign Governments. On my left, to the back, is my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who has been doubly sanctioned. I say to all parliamentarians who have been sanctioned that nothing that those foreign Governments do will ever stop Members in this place from speaking up for what is right and proper.

In my new role as the Minister with responsibility for sanctions, I will continue to engage with parliamentarians across the board. Having heard about the different areas around the world that have been highlighted, I can say—and I did say to the team at the Foreign Office when I was first appointed—that we should have regular engagement with Members of Parliament.

[Andy Slaughter]

That is all very general, but may I ask the Minister about one specific case, which has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and by the shadow Minister? I refer to the Lekki massacre in Nigeria. We know when and where it happened. A judicial inquiry is taking place. We know who was responsible. We know that people were killed by the military and the police there. Given all that, why have the Government not imposed sanctions in that specific case?

[Rehman Chishti]

The hon. Gentleman knows, having been a parliamentarian here for many, many years, that as a Minister of the Crown I cannot comment on specific cases. What I can say is that I will take the matter away and ask the Foreign Office officials to look at it. I will also say that when we come back in September we will ensure that we have that meeting and engagement with Foreign Office officials, looking at sanctions, and that if I am the Minister, I will look at this specific issue.

The Government have long recognised the power of sanctions to promote our values and interests, and combat state threats, terrorism, cyber-attacks and chemical weapons. We have demonstrated just how powerful these measures can be. Working closely with our allies, we are introducing the most severe sanctions that Russia has ever faced, to help cripple Putin’s war machine. That is a key part of our response, alongside our economic, humanitarian and military assistance for Ukraine and its great, brave people in these difficult, challenging times. Our sanctions include asset freezes on 18 of Russia’s major banks, with global assets worth £940 billion. Since Putin’s illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine almost five months ago, we have sanctioned more than 1,000 individuals and 100 entities.

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe: Forced Confession

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Milling]

As I have said in earlier answers, over all the time that Nazanin was detained and throughout the horrific experience she went through, officials and Ministers worked tirelessly to secure her release.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

In 2017, the Prime Minister said that Nazanin was teaching people journalism in Iran. She now says that she lived in the shadow of his words for the rest of her time in prison. He has never retracted those words, and he has never apologised for the harm he personally caused Nazanin and her family. Can the Minister tell us why?

[Amanda Milling]

It was always in Iran’s gift to release Nazanin and Anoosheh. The UK will never accept our nationals being used for diplomatic leverage. The Prime Minister has previously apologised for the comments made about the case in 2017.

Shireen Abu Aqla

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Ford]

Not only have we worked with other members of the UN Security Council in strongly condemning this incident and needing to have this investigation, as I have mentioned, but we have been very clear that we are very concerned about other incidents of Palestinian civilians being killed by Israeli security forces in recent weeks. We continue to urge further transparent investigations of those killings as well.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Another journalist is murdered in occupied Palestine. Next, the occupying power raids her family home, and then its forces brutally attack pallbearers and mourners at Shireen’s funeral. In the light of that, the Government’s response has been pathetic and inadequate. The Minister will not even call for an independent investigation—that is, independent of the Israeli forces, who have whitewashed previous deaths in this way. Will she do that? Will she say what single step the Government have taken—not said, but taken—to oppose the occupation of Palestine, which is at the root of this violence? Will they recognise Palestine? Will they ban trade with illegal settlements? Will they sign up to the ICC inquiry? If not, her words are completely empty.

[Vicky Ford]

As I have said really clearly, we have led work at the UN to make sure that there is a joint statement not just from us, but from the entire security—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter]

Answer the question!

[Vicky Ford]

I am answering the question—please do not heckle me.

This is a tragic death—a really tragic death. We have led the work at the United Nations to put the pressure on to make sure, to the best extent that we can, that this investigation happens, that it is fair and transparent, and therefore, to use the word that the UN has used—I will repeat this, because it is the word from the statement—that it is “impartial”. The hon. Gentleman asked about the settlements. We are very clear that settlements are illegal under international law. They call into question Israel’s commitment to the two-state solution. We urge Israel to halt its settlement expansion—that threatens the viability of a Palestinian state—and we will continue, always, to press for peace.

British and Overseas Judges: Hong Kong

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. You must be finding this an interesting debate; it is veering in slightly different directions from the form that Westminster Hall debates normally take, but we can adapt. It is good that the Government are keeping us on our toes with statements; I think the U-turn was announced a full 15 minutes before the debate started. I will abandon my speech and instead make just one or two brief points, which probably means I will go on for longer than I would have otherwise done.

I would say a word on behalf of the judges—not that they need me to say a word on their behalf, but they have been put in a difficult position. Two statements were issued—on 17 July 2020 and 27 August 2021—by the President of the UK Supreme Court. The first ended by saying:

“Whether judges of the Supreme Court can continue to serve as judges in Hong Kong will depend on whether such service remains compatible with judicial independence and the rule of law.”

The 2021 statement made the judgment that:

“At this time, our shared assessment is that the judiciary in Hong Kong continues to act largely independently of government and their decisions continue to be consistent with the rule of law.”

Members may have disagreed with that assessment at that time, and I think we all disagree with it now—the actions of the Beijing Government have been something of a moving target—but the sitting Supreme Court judges have been placed in a difficult position. They have been waiting for a steer from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for some time. I say a steer; this is about the independence of the judiciary, and it is not for the Foreign Office to tell senior judges what to do. None the less, the opinion of the Government has been lacking for some time.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) said, the Labour party has made its position clear, not just in debates, but in the statement made by the then shadow Foreign Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), and the shadow Attorney General, Lord Falconer. The Government could perhaps have not left the decision until the eleventh hour.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about the need for the Government not to direct judges, which would play entirely into the hands of China. We have an independent judiciary. Frankly, China does not respect the rule of law. That is why the Government’s position has been very carefully calibrated. Gently but firmly, I reject the contention that there was somehow benign neglect here. There was a very careful monitoring of the situation by me and the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab)—precisely calibrated on respect for the independence of the judiciary, but also making sure there was a very clear political hand on the tiller when it came to the overall evidence and assessment of the situation, month by month.

[Andy Slaughter]

I entirely respect the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s opinion and his record as Lord Chancellor, but the issue could have been handled a little better. There were signals in those statements, at least on knowing the opinion. I entirely agree with him, obviously, that the last thing we want, either in relation to China or of itself, is for the Government to be banging the table and telling judges what to do, although they do seem to do that rather a lot—presumptions seem to be finding their way into legislation rather too often, in my view. Nevertheless, let us maintain today’s harmonious spirit. We will endeavour to do that.

I think it will be something of a relief to the Supreme Court that this statement has been made today. The question, as other hon. Members have already raised, is what the consequences will be. The Minister may want to clarify. As far as retired judges and practitioners are concerned, it will still be for them to make an individual decision. There may be views expressed by the Bar or other professional bodies, but I wonder whether the Government are going to go further and say what they would wish to see—there is no element of direction there; none is possible. Former Presidents of the Supreme Court and former judges of the Supreme Court sit. There are judges from other Commonwealth jurisdictions who are even more remote, but who I suspect would also take note of the decision that has been taken here. That will be an interesting point to look at.

I think that this situation is an exception and it is right that it is judged on the individual and particular facts as to the conduct of the Beijing Government. Generally speaking, however, the ability of senior UK judges to sit in other jurisdictions is something that we should be very proud of and, indeed, encourage. I suspect that the Government will wish to see more of that happening. It does happen in many circumstances that are controversial. I am thinking of judges sitting as the final court of appeal on capital cases from the Caribbean and other very controversial matters. No doubt some people would say that they should not do that and should not associate in that way, or that British judges have no locus in doing it. I think that, whether one looks at it in terms of soft power and the reputation of Britain abroad, or whether one looks at the experience that is gained by both sides, it is a positive thing, and the situation that we are discussing is, one hopes, the exception that proves that rule. There are particular circumstances in this situation that mean that it is right that certainly the President and Deputy President of the Supreme Court no longer sit in the court of final appeal.

I have had the opportunity to discuss this matter over the past few weeks with senior sitting and retired judges, but also with campaigners and human rights activists from Hong Kong, and I would like to say that their cogency, their bravery and their articulation of the view that, notwithstanding the arguments—there are arguments on both sides—it was wrong for UK judges to continue to sit there is something that we should respect. I have absolutely no doubt that, as far as they were possibly able to do so, the judges—whether sitting judges, retired judges or judges from other jurisdictions—were doing absolutely the best they could to uphold not just their independence but the rule of law when they were sitting in Hong Kong. But there is the issue of lending legitimacy to the Beijing regime and the way in which it has acted.

There is also the fact that we have moved on over the past two or three years, given not just the national security law but the intervention of the Executive. Frankly, the constant intervention by Beijing has now made the position untenable, so I am pleased that the UK Government have come to this conclusion. I am grateful, of course, for the 15 minutes’ notice before the start of this debate, and I will conclude my remarks there.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Vicky Ford)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I thank the many colleagues who have taken part in this debate, which has been slightly unusual. I start by saying how grateful I am to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing the debate and for all the work he has done on this subject.

The Minister for Asia and the Middle East, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling), would have been delighted to take part, but she is currently travelling in the region on ministerial duties. Therefore, it is my pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government. I will try to respond to a number of the points that have been raised. I apologise, but I will take some time to do so.

Before I address the specific questions about foreign judges, I want to set out the Government’s current assessments of rights and freedoms in Hong Kong. I share the deep concerns expressed across Westminster Hall today. The situation is worse now than at any time since the handover. In 1984, the Sino-British joint declaration made it clear that Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, rights and freedoms would remain unchanged for 50 years from 1997. China undertook to uphold rights and freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly. It also agreed to keep in force the international covenant on civil and political rights, to maintain the independent judiciary and to maintain the rule of law. However, time and again it has reneged on that promise. The national security law imposed by Beijing in June 2020 is a clear and serious breach of the joint declaration. It has since been used to systematically restrict rights and freedoms—especially freedom of expression.

In March 2021, China further breached the joint declaration by introducing radical changes to Hong Kong’s electoral system, reducing the space for democracy. The UK believes China to be in an ongoing state of non-compliance with the joint declaration. Almost all of Hong Kong’s pro-democracy opposition are detained or arrested or have chosen to leave Hong Kong. As a result, the legislator has lost all meaningful opposition, as demonstrated by the outcome of the December 2021 legislative elections. That is part of a concerted campaign by the mainland Chinese and Hong Kong authorities to remove all dissent. They have conducted a targeted assault against civil society and against pro-democracy news outlets, such as Apple Daily and Stand News. Just this month, the authorities threatened the UK-based non-governmental organisation Hong Kong Watch in an apparent attempt to silence those who stand up for human rights. The Foreign Secretary made it clear at the time that attempts to silence democratic voices are unacceptable and will never succeed.

Turning to the role of judges, the chilling effect of the national security law is of deep concern, and the trajectory appears negative. It is against that increasingly worrying backdrop that the Foreign Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister and Lord Reed, the President of the Supreme Court, have all decided that it is no longer tenable for serving UK judges to sit on the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal.

[Andy Slaughter]

That is clear from the Minister’s statement. What is the Government’s message to retired judges and practitioners who continue to work in the Hong Kong courts?

[Vicky Ford]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. It is for UK and foreign retired judges to make their own decisions about whether to remain sitting. However, it is important to remember that the national security law is not aligned with UK values. As cases under that law proceed through the courts, judges will increasingly be required to enforce Beijing’s laws—not laws aligned with the UK.

I thank Lord Reed and Lord Hodge for their work. They have submitted their resignations today and they are effective immediately. I agree with the Opposition spokesman, the spokesman for the SNP and so many others across this House that this is a sad reflection of how far the political and legal situation in Hong Kong has deteriorated.

I put it on the record that British judges have played an important role in supporting the judiciary in Hong Kong since the handover. There is no legal requirement for the UK Supreme Court or the UK Government to uphold the agreement that the UK would provide two serving judges, but they have since been provided. It was a part of the UK’s continuing commitment to safeguard the rule of law in Hong Kong. However, the UK Government have said for some time that our support for the presence of UK sitting judges in the Court of Final Appeal was finely balanced. Since it came into place, it has been very clear that the national security law violates Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, which was provided for in the joint declaration.

I thank every single Member in this House—across the House—for their support for the decision that has been made by the Foreign Secretary, the Lord Chancellor and the judges. In particular, I thank the former Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), for coming here today, and for his wise words about the importance of the independence of the judiciary. However, the decision to withdraw sitting UK judges from the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal should not be misconstrued as a weakened UK commitment. We absolutely remain committed to the people of Hong Kong, and will continue to call out violations of their rights and freedoms and hold China to its international obligations.

As hon. Members will recall, the UK Government responded quickly and decisively to the enactment of the national security law. That included introducing a new immigration path for British nationals overseas, suspending our extradition treaty with Hong Kong and extending our arms embargo on mainland China to cover Hong Kong. The visa route for BNOs opened on 31 January 2021, and by the end of the year there were almost 104,000 applications. On 24 February, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced changes to the BNO route to enable individuals aged 18 or over but who were born after 1 July 1997 and have at least one BNO parent to apply to the route independently of their BNO parent.

We have also co-ordinated action with international partners to hold China to account, including through our presidency of the G7. In December, we released two critical joint statements with G7 partners and the Foreign Ministers of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, following Hong Kong’s Legislative Council elections. In February, we co-led a media freedom coalition statement, signed by 21 international partners, which called out attacks on media and press freedoms, including closure of Stand News and the associated arrests of journalists. Earlier this month, we used the latest session of the United Nations Human Rights Council to call out China’s systematic undermining of rights and freedoms in Hong Kong. We remain in regular contact with our international partners about Hong Kong and continue to work intensively on the world stage to hold China to its international obligations.

The hon. Members for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), Strangford (Jim Shannon) and others mentioned the situation in Xinjiang. The evidence of the scale and severity of human rights violations being perpetrated in Xinjiang against the Uyghur Muslims is far-reaching and paints a truly harrowing picture. The UK Government have led international efforts to hold China to account for its human rights violations in Xinjiang, as well as in Hong Kong, and earlier this month the Foreign Secretary again reiterated our deep concerns about the situation in Xinjiang in her personal address to the UN Human Rights Council.

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green asked about sanctions. On 22 March, the former Foreign Secretary announced that under the UK’s global human rights sanctions agreement, the UK posed asset freezes and travel bans against four Chinese Government officials, as well as an asset freeze against one entity responsible for enforcing repressive security policies across many areas of Xinjiang.

Iran Detainees

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

This is very good news, but it is not the end of the matter. Even if the Foreign Secretary will not discuss individual cases, she will be aware that a number of UK citizens and dual nationals are still being held in Iran, some of whom, for good reasons, will not be as well known as Nazanin. Will she meet the relevant Members of Parliament and the families whose relatives are still detained in Iran, and what leverage does she think she will have now that the debt has been paid?

[Elizabeth Truss]

Of course I will continue to meet the families of detained individuals, and I will continue to work to get those people released from unfair detention.

Executions in Saudi Arabia

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Milling]

The key point is that it is important that all international partners work together to ensure the stability of energy markets.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Mass executions are particularly grotesque and barbaric. There is no due process in the Saudi justice system, in which there is widespread use of torture, and 75% of executions are for non-lethal offences. Will the Minister specifically answer the case of Abdullah al-Huwaiti? He was a juvenile when the alleged offence was committed, and he is on death row awaiting execution. She has known about the case for months. What representations has she made to the Saudi authorities? What does she intend to do about it now?

[Amanda Milling]

I have been clear about our opposition to the death penalty. We have raised a number of cases with the Saudi authorities, and I will happily follow up on that particular case in writing.

Recognition of the State of Palestine

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 24th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

When the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones)—who I know wanted to be here today—and I went before the Backbench Business Committee about six months ago to bid for this debate, we had in mind its taking place on the anniversary of the vote in October. An advantage of its being a little overdue is that I am no longer a Back Bencher, so I have been able to hand it over to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott). She made a superb speech, a much more compelling and persuasive one than I could possibly have made, and has done real service to Palestine in the process.

Back in 2014, there was more hope. President Obama said in 2010 that he hoped to see the recognition of a Palestinian state within a year. Although William Hague coined the phrase “moment of our choosing”, or “when the time is right”, I think that he meant it as a statement of intent, but it has become a filibuster that is endlessly repeated by Ministers to enable them in fact to do nothing. We in the UK who have a responsibility, through the mandate and the Balfour declaration, have not recognised Palestine although 138 other countries have.

We have heard that this is a precondition and not a matter for negotiation. Of course Israel and Palestine will not sit down as equals, because one is a regional superpower while the other has been impoverished by occupation, but they should at least be given the status of states so that they can do that. But this is also tied heavily to the idea of occupation, and a recognition exposing what occupation is about. It is about displacement of a population, and it is about settlement and occupied land. Both those are war crimes. This is relatively rare, thank goodness. It happens in Crimea, it is happening in Ukraine and it happens in Western Sahara, but in Palestine it has continued since 1967 and we have done precious little about it.

The Government’s own “Human rights priority countries” report on Israel and the Occupied Palestine Territories, published three months ago, refers to settler violence, settlement growth, evictions and demolitions, child detention, an “apartheid” regime, a Gaza blockade and terrible incursions into Gaza and the massacre of civilians there, and the classing of respectable non-governmental organisations as terrorist organisations. The list goes on and on.

Statehood would benefit Palestine, but it would also benefit Israel to have a secure state alongside it, with the responsibilities of a state. When I spoke in the last debate on this subject, I quoted Naftali Bennett, who was then the Minister with responsibility for the economy, as saying that he never wanted to see a Palestinian state. Now he is the Prime Minister of Israel. We must do something to resolve this issue, because the situation is becoming steadily worse.

Countering Russian Aggression and Tackling Illicit Finance

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

This debate has exposed the gulf between what is needed to deal with illicit finance—and, one could add, what the Government say they are doing or intend to do—and what they are actually doing, which is almost nothing, in terms of either introducing measures or enforcing the measures that already there. Whether oligarchs, the companies they set up to hide behind, or agents of hostile powers, they can operate freely.

We heard about sanctions from the shadow Foreign Secretary in his opening remarks, from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), so we know what has to be done—there is a list of things that have to be done. There is the Russia report, and there is the economic crime report—why will not the Government act on those? That is not partisan or party political, because we also heard what Lord Agnew said, which is that what is being done is “desperately inadequate”, particularly the failure to bring forward an economic crime Bill. We heard from Lord Faulks, a former Conservative Minister, who said that the Government are turning a “blind eye” to what is going on and have done nothing to stem the flow of illicit funds, and that he was misled regarding the introduction of a property register. For all the great furore that the Home Secretary made about tier 1 visas, everyone who wanted one has got one already. This is shutting the door after the horse has bolted, and there has been no enforcement related to it. Indeed, a new type of visa will be introduced, so presumably it will start all over again.

In the limited time I have, I want to address the failure of regulation, enforcement and prosecution. We have heard from other Members about the failure of the courts, about Companies House, about trusts and unincorporated associations, and about how things are easily concealed. It gives me no pleasure to say this, but the Serious Fraud Office suffers from its budget being a fraction of what the company it is prosecuting has to spend on lawyers and defence. But it is also true that the head of the Serious Fraud Office is under investigation for the conduct of the Ziad Akle case. The accusation is that the SFO went after the minnows and let the sharks swim away, which is exactly what the Government are doing on sanctions. Many senior people in the SFO end up working for those very law firms we have heard about which are defending the oligarchs. What are the Government doing about that? It is a laughing stock in terms of criminal enforcement and prosecution in this country.

What are the Government doing about SLAPPS? We have heard about that issue several times, including in the excellent debate we had here last month, led by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill. They identified the way that oligarchs and companies can persecute and prosecute investigative journalism.

What will the Government, who love interfering with the courts, do in response to the Bloomberg v. ZXC case last week? That shows that when an investigative journalist publishes details of an individual before charge, the individual can, on the grounds of privacy, hide behind that ruling. Nothing is being done to support those who wish to expose what is wrong and everything is being done to protect that wrongdoing. The fact that there is Tory party money behind this stinks.

Russia Sanctions Legislation

Andy Slaughter Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are incredibly important principles at stake here, and the UK and our international friends and allies are making a statement to Russia in clear and unambiguous terms that we expect it to abide by the commitments that it has previously made to respect the territorial integrity of another sovereign state and to de-escalate and step back from the aggressive posture that it has taken. If it does not, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is making clear that there will be repercussions.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The UK is the destination of choice for Russian criminals and kleptocrats who then use their wealth to silence journalists and avoid scrutiny, including by launching endless oppressive lawsuits. Why should we have any confidence that the Minister’s Government and party, which have done nothing to counter that—indeed, the issue has grown year on year—will suddenly impose meaningful sanctions? The US said that there was “dismay and frustration” at the failure to tackle it.

[James Cleverly]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments that I have already made. I have just returned from Washington and I assure the House that the UK has been recognised and thanked for the robust position that it has taken, is taking and has signalled that it is willing to take.