Women’s Rights to Reproductive Healthcare: United States
David Lammy Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Amanda Milling
The judgment will be distressing for women in the US. As the Prime Minister set out, and as I have said, we also see this as a big step backwards. We are proud to promote and defend universal comprehensive sexual and reproductive health and rights, and we will continue to push for supportive language in international forums.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I am sure the whole House is grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for asking the urgent question and to you, Mr Speaker, for granting the application.
The great story of the 20th century is how different groups, who were historically denied their rights, won those rights for the first time through protest, organisation and democracy. Those groups included working people, and our party is partly a consequence of that; ethnic minorities, which brings me to the Chamber today; LGBTQ people, in the week in which we celebrate Pride; and women. Heroic leaders of the feminist movement, such as Emmeline Pankhurst, secured women’s right to vote after two major concessions, in 1918 and 1928. For decades, women could choose which political party to support, but did not have the freedom to choose what to do with their own bodies. It was a story of women criminalised, back alleys and a black market, illegal abortions, dirty implements, disease, prison and death. It is a plight that affected women across the globe, certainly in our own country, and it affected poor women particularly, including my late mother.
It was not until 1967 that women in Britain won the right to a safe and legal abortion. In 1973, the United States followed. It is an abomination that, almost 50 years later, 36 million women in 26 American states were stripped of their right when Roe v. Wade was overturned. In America, an organised hard-right and global political movement is seeking to overturn rights hard won in the 20th century. That is happening in our country too. In 2019, 99 Westminster MPs voted to keep abortion illegal in Northern Ireland, and the Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) says he is “completely opposed” to abortion.
Will the Minister confirm that the UK will make representations at the United Nations? The UK is a signatory to the universal declaration on human rights, so why has the Foreign Secretary said nothing about this issue? Will the Minister confirm that as the United States Agency for International Development surely departs—
Mr Speaker
Order. I allowed the UQ, because I thought it was important, but the right hon. Member should not take advantage of the rules. Two minutes means two minutes. I keep telling both sides, but Front Benchers get carried away. I have all these Back Benchers, who matter to me, that I need to get in. I remind the shadow Secretary of State that I expect him to stick to two minutes, and just ignoring me does not help.
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill
David Lammy ExcerptsMonday 27th June 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022-23 View all Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Less than three years ago, the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box seeking to persuade the House to support the withdrawal agreement that he negotiated with the European Union. It was, he said,
“a great deal for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 579.]
He urged each of us
“to show the same breadth of vision as our European neighbours”
with whom he had struck the agreement. He reassured us that
“Above all, we and our European friends have preserved the letter and the spirit of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 571.]
His deal, he argued, was
“in perfect conformity with the Good Friday agreement.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 583.]
Today, 18 months after it came into force, the Government are taking a wrecking ball to their own agreement.
Ian Paisley
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the very good proposal, made a few moments ago by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), that we should trigger article 16. Do Her Majesty’s official Opposition agree with that proposal? Does the shadow Secretary of State believe that article 16 should be triggered now?
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The most important thing in all this is peace, and getting power sharing up and running. Will the right hon. Gentleman acquaint the House with the discussions that he has had with the DUP on the solution to the problem, given that the DUP refuses to rejoin power sharing unless the protocol is dealt with? I am sure that he has discussed this with the DUP.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He knows that he is well able to ask to intervene again on the shadow Secretary of State. It undermines our debates if we come up with endless points of order that interrupt them. It is not a fair thing to do. The hon. Gentleman will try to catch my eye later; I suggest that we try to respect each other in the Chamber.
Mr Lammy
I will not; I will make some progress.
The Government are bringing the Bill to the House because they object to the text that they negotiated, and the choices that they freely made. They are asking each Member of the House to vote for a Bill that flouts international law. That proposition should never be put to hon. Members. The Bill is damaging and counterproductive. The strategy behind it is flawed. The legal justification for it is feeble. The precedent that it sets is dangerous and the timing could hardly be worse. It divides the United Kingdom and the European Union at a time when we should be pulling together against Putin’s war on the continent, and it risks causing new trade barriers during a cost of living crisis.
John Redwood
The protocol makes very clear the primacy of the Good Friday agreement for peace in Northern Ireland and says that the EU will respect our internal market. The EU is doing neither. What is the right hon. Gentleman’s policy to persuade it to do so?
Mr Lammy
Negotiate—just as Labour did to get the Good Friday agreement. We negotiate. We do not break international law and alienate our partners and allies not just in Europe but across the world, and the right hon. Gentleman should know better.
As we debate the Bill, we should ask ourselves some simple questions. First, will it resolve the situation in Northern Ireland? Secondly, is it in the best interests of our great country? Thirdly, is it compatible with our commitment to the rule of law? Let me take each of those in turn.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Will the right hon. Member give way?
Mr Lammy
I will not at the moment.
Let us deal with Northern Ireland first as context. None of us in this House doubts that the situation in Northern Ireland is serious. Opposition Members need no reminder of the importance of the Good Friday agreement, which is one of the proudest achievements of a Labour Government, together with parties and communities across Northern Ireland and the Irish Government in Dublin. It was the result of hard work and compromise, graft and statesmanship, a relentless focus on the goal of peace. It was born six months after Bloody Sunday. For more than half my lifetime, Northern Ireland endured the pain and violence of conflict and division. More than 3,500 people were killed. Thousands more were injured. Cities and communities were riven by intolerance and division. I remember what that conflict brought to my city, from the Baltic Exchange attack to the Docklands bombing. Above the door over there and other doors into this Chamber are plaques to Airey Neave, Ian Gow, Sir Anthony Berry, Robert Bradford and, most recently, to Sir Henry Wilson.
Nearly a quarter of a century has passed since that hopeful Easter in 1998. Since then, we have seen transformational progress. A generation has grown up in a new Northern Ireland, harvesting the fruits of a hard-won peace. That legacy demands that all of us act with the utmost responsibility and sensitivity. We need calm heads at this moment and responsible leadership.
We recognise that the operation of the protocol and the barriers and checks that were inherent in its design have created new tensions that need to be addressed. Unionists feel that their place in the UK is threatened, and we must listen to all concerns on all sides. We all want to see power sharing restored. The UK Government, the European Union and parties across Northern Ireland need to show willing and act in good faith. However, at its most fundamental level, the Bill will not achieve its objectives. The House cannot impose a unilateral solution when progress demands that both sides agree. This is not an act of good faith, nor is it a long-term solution.
Only an agreement that works for all sides and delivers for the people and businesses of Northern Ireland will have durability and provide the political stability that businesses crave and the public deserve. Instead, the Bill will make a resolution more difficult. By breaking their obligations, the Government dissolve the little trust that remains; by taking this aggressive action, we make it harder for those on the other side of the table to compromise. On that basis alone, the Bill should be rejected.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I recognise the comments that the shadow Secretary of State has made about the Belfast agreement and the need for consensus. He is aware that there is not a consensus in support of the protocol; there never has been one, from day one, in Northern Ireland. I gave time—a lot of time—for the negotiations to progress, but that did not work because the EU fundamentally refuses to change the text of the protocol. If the shadow Secretary of State is serious about getting a solution that works, will he go to the EU and join the Government in making the argument that the EU needs to agree to a negotiation in which it is prepared to change the text of the protocol?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s experience in these matters, and indeed when the protocol was being negotiated in the first place. May I say that I met EU ambassadors in London last week and made that very point? I point him to the speech that I made last week, in which I highlighted exactly what he has just said.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I do not think that anyone in this House can doubt the right hon. Gentleman’s personal commitment to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, after the remarks that he has made. As someone whose father was nearly blown up in the Grand Hotel, I share that passion, but the problem that the right hon. Gentleman has to grapple with is that he wants a negotiation. What if the EU will not negotiate? What would he do then? That is the position that we are in. We cannot elevate the protocol to be more important than the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That is the necessity we face.
Mr Lammy
I accept the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman makes his remarks. Let me just say that they have said that trust is at an all-time low. The question for this House is whether the Bill maintains or assists trust, given that ultimately this will be an agreement and it will be negotiated.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech. Is he aware of comments by the US trade representative Ambassador Tai, from Speaker Pelosi and indeed from a host of our American allies in Congress? They have been very clear with us that there will be no US-UK trade deal unless there is a durable way forward on the Northern Ireland question. Not only does this reckless approach risk destroying relations with the EU, but it puts a deal with America at risk.
Mr Lammy
My right hon. Friend is exactly right. I have been to Washington on three occasions in the past six months, and I can say that across the political divide, Republicans and Democrats have raised the issue. On my most recent visit, they were aghast; they had not seen the content of the Bill at that stage, but they were aghast at the proposition. Perhaps the Northern Ireland Secretary might tell us what our American friends and allies have said in relation to the Bill now that they have seen the draft.
My second question is whether the Bill is in the best interests of this country. As we stand here today, Britain faces the worst cost of living crisis in decades. Inflation is at more than 9%, bills are rising, energy costs are soaring and supply chains are under pressure. It beggars belief why, at this time, the Government would choose to risk new frictions in our trading relations with the EU. They cannot get away with abdicating responsibility for this reckless conduct. If we choose to break a contract, we cannot plausibly expect the other side to take no action in response. We cannot claim that we did not foresee the consequences. Of course the European Union would respond, just as we would if the situation were reversed. I will wager that the Foreign Secretary would be one of the first people to complain if the boot were on the other foot.
A game of brinkmanship with the European Union will only add to our economic problems, but this is not just about economic concerns, important though they are. We must also see the bigger picture. For four months, the Putin regime has fought a bloody war against Ukraine. As a Parliament, we have been united in our support for Ukraine and our staunch opposition to Russia’s aggression. NATO allies and European partners have stood together. How can this be the right moment to deepen a diplomatic row? How can this be the right time to tell our friends and partners that we cannot be relied on? I cannot help noting that some Conservative Members told us that the situation in Ukraine was too serious—that this was not the right time to change Prime Minister. Apparently, however, it is not serious enough to prevent us from starting a diplomatic fight with some of our closest allies.
Thirdly, is the Bill compatible with international law? [Hon. Members: “ Yes.”] Quite simply, the Bill breaks international law. It provides for a wholesale rewrite of an international treaty in domestic law. One of the most troubling aspects is the dangerous legal distortion that is used to justify it. The doctrine of necessity is not an excuse for states to abandon their obligations. It exists to do precisely the opposite: to constrain the circumstances in which states can legitimately claim that their hand has been forced. It requires this action to be the “only way” possible to resolve the issue, but the Government have not used article 16 and still say that a negotiated solution is possible. It requires a grave and imminent peril, but the Government have chosen a route that will involve months of parliamentary wrangling to fix issues such as unequal VAT rates, which no reasonable person could consider a matter of grave peril. It requires the invoking state not to have contributed to the situation of necessity, but the problems are a direct result of the choices that the Government made when negotiating with the European Union. If they were not, we would not need to change the text of the protocol at all.
Joanna Cherry
The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, particularly on the legal points. He has listed all the problems with the Government’s legal note of advice. Does he, like me, find it interesting that, whenever any of us raise these points, no Conservative Member is capable of answering them?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
If I heard him aright, the right hon. Gentleman indicated earlier that the Government should have used article 16. He said, “They have not yet used article 16”, indicating that they should use it before going down this road. It was, however, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), who I think is the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, who said that triggering article 16 would “prolong and deepen” uncertainty in Northern Ireland and pose another huge risk to stability there. Does this now mean that the Government should have triggered article 16, or that they should not—or maybe that there is a disagreement, or maybe that it will not be decided until after the passage of the Bill?
Mr Lammy
I think that the right hon. Gentleman is putting words in my mouth. Article 16 arises in relation to the defence that the Government suggest: the doctrine of necessity—that is, they have not used it and the point of using it is that, at the very least, it would be legal.
“Pacta sunt servanda”. Agreements must be kept. This is the essence of international law: the solemn promise of states acting in good faith and upholding their commitments to treaties that they have agreed. How would we react if a country we had renegotiated with did the same thing and simply disregarded the commitments we had mutually agreed on? I do not doubt that, if an authoritarian state used necessity to justify its actions in breaking a treaty in the manner the Government are proposing to do through this Bill, the Foreign Secretary and many of us across this House would condemn it.
Since the right hon. Lady became Foreign Secretary, the Foreign Office has issued countless statements and press releases urging others to meet their international obligations. They include Iran under the joint comprehensive plan of action; China under the joint declaration of Hong Kong; and Russia under the Budapest memorandum. In just the last fortnight, the Foreign Office under her leadership has publicly called on Bolivia, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Nicaragua, South Sudan, Eritrea and Ethiopia to meet their international obligations. Hypocrisy is corrosive to our foreign policy and I know that Members from across the House share these concerns.
Chris Bryant
I take this point from my right hon. Friend’s mention of the Budapest accord: when the UK signs a document, it really needs to stand by it. We did not stand by the Budapest accord either. We did not make sure that the text was proper before we brought it to Parliament, and that is one of the reasons we have the problems we have today, is it not?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we use the word “honourable” across this House, it means something. It is about the integrity of this place and about the pre-eminent position that this Parliament and this country find themselves in on matters of international affairs. That is why this is such a sombre moment.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech and these matters deserve thoughtful consideration, but could he take advantage of his time at the Dispatch Box to tell us whether he would change the protocol? If so, how would he change it? How does he think the process of negotiation, which has failed so far, would achieve those changes?
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The shadow Secretary of State has made much of the Government abandoning their obligations, but surely the obligation in the protocol was designed from the EU’s point of view to protect the EU single market. How does this Bill not give that guarantee to the EU, when goods going into the Republic will be checked, when there will be severe penalties on those who try evade those checks and when any firms producing in Northern Ireland will have to comply with EU rules when they are sending goods to the Republic? Surely that safeguards the single market and the obligations will be met.
Mr Lammy
Let me just make some progress, because I have been on my feet for a long time and lots of hon. Members want to contribute to the debate.
Our country’s reputation is a matter beyond party. It is hard won and easily lost. When this Bill was first mooted, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) asked
“what such a move would say about the United Kingdom and its willingness to abide by treaties that it has signed.”—[Official Report, 10 May 2022; Vol. 714, c. 38.]
The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) said in a thoughtful piece on this legislation last week that our country
“benefits greatly from our reputation for keeping our word and upholding the rule of law...We should be very wary indeed of damaging that standing.”
The right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) said,
“I don’t see how…any member of parliament can vote for a breach of international law.”
Lord Anderson and Lord Pannick, who are among the most distinguished lawyers in the country, have called this Bill a “clear breach” of international law that
“shows a lack of commitment to the rule of law and to a rules-based international order that damages the reputation of the UK.”
And Sir Jonathan Jones QC, formerly the most senior lawyer in Government, has described the legal justification for the Bill as “hopeless.” This is, of course, the same distinguished lawyer who resigned last time the Government proposed legislation in violation of their own treaty commitments. On that occasion, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had the temerity to tell the House the truth about the Government’s plan to break international law in a “limited and specific way.”
This Bill breaks the withdrawal agreement in a broad and extensive way while maintaining the pretence that it is somehow compliant. I am not sure what is worse—to be open about breaking the law or to dress up a treaty violation with this flimsy and transparent legal distortion.
Mr Francois
The right hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech. Will he confirm to the House that he has actually read the Northern Ireland protocol? If he has read it, will he remind the House of what article 13.8 says about the ability to amend or even supersede the protocol entirely?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman has, like me, been in this House for many years. This is too serious an issue for any shadow Minister or Minister not to have spent the whole weekend working hard on the Bill, as he knows. He also knows that we all come to this House hopeful of reaching agreement, but very conscious of the lawbreaking that is going forward, so of course I have read it.
Undermining international law runs counter to Britain’s interest, damages Britain’s moral authority and political credibility, and risks emboldening dictators and authoritarian states around the world. It serves the best interests of those who want to weaken the rule of law, and it is unbefitting of this great country.
This Bill not only contravenes international law but affords the Government extraordinary powers and denies proper respect to the role of this House. Fifteen of the 26 clauses confer powers on Ministers. The Hansard Society, not an organisation known for hyperbole, has called the powers given to Ministers “breathtaking.” Professor Catherine Barnard of Cambridge University has called these powers “eye wateringly broad.”
Ministers may use these powers whenever they feel it appropriate. Clause 22 allows them to amend Acts of Parliament, and clause 15 gifts them the power to disapply other parts of the protocol, potentially including the article on democratic consent in Northern Ireland. Ministers could use secondary legislation to change not just primary law but an international treaty. This is a power grab so broad it would make Henry VIII blush.
Clause 19 allows Ministers to implement a new deal with the European Union without primary legislation. Do Conservative Back Benchers really want to give any Foreign Secretary that power? This is brazen Executive overreach. It is an act of disrespect to Parliament and all MPs should reject it.
Karin Smyth
As well as disrespecting Members and Parliament, the Bill is extraordinarily disrespectful to the representatives of people in Northern Ireland who will have no say on these provisions, as the Secretary of State is grabbing all the power.
Mr Lammy
I must make some progress, because I am very conscious that we will run out of time.
As I have outlined, the Bill is damaging and counterproductive, and it is also unnecessary. We want to see checks reduced to an absolute necessary minimum, and there are practical solutions if we work to find them. Let us lower the temperature and focus on what works.
For months, we have been urging the Government to negotiate a veterinary agreement with the European Union that could remove the need for the vast majority of checks across the Irish sea on goods travelling from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. New Zealand has such an agreement. Why cannot we have one? I do not believe that it is beyond the ability of a British Government to negotiate one. That could be the basis of other steps to reduce friction, including improving data sharing. I am not one of those people who believe that only the UK Government need to show flexibility; the EU has been too rigid as well. However, the only way forward is to work hard on negotiation and compromise. I believe that with hard work and determination, with creativity and flexibility, we can overcome those challenges.
This Bill is not the way forward. It will exacerbate the problems it hopes to solve. It will gift Ministers unaccountable powers. It will divide us from our friends and allies in Europe when we should be united. It damages our country’s reputation. It will break international law. The rule of law is not a Labour or a Conservative value; it is our common inheritance. Since Magna Carta in 1215, it is no exaggeration to say that it is one of the greatest contributions that our country has made to the world. No party owns it. No Government should squander it. Britain should be a country that keeps its word. Let us stand for that principle and vote against this Bill tonight.
Several hon. Members rose—
Oral Answers to Questions
David Lammy Excerpts(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we want a negotiated solution. We have been part of those negotiations for 18 months, but fundamentally the mandate does not allow for the solutions that will help restore the primacy of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and get rid of the unacceptable frictions that we are seeing in east-west trade. I suggest that Opposition Members direct their calls for negotiations towards the European Union and the goal of securing a new mandate. I think that would be a better use of their time.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
The protocol Bill introduced to this House last week breaks international law. It risks the integrity of the Good Friday agreement. It divides the UK and the European Union at a time when we should be pulling together against Putin’s war on our continent, and it risks causing new trade barriers during a cost of living crisis. It is not even enough to get the Democratic Unionist party to commit to return to Stormont. Will the Foreign Secretary now quit posturing for Back Benchers who have lost confidence in the Prime Minister, and get back to the hard work and graft of negotiating a practical way forward?
Elizabeth Truss
I am afraid to say that nothing the right hon. Gentleman has just said is accurate. The fact is that our Bill is legal, and we have laid it out in a legal statement. We are putting forward solutions—a green lane and a red lane—that protect the EU single market as well as allowing goods to flow freely around the United Kingdom.
We are very prepared to have those negotiations with the EU, but, at present, we have a negotiating partner that is unwilling to change the issues that are causing the problem in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman should go to Northern Ireland to see the impact that is having on businesses, hauliers and traders who are facing this customs bureaucracy. It is fundamentally undermining the Good Friday agreement.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State knows, 10 days ago I visited Afghanistan. Millions face starvation. One widow whose husband was murdered during the Taliban takeover explained that she was so desperate for money that she had considered selling her kidneys so that she could eat. Meanwhile, conflict continues to rage across the world in Yemen, Lebanon, Ethiopia, Mali and of course Ukraine. Given the scale of the conflicts across the world and the hunger crisis being driven across the world, why is humanitarian aid down by 35% on pre-cut levels? Why are we the only member of the G7 cutting foreign aid, and what impact will this have on our national interests and reputation abroad?
Elizabeth Truss
We are a major donor of humanitarian aid. On the Ukraine crisis, we are the third largest donor in the world. Through our international development strategy, we are committing £3 billion-worth of humanitarian aid over the next three years.
Ukraine Update
David Lammy Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I am grateful for the advance copy of the Foreign Secretary’s statement.
Putin’s war is now 112 days old. Ukraine continues to show remarkable defiance, but Ukrainians are paying a dreadful cost for the war and they need our support more than ever. We support the steps that the Government have taken, including the recent provision of multiple-launch rocket systems, in co-ordination with our American and German allies. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm what additional steps the Government are considering to provide Ukraine with NATO-standard equipment? What efforts is she taking to urge other allies to do the same? Will she confirm that contracts have been signed to replenish stockpiles in the UK?
There are deeply troubling reports of not just the military assault but the devastating consequences for civilians, including mass internment and the removal of tens of thousands of Ukrainians to Russia. What assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of those reports?
The humanitarian situation in Ukraine remains grave. The latest estimates from the United Nations suggest that 10,000 innocent civilians have now lost their lives in this senseless war, with many hundreds of children included in that number. More than 15 million people in Ukraine are in dire need of urgent humanitarian assistance and protection. That includes millions who have been internally displaced and those who are unable to flee entrenched towns and cities.
Given the scale of the crisis faced by the people of Ukraine, and the hunger crisis that Russia’s war is driving around the world, how can the Foreign Secretary justify the decision, announced in the international development strategy, to cut the humanitarian aid budget by 35%? What proportion of the £220 million of humanitarian aid that has been pledged to Ukraine to date has been delivered on the ground? Will she provide to the House a breakdown of the allocations?
One of the gravest consequences of the war has been the disruption of global food supplies. Russia’s blockade of Ukraine’s Black sea ports, which harbour 98% of grain exports, is driving a humanitarian catastrophe. Global food prices have risen by 41%. We know at home the pressures that this is causing around the world. In east Africa, which is already suffering severe drought, this could lead to famine. The International Rescue Committee projects that 47 million more people will face acute hunger this year. Putin must not be allowed to use hunger as a weapon of war.
What more can be done to facilitate the export of grain via the Black sea or alternative land routes? Will the Foreign Secretary support my call for an emergency global food summit to address this grave crisis, which is exacerbating humanitarian crises around the world? There is shocking evidence that Russia is laying mines in agricultural areas; what more can be done to support those trying to stop that? What diplomatic steps is the Foreign Secretary taking, including at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting next week, to sustain and grow the international opposition to the war around the world?
Labour’s commitment to the security of our NATO allies is unshakeable. At the end of June, NATO leaders will gather in Madrid. The summit is an important moment for the alliance to build and sustain unity and support for Ukraine. It is a moment to hopefully welcome new allies in Finland and Sweden, the applications of which we fully support. It is concerning that Turkey has said it is willing to delay their entry by up to a year. What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with counterparts in Turkey about the paramount need to avoid delays and sustain unity?
Last week, two Britons, Aiden Aslin and Shaun Pinner, who were serving in the Ukrainian military, were prosecuted in an illegitimate court despite being legitimate prisoners of war. This breach of the international law of armed conflict is shameful. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office must urgently support the families of those soldiers who will be in deep distress at this time. The Foreign Secretary promised to do “whatever it takes” to secure their release. Will she update the House on what progress the FCDO has made in this vital task?
Finally, I want to ask about Alexei Navalny. There are now troubling reports that he has been transferred from the IK-2 penal colony without the knowledge of either his family or his lawyer, and that his whereabouts are unknown. Mr Navalny, alongside others such as Vladimir Kara-Murza, has been a towering voice of defiance against the corruption of Putin’s regime. Will the Foreign Secretary join me in sending a clear message that his treatment is unacceptable, that the world is watching, and that his voice will not be silenced?
Since the start of Putin’s illegal war, all parts of this House have utterly condemned Russia’s attack and offered our full solidarity to the people of Ukraine in their struggle for freedom and democracy. It is vital that, as this conflict rages on, we continue to support President Zelensky and Ukraine’s courageous people as they face this barbarism.
Elizabeth Truss
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his strong support for the actions that we are taking to support Ukraine and to condemn Russia for this appalling illegal war. We continue to be in talks with the Ukrainians about what more we can do—we are now supplying, as I mentioned, multiple-launch rocket systems—but what is important is that they do get up to NATO-standard equipment. To develop those plans, we have the joint commission with Poland and Ukraine, and we will be saying more on that at the NATO summit.
The right hon. Gentleman is also right about the appalling forced transfer of people to Russia, including children. That is why, in today’s sanctions, we are specifically targeting those who are enabling that appalling practice. He is right, too, about global food prices, and the appalling way in which Russia is weaponising hunger to pursue its ends in Ukraine. We are working with our G7 allies on helping to get the grain out of Ukraine. We are also in talks with the UN. We are doing all we can to facilitate Finland and Sweden’s urgent accession to NATO. What Putin wanted was less NATO, but what he is getting is more NATO, as people understand that the Euro-Atlantic alliance is vital to securing security across Europe.
We are in regular talks with the Ukrainian Government on the British citizens, who are prisoners of war; they were fighting legitimately with the Ukrainian army. What Russia has done is a complete violation of the Geneva convention, and we are taking all the steps that we can.
On the future of Russia, it is clear that we can never allow Russia to be in a position to undertake this aggression again—that is to do with internal repression as well as external aggression—which is why we wholeheartedly support Navalny. We are very concerned about the reports that we have heard, and we urge Russia to release him as soon as possible.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe: Forced Confession
David Lammy Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question, and I think that the whole House is hugely grateful for the tenacity of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq).
It is right that the whole House celebrated when Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe was finally released after four and a half years in unlawful and cruel detention by the Iranian authorities, but it remains the case that this Government, and particularly the Prime Minister, have serious questions to answer over their gross mishandling of the detention of her and other British nationals in Iran. Nazanin said herself that the Prime Minister’s mistakes had had a “lasting impact”, and that she had “lived in the shadow” of them for four and a half years.
We recognise the sensitive and difficult negotiations that led to the agreement for Nazanin’s release, but it is incredibly concerning that she was forced to sign a last-minute false confession as a condition of her release. Did the UK Government agree to that condition, and if so, was it the Foreign Secretary or another official who signed it off? What is the Government’s assessment of how the confession could be used by the Iranian Government against Nazanin in the future?
The Government must also answer the questions about their failure to secure the release of the British-Iranian Morad Tahbaz, who remains languishing in an Iranian jail. Tahbaz’s family were repeatedly told by senior politicians and officials at the Foreign Office that he would be included in any release deal, but that clearly did not happen. In the House on Wednesday 16 March, when I asked the Foreign Secretary about Tahbaz’s case, she said:
“we have secured his release on furlough. He is now at home.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2022; Vol. 710, c. 945.]
However, Tahbaz’s family have made it clear that that is untrue. He was released for a mere 48 hours, and has since been returned to the “abhorrent and appalling” conditions of prison.
It is shameful that Iran continues to use Tahbaz as a pawn. I wrote to the Foreign Secretary about it, and I received a response this morning. I thank her for that response—received within the last hour—but we must have transparency. Can the Minister tell us why Morad Tahbaz has not been able to return home to the UK alongside Nazanin and Anoosheh Ashoori, as his family were promised? What progress is being made on securing Tahbaz’s release, and what progress has there been on securing his release to the UK, as was privately promised? Finally, what progress is being made on securing a visa for his wife to end the current travel ban?
Amanda Milling
I think that, in response to a number of other questions, I have already set out the situation relating to Nazanin and the situation in which she found herself. Iran does have a practice of insisting that detainees sign documents before releasing them, but the UK official did not force Nazanin to do so.
The Iranian Government committed themselves to releasing Morad Tahbaz from prison on indefinite furlough. Iran has failed to honour that commitment, and we continue to urge Iranian authorities at every opportunity to release him immediately.
Ukraine
David Lammy Excerpts(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Putin’s war is now two months old and it has already backfired. Ukrainians have resisted heroically. They have paid a great price but they remain undefeated and undaunted, with President Zelensky the embodiment of their courage. NATO has been united in its support and has shown more focus than ever since the cold war.
Tougher sanctions have been agreed by a broad range of countries, but this is no time to be complacent. The appalling truth is that Putin could still win in Ukraine. He continues to commit war crimes, and the longer that this war goes on, the more atrocities are revealed. There appears to be, frankly, no end to his aggression in sight. As the Secretary of State said, in that light, I welcome the decision by Melinda Simmons, the UK ambassador, to return to Ukraine. Having met her, I know that she would have been reluctant to leave in the first place. It is really good that she and her staff are back in the country.
We are deeply concerned about the reports from Moldova today. This looks worryingly like the familiar Putin playbook of fabricated grievances and concocted attacks that have been used in the past as a pretext for aggression. Will the Secretary of State address those worrying reports and restate our united support for Moldova’s sovereignty and territorial integrity? Putin must not be able to spread this damaging war beyond Ukraine.
We now need a plan to sustain opposition to Putin’s war, keep his criminal regime isolated globally and force him to pull out of Ukraine. That means maintaining the strength of our military, economic, diplomatic and humanitarian assistance, and it means working with our NATO allies to continue to supply Ukraine’s army with lethal weapons.
The Opposition welcome the 5,000 anti-tank missiles and 100 anti-air missiles that the Defence Secretary announced yesterday, but that is not the full amount. I would be grateful to know what the Secretary of State can tell us about the total number of weapons provided to Ukraine by NATO allies so far. Can she confirm whether the UK has started production of replacement next-generation light anti-tank weapons and Starstreak missiles?
It is vital that the Government address gaps in the UK’s sanctions regime. Will the Secretary of State back Labour’s call for a new US-style law to target those who act as proxies for sanctioned individuals and organisations? Will she finally fix the 50% rule, which allows a company to avoid sanctions if 49% is owned by one sanctioned individual and 49% is owned by another?
We also need a longer-term strategy to deal with the indirect consequences of this war, which could go on for months or, sadly, years. In their integrated review, the Government outlined their strategic focus, describing it as an Indo-Pacific tilt. Does the Secretary of State agree that the deprioritisation of European security at this moment was a mistake? As war ravages parts of our continent, we need to put past Brexit divisions behind us, stop seeking rows with our European partners and explore new ways to rebuild relations with European allies by exploring ideas such as a new UK-EU security pact.
Dr Julian Lewis
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s generally consensual approach, but the fact is that if we entered into a new military or security relationship with Europe but without the United States, we would be fatally undermining the deterrent power of NATO. Putin would like nothing more. Will the right hon. Gentleman please be more careful in his recommendations? That is my advice.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful for the remarks of the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee. He is quite right that this is not in the absence of the United States; it is simply about underlining the fact that with France as the biggest defence ally within the European Union and with us, there is a key transatlantic relationship that the Europeans are talking about and that we have to be part of. We have to be in the room. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me on that point.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
The shadow Secretary of State is entirely correct; I suspect that when my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) gets to his feet, he will agree with what the shadow Secretary of State has just said. The two things that will rewrite the Euro-Atlantic security architecture are the upcoming strategic review that NATO will publish at the end of June in Madrid and the EU’s strategic compass, which brings something else to the table: not hard military power—the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) is right—but resilience, crisis management, sanctions, trade, energy security and much else. The European Union is a big tank that can take a while to move, but when it moves, my gosh, we notice it. The shadow Secretary of State is right that London and the European Union should have closer security arrangements in future.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says. Just to underline the point, he will recognise that the decision by Germany totally alters the picture of defence in Europe over the next decade. We can sit on the sidelines and allow a conversation between France and Berlin, or we can be part of that conversation. It must be vital to our own industry that we are part of the conversation.
Dr Julian Lewis
Very much in the spirit of consensus, I will entirely concede the right hon. Gentleman’s point if he believes that the effect of our being part of that conversation would be to help stop Germany paying for Russia’s war effort, as unfortunately it is at the moment.
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman has framed his point in a certain way, and I am reluctant to go down that path. When I went to Berlin with the shadow Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), it was very clear that—particularly because of the key relationship that Russia had had with East Berlin—the withdrawal to which all the Germans we met were committed must of necessity be faced. I think some of language and rhetoric we are hearing is unhelpful to our German partners in this endeavour.
Putin wants to frame this confrontation as being between the west and Russia, but that hides the true nature of the divide caused by Putin’s war. It is a clash between imperialism and self-determination, between international law and the law of the jungle, between hope and fear. If a sovereign United Nations member state can be carved up with minimal consequences, all nations are threatened, and that is why growing the anti-Putin coalition is so vital. We have already had some success in that regard: 141 countries condemned Russia in the United Nations, and Russia was rightly booted off the UN Human Rights Council. I know that the Secretary of State led on that from the front.
Russia’s outright supporters are small in number—a gang of dictators with no respect for human freedom or human rights—but a much larger group have sat on the fence, abstaining on Putin’s monstrous act of aggression, and while 141 of the world’s nearly 200 countries have condemned Russia, in population terms the world is split much closer to 50:50. China has given political support to Moscow, even if it has formally abstained. However, the group of abstentions is much larger, including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South Africa and many others. Isolating Russia is a diplomatic priority. That is why it was so wrong that the Prime Minister failed even to raise the issue of India’s neutrality on Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine in his recent meeting with Prime Minister Modi. As I asked her earlier, will the Foreign Secretary commit herself to doing so now?
One of the most damaging consequences of this war —the Secretary of State touched on this briefly—is the soaring price of food across the world, which risks a humanitarian catastrophe. If we are to build the widest possible coalition against this war, we must ensure that its costs do not threaten the most vulnerable countries in the world, and that means dealing with rocketing food prices. Before Putin’s illegal invasion, Ukraine was the bread basket of Europe: along with Russia, it accounted for 30% of the global wheat supply, 20% of corn, and more than 70% of sunflower oil. In fact, 12% of all calories traded in the world come from the two nations.
However, to defend themselves from Putin’s assault, Ukraine’s farmers have had to take up arms rather than pull up crops, and their tractors have towed away tanks rather than grain. The ports that they had used to ship their goods to a hungry world are under occupation or siege, and now some of their fields are littered with mines. Food prices rose to their highest ever level in March, up a third on this time last year. Maize and wheat posted month-on-month increases of nearly 20%. Meanwhile, the horn of Africa is facing a worsening drought which the UN says will put 20 million people at risk. Many countries in north Africa and the middle east are also vulnerable because they import more than 50% of their cereal crops. Lebanon is already facing huge economic difficulties and political instability.
Soaring food prices and shortages could cause a humanitarian catastrophe, but there is also the risk that countries and their publics will blame the sanctions for these price spikes rather than Putin’s bloody war, with a gradual unravelling of opposition to the invasion. That is why we need to put food security at the heart of our strategy. Does the Foreign Secretary agree with Labour that Britain should work with the UN to organise an emergency global food summit to put it at the very top of the international agenda? We need to secure commitments for action. The summit can be a focus for collaboration with major producers to increase supplies and meet growing needs. Some major agricultural producers, including India, may be in a position to produce more and to ease pressure on prices. We should be planning for the consequences of this war lasting for months and possibly years, and looking at how to manage new planting seasons for crucial crops.
We need to help the populations most at risk, and the UK and our global partners must help to meet the cost. Developing countries face a toxic cocktail of massive debts driven by the pandemic, rising interest rates and now soaring prices, in particular for food. The president of the World Bank has warned of an impending human catastrophe. Last week, the International Monetary Fund held its spring meeting in Washington and the announcements made there were welcome but they do not yet meet the scale of the challenge ahead. Can I ask the Foreign Secretary what further steps the UK will take with international partners and through institutions such the IMF and the World Bank to prepare for this economic crisis?
The Government said that they merged the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office to bring together diplomacy and development. This is a clear test of how that works in reality. The interconnections between Putin’s illegal war, soaring food prices and the vulnerability of the world’s poorest are clear, so why are the Government not yet connecting the dots? The mismanagement of the merger has so far left the combined Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office as less than the sum of its parts, leaking expertise and draining civil servants of morale, and the short-sighted cuts to aid have left the UK little room to respond to new emergencies. This contradicts the generosity shown by the British people and works against our own national interests, so when will the Conservative Government finally step up?
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that we are still awaiting the Government’s long-awaited international development strategy that is needed to deal with all these issues of food shortages and healthcare? We have still had no sight of it, yet it is an integral part of bringing these things together.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is completely right. As the world recovers from a pandemic that the global south is still in the midst of, and as the world faces rising food prices and rising inflation, it is extraordinary that we heard the Secretary of State say that we would have to wait until the spring. If one went outside, one might think it was the beginning of summer. Where is the strategy? We need to see it.
The latest figures suggest that the UK has issued 70,000 visas for those displaced and fleeing Ukraine. The Secretary of State will know—she will no doubt have got this from the emails coming into her own constituency postbag—that there are still thousands of families saying that they want to offer a home who are still waiting to be connected by her colleague the Home Secretary. The rhetoric is not meeting the ambition of the British people.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Like many colleagues, I have been approached by British people trying to help refugees. They are desperately trying to get them into this country and to safety. In one awful case, two large families are sharing a single room in Poland, with no money. Everything is ready for almost every member of the party to come to the UK. One piece of the documentation is lacking, and that is holding up the whole group. They are suffering terribly as a result. Please can the Foreign Secretary refer this matter on to her colleagues? I thank my right hon. Friend again for raising this point.
Barbara Keeley
My right hon. Friend heard me raise the plight of a mother and daughter who are waiting to flee Kherson. They will not leave and go to Poland until their visas are sorted out, even though it is so dangerous there and despite the offer of sponsorship. Does he agree that, although it is heart-warming to see the response of the people of the UK, we do not want to see it wasted? Does he agree that we must see emergency protection visas for those fleeing Ukraine who want to reach the UK, with the biometrics and security checks done en route?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. How is it that the biometric process has held up the humanitarian effort? It feels as if there is a constant concern about security, but we know that the vast majority of those fleeing are women and children. As I said, this undermines our reputation globally.
More than two months on from Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, this war has entered a new stage. What Ukraine needs now is no longer old, spare weapons from the Soviet era but new NATO weapons to prepare for Putin’s new fronts. We have to recognise that this war will now endure for months, possibly years. Now is the time for long-term thinking about how European security must be strengthened. Now is the time for the Conservatives finally to act on the recommendations of the Russia report. Now is the time for the Conservatives finally to stop their cuts to the armed services.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, although it is clear on the Order Paper that the Foreign Secretary and her Department will be responding to this debate, the relevant documents include petitions relating to visas and it would be helpful if a Home Office Minister joined the debate to hear Members’ concerns?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Lady makes her point incredibly well. We want a joined-up Government in this global emergency.
Now is the time to protect the most vulnerable from the cost of Putin’s war, whether they are the vulnerable fleeing Ukraine or the vulnerable in the global south who have to be part of the coalition helping us stand up to this Russian aggression. Now is the time to rethink the already outdated integrated review. Now is the time to make Britain, our allies and partners secure.
Several hon. Members rose—
Oral Answers to Questions
David Lammy Excerpts(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
The last few weeks have seen spiralling tension and violence in Israel and Palestine, with a dozen Israelis killed in a spate of horrific terrorist attacks and more than 20 Palestinians killed in response, including the senseless killing of a teenager and a human rights lawyer. We remain resolutely committed to the goal of a two-state solution, but it feels a very distant prize at present. Can I ask the Minister what she is doing to try to remove the barriers to peace, including ensuring respect of holy sites such as the al-Aqsa mosque, preventing Hamas rocket attacks, ending the expansion of illegal settlements and finally recognising Palestine as a state?
Amanda Milling
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and we are deeply concerned about the very fragile security situation. We are working actively with key partners, including members of the UN Security Council, and both parties to encourage de-escalation of tensions. As he says, there have been some horrific attacks, and we do want to see the situation de-escalated. We are having those conversations to ensure that we play our part in preventing further escalation.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
To isolate Putin on the global stage, we must build the largest possible coalition against his illegal war. India is one country that has so far stayed neutral. The Prime Minister spent last week in India, but No. 10 admitted that he failed even to mention India’s neutrality in his meeting with Prime Minister Modi. That follows the Foreign Secretary’s own failed trip to India where she failed to demonstrate any progress in bringing India into the international coalition condemning Putin’s aggression against Ukraine. Will the Foreign Secretary explain that failure and commit to asking her counterparts in India to oppose Putin’s barbaric war?
Elizabeth Truss
Of course, I have discussed the issue of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine with the Indian Government, but the right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong if he thinks that the right approach for Britain is to go around finger-wagging to the rest of the world rather than working to build strong relationships and partnerships to attract India and others to work more closely with us. On both my visit and the Prime Minister’s visit, we succeeded in moving forward our relationships on trade, investment and defence, generating jobs in Britain and in India with the ultimate goal of working more closely together as fellow democracies and moving away from dependence on authoritarian regimes. The fact is that the right hon. Gentleman prefers gesture politics to getting things done. [Interruption.]
Ukraine
David Lammy Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of her statement, and the continued briefings on Privy Council terms.
It is now more than a month since Vladimir Putin launched his barbaric and illegal invasion, with horrifying results: buildings razed to the ground, maternity hospitals bombed, and the city of Mariupol turned into a living hell. Ukraine is the victim of a bandit regime that is willing to use violence in an attempt to subjugate its neighbour. But 24 February marked not only an attack on the people of Ukraine; it was also an attempt to crush the values of democracy, rule of law and freedom that we all enjoy. There can be no excuses for Putin’s actions, and one day soon I hope he will be held to account for what I consider to be war crimes.
Day by day, it has become clearer that despite Putin’s brutal tactics he is not winning. A month ago, many people gave Ukraine’s resistance little chance. Many expected Russia’s armed forces to sweep into Kyiv in days, frankly, yet still Ukraine’s forces hold firm. Their skill, bravery and resolve has inspired the world. Putin’s invasion may have stalled, but the threat he poses remains. Reports suggest he may be seeking a way out. We want to see an end to the bloodshed, and the restoration of Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty.
I am sure the Foreign Secretary will agree with me that any ceasefire agreement must enjoy the full support of the democratically elected Government of Ukraine and that, if an agreement is reached, there will be no return to the previous status quo in our economic relationship with Russia. Putin’s regime must still pay a long-term cost for its war of aggression. We must decisively end our dependence on fossil fuels and move rapidly towards cheap, home-grown renewables to support our energy sector. We must complete the unfinished task of ending Britain’s role as the hub of dirty money from Russia and elsewhere. As this war remains in the balance, we must do what we can to ensure that we tip it towards Ukraine.
I am pleased that the NATO, EU and G7 summits last week reinforced western unity. It is right that NATO has agreed to bolster the eastern flank, with the approval of four additional battle groups. I welcome the commitment to increase and strengthen capabilities, as well as cyber-security assistance, financial aid and humanitarian aid, but can I ask the Foreign Secretary what is the scale of the UK’s contribution? Last week’s commitment shows NATO’s long-term strategy is quickly evolving. Other European allies who are reviewing defence spending are boosting their armed services. I was in Berlin last week, where our colleagues in Germany have committed to a historic investment in defence. Finland, Sweden and Denmark all announced reviews or extra resources for defence. Does the Foreign Secretary really believe it is right at this time for the UK to cut the Army by 10,000 in the next few years? If not, will she act on Labour’s call to halt those cuts?
It is time, too, for Britain to return to the table when it comes to European security. Will the Foreign Secretary tell the Prime Minister to stop picking petty squabbles with our neighbours on the continent and instead deepen security co-operation that will keep us all safe?
Last week, G7 and EU leaders focused on closing loopholes on existing sanctions rather than imposing new measures. There remain many gaps in the UK’s regime: trusts are not fully covered; many Russian banks are not designated, and ownership thresholds are too high. We need to ensure effective enforcement, including of the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us what her Government are doing to close those loopholes and whether she plans to put further sanctions in place?
A month on from this illegal invasion, the world has changed. The unity across this House, this country and the international community must endure. The next few days and weeks will be crucial, and we send all our support to the people of Ukraine. As this war enters a new phase, we must all adapt and hold our nerve. Through the darkness of terror and destruction, Zelensky’s democratic Government remain in control against all the odds. Bravery is shining through.
Iran Detainees
David Lammy Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for giving me advance sight of the statement. For too long, the Iranian Government have been depriving British nationals of their liberty to use them as political bargaining chips. Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has been detained in Iran for almost six years. Anoosheh Ashoori has faced the same fate for almost five years. The suffering they have endured during those years is unimaginable. The moments of laughter, joy and hope that they and their families have lost are irretrievable The Iranian Government are entirely to blame for these acts of cruelty. The whole House will be overjoyed that their detention has now come to an end, and that Nazanin and Anoosheh can return to British soil to be reunited with their families and take the breath of freedom once again. We must pay tribute to their tireless families, who have shown extraordinary strength, resilience and courage in the face of an unimaginable ordeal.
I also give credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for all her efforts over so many years, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) for continuing to raise these issues. I give them credit for their tireless work in campaigning to secure the freedom of their constituents. We join the Government in thanking the Government of Oman for their help. I also give credit to the tireless work of British officials, as well as to the Foreign Secretary for her role in securing justice. She has shown more skills in diplomacy than her bungling boss, who appeared to do more damage than help while he held her current post.
Serious lessons need to be learned from this appalling episode. We need stronger international measures to combat the use of arbitrary detention as a political tool and to end hostage diplomacy. We also need a review of these cases. We need to understand what could have been done by the British Government to secure these releases sooner. I note that the Foreign Secretary said that she had
“stepped up these efforts over the last six months.”
I give her credit for that and welcome it, but I want to ask her what efforts were not taken by her predecessors that could have been. A review must also consider whether comments made by Ministers contributed to the extended detention. It is also good news that Morad Tahbaz has been released on furlough. Can the Foreign Secretary elaborate on the next steps to support his case? We note that other British nationals are still in detention and seeking help from the British Government. Can she update the House on the latest number and on what efforts are in place to help them?
We welcome the Government’s parallel announcement that the IMS debt has been repaid. We have long called for the Government to find a way to pay back that internationally recognised legitimate debt. What guarantees have the Government been given that this sum of money will be used only for humanitarian purposes? Today, though, let us focus on the main point of this statement. The whole House and the whole country can share in the triumph of welcoming Nazanin and Anoosheh home.
Elizabeth Truss
There have been years of effort and some fantastic people in the Foreign Office, including the leaders of the Foreign Office and the Foreign Office team, have worked tirelessly. What has changed in the past six months is that we have a new Government in Iran. I was able, when I went to New York in September and met Minister Amir-Abdollahian, to reset the relationship and be clear that we were serious about resolving the outstanding issues that Iran had, and the Iranians were clear that they were serious about resolving the outstanding issues we had.
I pay tribute to the fantastic Foreign Office officials, who have been tenacious in travelling to Tehran and getting this done in what are very difficult circumstances. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, paying money to Iran is not easy with the intensive sanctions regime in place, even though this is very clearly a legitimate debt. I can assure him that we have humanitarian guarantees. What I cannot do is go into the details, because that is confidential between the parties, but I have had this thoroughly checked out across Government to ensure that we have those guarantees that the money will be used for humanitarian purposes.
On the subject of Morad Tahbaz, who I spoke to at the end of last year when he was in prison, we have secured his release on furlough. He is now at home. That was an important point that we pressed with the Iranian Government. I know from speaking to him that the conditions in prison were abhorrent and appalling, so he is now in better conditions, but of course we will continue to get him home, as well as other detainees who do not want their names released in public. The other point to make about Mr Tahbaz is that he is a tri-national with the United States, so we need to work with our US partners on this issue and we are talking to him.
In the spirit of what the right hon. Gentleman said about welcoming the detainees home, that should be our focus today. They have been through an appalling ordeal; I could not imagine what it would be like to be without my family or my mother for so long. We must give the families the privacy they deserve, and thank them for their tenacity through this appalling ordeal that should never happen to anyone.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Lammy Excerpts(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Two weeks into this awful war, Ukraine has suffered terribly but stands defiant. Putin is isolated, his economy is in freefall and his actions are condemned around the world. We are united in our desire to ratchet up pressure on Putin, but the UK has sanctioned just eight of the Navalny 35 list of oligarchs. The EU has sanctioned 19 and the US has sanctioned 15. We welcome the Government’s U-turn on sanctions legislation yesterday, which should help us to catch up, but sanctions against oligarchs work only if we know where their wealth is hidden. Will the Government commit to urgently reforming Companies House, to leave Putin-linked crooks with nowhere to hide?
Elizabeth Truss
First, the right hon. Gentleman needs to look at the overall size of our sanctions. The UK has targeted £364 billion-worth of assets, whereas the US has targeted £340 billion and the EU has targeted £124 billion. We have led the way, whether on SWIFT, freezing bank assets or closing ports.
As for the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, it was the Labour party that wanted changes to make it tougher for us to sanction oligarchs. The hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who is now chair of the Labour party, said on Third Reading that the Act gives Ministers “excessive power” that could not be
“justified by the need for speed”.—[Official Report, 1 May 2018; Vol. 640, c. 239.]
She even called for additional bureaucracy through a cross-Whitehall committee. The U-turn is on their side.
Mr Lammy
The world watched Putin’s premeditated stalking of Ukraine. We saw the lies, the false diplomacy and the manufactured grievances, and then we witnessed the destructive invasion of a sovereign state. This is a crime of aggression. The creation of a special tribunal will help the global community to hold Vladimir Putin and his cronies personally responsible for this war, and it would complement the International Criminal Court’s investigation. Ukraine’s Foreign Minister backs it, several of our allies and partners back it and leading lawyers back it. Will the Foreign Secretary now do the same?
Elizabeth Truss
I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we are seeing horrific crimes taking place in Ukraine, and they are the responsibility of President Putin. That is why the United Kingdom has worked with our allies to put a case to the ICC—there were 38 states, making it the biggest ever group referral to the ICC. That is the right route to tackle the war crimes that we consider could have taken place or are taking place in Ukraine. We want to work with countries to collect the evidence. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice will be travelling to The Hague to work on that specific issue.