Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation: Sanctions and Tariffs

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I agree with the hon. Member. The sanctions regime is integral to Britain’s role in supporting Ukraine and holding Putin’s regime accountable for the acts of violence that it continues to perpetrate against civilians across Ukraine.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I am grateful to be able to add my voice, and that of my party, to the hon. Lady’s comments. Our concern is that the sanctions regime is not being extended far enough and specifically to countries in the developing world that are being seduced by Russia to trade with it.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

I agree with the hon. Member entirely.

This winter, the people of Ukraine carried on through the difficult war that they face, and we need to back their bravery by being brave and bold with sanctions and tariffs. However, the joint sentiments are worthless if things do not happen in practice, and sadly this is the case for a business group in my constituency. I recently met SGG Manufacturing Ltd, JDUK Ltd and Alunet Systems Ltd—a small group of wholly UK-owned businesses that I am glad to see represented here today. They are based in a number of MPs’ constituencies—particularly that of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood), who apologises that he is unable to attend, but he is absolutely on board with the case that I am about to raise.

Prior to the war, the businesses were, in part, the sole and exclusive distributors of a Belarusian manufacturer. They imported and distributed aluminium extrusions and products from Belarus. For example, they supplied components for roller garage doors—not the most glamorous of products, I agree, but over 10 years these British businesses had grown their revenue to £30 million per annum. Over 10 years, they had managed to supply 30% to 50% of roller garage doors in the UK using their components.

Then, the war in Ukraine happened. In response, the businesses did the right thing. They decided to abandon their exclusive contract with the Belarusian manufacturer and sourced their components from elsewhere in Europe—a decision that was expensive, risky and lengthy but nevertheless the right thing to do. The Government then introduced additional tariffs of 35% on Belarusian and Russian goods, which made it clear that the decision by those businesses was not just the moral thing to do but the right thing to do from a business perspective—that is, if the sanctions and tariffs were implemented effectively. Unfortunately, they were not.

The original Belarusian supplier is now managing to circumvent the sanctions and is continuing to import banned products. It is also able to pay the relatively low additional tariff of 35% with ease, so it can operate very competitively in the market. The British group, based in my constituency, has played by the rules and has had to find a more expensive manufacturer elsewhere in Europe.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I thank the hon. Member for that contribution, and I recognise that it is sometimes difficult to arrive bang on time for the start of a debate. I am not familiar with that particular case. Where people seek to circumvent our sanctions regime, we will review that in two ways: first, by continually reviewing and updating our sanctions lists; and, secondly, through HMRC’s serious enforcement action, which I will come to in a minute.

The latest package of internationally co-ordinated sanctions and trade measures announced on 24 February includes export bans on every item that Russia has been found to be using on the battlefield to date. These are important sanctions. Our sanctions toolkit extends far beyond the designations of individuals or entities.

In the year since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the UK has introduced an array of measures targeting the trade, finance, military and industrial sectors. These measures target industries that support the war and prohibit all new investments in Russia via third countries. They are constraining Putin’s ability to maintain the occupation of Ukraine, and they are weakening and isolating the Russian economy.

Our trade measures alone reduced Russian goods imports to the UK by 99% between September and November last year, compared with the same period in 2021. UK goods exports to Russia fell by nearly 80% over the same period. More than £20 billion of UK-Russia trade in goods is now under full or partial sanction. By anybody’s metrics, these are substantive measures. But Putin has not acted alone. Lukashenko’s regime in Belarus has actively supported Russia’s illegal and unprovoked actions. That is why UK sanctions also apply to Belarusian individuals, entities and organisations who have aided and abetted this reckless aggression.

In July 2022, we introduced legislation imposing further sanctions on Belarus in response to its support for Russia’s war. These sanctions included giving the UK the power to detain and de-register Belarusian aircraft, and measures prohibiting Belarusian ships from entering UK ports. We also expanded existing financial sanctions measures, banning more Belarusian companies from issuing debt and securities in London or obtaining loans from UK banks, among other measures. The legislation introduced trade measures against Belarus, including bans on the export of critical industry goods and technologies, as well as luxury goods, and a ban on the import of iron and steel.

Since before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Lukashenko’s regime in Belarus has shown continued disregard for international law and has committed ongoing violations of the fundamental freedoms and human rights of the Belarusian people. The regime initiated a brutal crackdown in 2020, which continues today, in response to protests which followed the flawed 2020 elections.

The UK previously introduced sanctions against Belarusian individuals, entities and organisations who have supported and facilitated the Lukashenko regime’s human rights violations. These sanctions signal our discontent and are intended to coerce the Belarusian regime to change their behaviour. In total, with the addition of our designations since Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, the UK has targeted more than 120 Belarusian individuals and entities.

Tariff measures are adding further weight to our response, tightening the screws on Putin and his supporters. Between March last year and January this year, we introduced four batches of 35% tariff increases on a wide range of goods from Russia and Belarus worth over £2.4 billion, from vodka and caviar to certain metals, chemicals and plastics. Tariff increases on Belarus have been made in line with the evolving sanctions positions as part of our co-ordinated response.

[Hywel Williams]

Before the Minister moves on, is he in a position to comment on how Russia is evading some of the sanctions broadly imposed by the west by trading with countries that are developing or emerging markets? Russia is evading our sanctions, however well we impose them.

[David Rutley]

I will come on to what we are doing to tackle circumvention in a little more detail. The Russians are doing everything they can to try to avoid these sanctions, because they are biting on their economy. We continually need to refresh our sanctions approach to respond to that, and we are.

The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden will be aware that a letter to the Foreign Secretary in January was passed to HMRC, as the lead enforcement authority for trade sanctions, for further review. As I am sure she will understand, HMRC cannot and does not comment on specific cases. However, I can assure her that the Government and HMRC take this and all reported alleged sanctions violations very seriously indeed.

I will take this opportunity to acknowledge the important role that businesses can and do play in providing us with information and intelligence about suspected sanctions breaches, such as by self-reporting. That is an important part of our sanctions enforcement architecture, and it is vital to help to inform the action that is taken.

The hon. Lady asked about steel and aluminium products. That issue relates to differences in the scope of the UK’s Russia and Belarus sanctions regimes, as has been highlighted by a number of colleagues. Different regimes serve different foreign policy objectives. Although there are links between Russia and Belarus sanctions, they are distinct. We keep our sanctions under review. Given Russia’s ongoing and outrageous actions in Ukraine, we have continued to bring forward new measures since the invasion last year.

Ukraine

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. Earlier last month, I spent time with women in Kosovo, who reminded me of the horrors of war and sexual violence. In their own pain, they told me about the work that they were doing to help their Ukrainian sisters at this desperate time. It reminded me of the importance of that psycho-social support and the huge humanitarian effort in which we and others must play a part, not just over the next months, but for many, many years to come.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Inevitably, some people will flee the Russian advance that is coming in the spring, and some might reach the United Kingdom. Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that proper provision must be made to welcome them and also to find permanent accommodation for them if necessary?

[Mr Lammy]

The hon. Gentleman is right. It is why so many British people have opened their homes to Ukrainians at this desperate time. Of course, as this new offensive begins, there will most likely be further need over the coming months.

It is important to stress that this war did not begin for the Ukrainians one year ago. In fact, it begun in 2014 when Putin moved into the Donbas and when he annexed Crimea. One year ago, we hoped for the best, yet, faced with what seemed like unsurmountable odds, we feared the worst, but Ukraine stands defiant. The price Ukrainians have paid for their continued freedom is immense: tens of thousands of people lost; cities destroyed; and families shattered. While Ukraine stands tall, Putin stands condemned and isolated. While Ukraine has won the admiration and respect of the world, Putin’s ego has made Russia a pariah. While Putin expected the west to fracture and divide, his actions have drawn us together. But we cannot become complacent. In the coming weeks and months, Ukraine will yet again face new challenges and hardships designed by Putin to test her resolve and the resolve of us all. It is our duty to the people of Ukraine to do all we can to ensure that the country overcomes these challenges, in the same way that it has all the others. Ukraine must and will prevail.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

We negotiated the Northern Ireland protocol in good faith, and I have been negotiating with Maroš Šefčovič in good faith, but we have seen real consequences for the people of Northern Ireland that need to be addressed.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Under the current Brexit arrangements, freight trade through Holyhead is down 34%, whereas north-south trade in Ireland is up by 34% and south-north trade is up by 49%. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that such economic fundamentals argue against her taking precipitous unilateral action on the protocol?

[Elizabeth Truss]

Those figures demonstrate that there has been trade diversion in Northern Ireland, and they demonstrate that we need to restore the balance of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement to make sure east-west is treated with equal esteem to north-south.

Prime Minister’s Visit to India

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Ford]

I know my hon. Friend, as a former member of the Royal Navy, cares passionately about our defence. The leaders agreed to intensify co-operation as trusted partners under the India-UK defence and international security partnership framework. They noted the importance of robust defence industrial collaboration and worked specifically on the issue of cyber-security in a joint cyber statement. The aim is to deepen co-operation across cyber-governance, deterrence and strengthening cyber-resilience. The open general export licence will also reduce bureaucracy and shorten delivery times for defence procurements. This is the first time we have signed such a deal with any country in the Indo-Pacific.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Mr Modi has the right to set India’s own foreign policy, of course, but did the Prime Minister specifically raise India’s continuing trade with Russia and Mr Modi’s decision to abstain on the UN motion condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[Vicky Ford]

It is right that every country in the world has the right to make its own decisions. The UK should not go finger-pointing at our friends and partners every time we decide to do something different from them. I know the two Prime Ministers discussed the situation in Ukraine. This is a time when it is really important that democracies stand together and deepen the way they work together to prevent aggression and to strengthen global security. That is why the two Prime Ministers released a statement immediately after their meeting in which they both unequivocally condemned the civilian deaths that have been happening in Ukraine and reiterated the need for an immediate ending of hostilities.

International Mother Language Day

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered International Mother Language Day 2022.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I start by wishing everyone happy St David’s day—I can see many of my Welsh colleagues here. I begin my remarks by speaking the language of my parents—Sylheti—for what I understand could be for the first time in a UK parliamentary debate by simply saying,

“Ekta basha kuno dino jotheshto oy na”.

In English, that means, “One language is never enough”.

I am delighted to have secured this debate about Language Martyrs Day and International Mother Language Day on the date that those remembrances fall—21 February, or Ekushey February in Bangla, when 70 years ago this year political activists and students in Dhaka were killed while demanding official status for their mother tongue Bangla. Honouring those Bengali students martyred in 1952 has, of course, deep personal meaning for me as a British Bangladeshi growing up in, and now representing, an area with a large Bengali-speaking community. Every day I feel acutely a deep sense of responsibility from knowing that I owe so much personally to those who came before me, who had to struggle to keep our culture and language alive, facing prejudice, discrimination and state repression.

The language of my family—Sylheti—is spoken by an estimated 11 million people, primarily in the Sylhet district of Bangladesh and, of course, around the world by a diaspora community, including in my constituency of Poplar and Limehouse. In fact, we are lucky in east London to be one of the most linguistically vibrant areas and communities in the entire country, with at least 90 identified different languages being used in Tower Hamlets alone.

Globally, there are a wonderful 6,500 spoken languages in the world today, and each is superbly unique in a number of exciting ways. Language is one of the most important parts of any culture and society, and it is critical for our daily lives as we continually seek to further understand and improve the world around us. The words that we use are constantly evolving and changing. New words are created to describe new things, and old words invariably take on new meanings. The nuances and multiple levels on which a single word can operate are just incredible. Our language can be remarkably simple and extraordinarily complex, and sometimes both at the same time. Words can be extremely specific, and yet they can mean almost anything and everything in between. Language diversity is at the heart of this human brilliance.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I am glad that the hon. Member said that old words can grow new meanings. In this place, I have actually asked Members on the Government side, “Is having a curry on the veranda of my bungalow, with some chutney and a lager, English?” Clearly, it is English, but it is also a huge number of other languages, which have contributed to the mix that is English and to the mix that is Welsh, as I will explain later.

[Apsana Begum]

I thank the hon. Member for making such an important point, which is actually a running theme of my words here today.

I know people who tell me that there are things they can say in their mother language that they cannot say in English, and that there are things they can say in English that they cannot say in their parents’ language. And there is no doubt that we are richer for the range of people who call Britain home but carry in their hearts the language of another land. So, Language Martyrs Day and International Mother Language Day emphasise the significance of protecting, nurturing and embracing different cultures, languages and ways of life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I thank you, Sir Edward, and congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) on securing this interesting and important debate. It is interesting and important because language is so intimately tied up with identity. I congratulate the hon. Members who have taken part so far on the positive tone of the debate. I come from a country where language has been a contentious issue for many years—something that has now largely passed, I am glad to say.

I am glad that we are debating mother tongues, or what are sometimes called minority languages, lesser used languages in the European Union term, and autochthonous languages, which I use as a former academic. It is a lovely term, which means arising from the land it comes from. In that respect, Welsh and English in Wales are both autochthonous languages, as are other languages that have been mentioned.

I am also glad that we are discussing this on Dydd Gŵyl Dewi, our national saint’s day, St David’s day. In Wales, we have a wealth of understanding of the nature of bilingualism, or rather multilingualism. Bilingualism is just a special case of multilingualism. We also know a lot about translation, machine translation, the technology of simultaneous translation, bilingualism, IT and education, through two languages or one at a time.

We also have experience of devising new terms and growing new meanings on old terms. It is one of the abiding joys of my life that I occasionally see terms that I devised a long time ago, going past on paper from Government publications on social matters. It is humbling to know that I have added one or two to the million entries in the University of Wales dictionary of Welsh, which comes in four volumes and is available upstairs in the Members’ Library, if anybody is interested. I think they bought it especially for me.

It is multilingualism, for many languages are spoken in Wales and the UK, although in Wales only two have legal status, while others are extensively catered for. My argument is that if two are conceded rather than one, why not concede three? Why not make provision in particular circumstances for three or more? The important point is that multilingualism is the normal condition throughout the world. It is the UK’s sometimes suffocating monolingualism that is the exception. There is monolingualism in a large number of other countries as well, although they are a minority.

I have already suggested, in the moments that I have been on my feet, a number of directions that this debate could take. To refer to legal status and its complexities, if we wish to discuss real change we have to think about changing the law, to give rights. It is only through rights that one can secure provision. Welsh language legislation has always been confined to Wales and to the Welsh language. That is how this place has historically treated the language issue. If we are to have proper provision for people who speak the wealth of languages spoken in the UK, we have to think about changing the law. As an old hand in these matters, I suggest that to the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse.

Other languages at present do not count in the same way, although there are variations. In Canada, bilingualism exists broadly throughout the country in a limited sense, but much more intensively in Quebec, but Welsh is confined to Wales. I will refer briefly, as an example, to the Welsh Language Act 1967, which provided equal validity to Welsh, so that if something was done in Welsh, it was as if it was done in English. It was equally valid, though not equal. A provision in that very short Act also said that, in the case of a divergence between the two texts,

“the English text shall prevail”.

That was how the question of equality was dealt with. It could lead to the ridiculous situation that the English says “two and two is five” and the Welsh “dau a dau yn bedwar”, and the answer would be five rather than four, because in the case of a divergence between the two texts, the English shall prevail. That is a hard case, and it is a bad law in that respect. The Welsh Language Act 1993 brought in the principle of

“treated on a basis of equality”.

That is not equality, but “on a basis of”. That is essentially how it stands. It is something that one can work with.

I want to refer the Minister to a couple of private Members’ Bills that I have brought in. Perhaps at least one of them might be revisited at some point, either by me or by the Ministry of Justice, if it is interested. It is a reform of the Juries Act 1974. The Act provides that juries must be able to understand English: that is, the language-understanding principle has been conceded. There is a qualification—that jurors must be able to understand English. Judges can disqualify jurors if they do not understand English. The principle of having to understand the language has been conceded.

The question therefore is, how many languages? I would say, in Wales, two at least—and possibly more. Some years ago, I therefore proposed the Bilingual Juries (Wales) Bill, which would in some cases mean that all members of a jury should be bilingual on the basis of the 1974 Act. The principle is that the jury should understand the evidence as directly as possible in the language in which it is presented, not through the medium of a translator, however good translators are. The law on the Welsh language has been reviewed recently by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who provided a substantial report to the Welsh Government. He did not suggest bilingual juries, by the way, but I think he went quite far in that direction. It is worth having a quick look at that again.

One thing that strikes me regularly is that whenever the use of more than one language is discussed—particularly, I would say, on the BBC—the participants seem to feel the need to find interesting but very distanced examples of languages in New Guinea, Australia or China, and the wealth that we have in the UK, and in Wales in particular, is usually ignored. We have a variety of languages in Wales, and not exclusively in urban areas. I represent a rural area, and there are people who speak a variety of languages. They include people who were born in Wales whose home language is another one.

Indeed, as an interested Welsh speaker, I have occasionally said in this place—sometimes to the surprise of the other side—that English is a Welsh language. If hon. Members ponder that for a moment, they will see the reasoning behind it. In that sense, I would also say that Polish, Urdu, Kurdish, Italian, Sylheti and all the others are also Welsh languages. Language is a social construction; it is something that we all agree on that we can use. In that respect, all languages require and deserve respect, and the ability for people to use them.

I have talked much too long already, and I could go on for a very long time. However, I draw hon. Members’ attention to something that some might not have noticed. This House operates bilingually as well—at times, at least. It is a bit under the radar. The Welsh Grand Committee operates in Welsh and English. My last speech to the Committee was entirely in Welsh, and the majority of Members who contributed did so fully or partly in Welsh as well. The Welsh Affairs Committee also regularly enables the use of two languages. The House’s education department has taken great strides in providing education material bilingually, although when the education centre was built around the back of the House of Lords, I suggested that simultaneous translation facilities should be incorporated—they were on demand in one of the lecture rooms—but to no avail. When Welsh is used in the Palace, we build a temporary shed in the corner of the Committee room, complete with snaking wires across the floor to trip anybody who is unwary.

There are alternatives. In Wales, I am used to having bilingual committee meetings of four or five people, and the fifth—or the fourth, even—is a translator who sits in the corner whispering into a microphone, so that people have translation through discreet wireless headphones. It is possible to do without a shed in the corner and wires all over the place.

We need to look at normalising that sort of provision, not just for Welsh but for any language, to enable anyone to contribute. Translation is a boon. It is useful and, in the end, it is a concession for those who do not speak the other language. I can manage well enough in Welsh, and fairly well in English, but translation is a boon for the people who cannot manage. If we bear that principle in mind, the changes to practice become obvious.

Countering Russian Aggression and Tackling Illicit Finance

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Asia and the Middle East (Amanda Milling)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for securing this timely debate and join him in expressing our united support for the people of Ukraine and their territorial integrity. We have seen events unfolding that none of us thought we would ever witness again.

We have unreservedly condemned this outrageous and unjustified act. This action is inconsistent with the United Nations charter and a clear breach of international law. It demonstrates flagrant disregard for Russia’s commitments under the Minsk agreement and represents a further attack on Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. We continue to call on Russia to observe its obligations under article 2(4) of the United Nations charter to

“refrain…from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”.

We reiterate our unshakeable commitment to the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine. We insist that the Russian Federation immediately returns to compliance with its obligations under the United Nations charter and its commitments under the Helsinki Final Act and the 1994 Budapest memorandum. We demand that the Russian Federation immediately withdraws all its military forces from the territory of Ukraine, unconditionally and without exception. We also insist that the Russian Federation allows and facilitates the safe and unobstructed access of humanitarian assistance by international agencies for those in need in Ukraine. Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced, here in the House, the UK’s response to this action.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I agree with the Minister’s fine words, but two weeks ago, the Prime Minister told the House, on Ukraine, that the UK’s role was “to lead the West”. In the meantime, Germany has put Nord Stream 2 on hold indefinitely. Today, the European Union has sanctioned Duma deputies, the Russian Defence Minister and the Russian air force and Black sea fleet commanders, and it has brought in asset freezes and sanctioned 23 individuals, five banks and an internet troll factory. The USA has also extended sanctions. Is the UK actually leading the west?

[Amanda Milling]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I would say that we absolutely are leading, with our allies. I will come on to the package of measures and some of the points that have been raised, as well as what we will go on to do.

The UK is one of the largest and most open economies, and London is one of the world’s most attractive destinations for overseas investments. Those factors not only make the UK attractive for legitimate business, but expose the UK to illicit finance and money laundering risks. We are well aware that individuals with links to the Russian state may seek to further their reputation and influence in the UK through strategic investments. We continue to look in close detail at the nature of those relationships. We examine the intentions of those individuals; professional enablers, individuals or entities who facilitate corrupt elites; and what that money can be and is being used for in the UK.

Money obtained through corruption or criminality is not welcome in the UK or in our Crown dependencies and overseas territories. The Government are at the forefront of tackling illicit finance, combating the threat from source to destination, including those linked to Russia.

Global Britain: Human Rights and Climate Change

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Westminster Hall

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Global Britain, human rights and climate change.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am delighted to have secured this debate—a timely debate, given the circumstances—which will consider the interacting and integral relationship between the Government’s declared ambition for developing a global Britain, universal human rights and the ramifications of climate change, which are obviously global in their nature. I hope that today’s debate will further our shared hopes and wishes for the forthcoming COP26 summit, and that it will be a meaningful success. I think we all wish the Government well in that enterprise.

More than 20 years ago, the Government proposed the idea of what was then called an ethical dimension to foreign policy, famously announced by Robin Cook. I was a Member at the time and I remember Robin Cook on the steps of the Foreign Office declaring that there would be an ethical dimension to foreign policy, I suspect, to the dismay of some of his colleagues and possibly also to some of the professionally straight-faced officials standing behind him. I hope I am not being too sceptical in saying that.

That policy made it explicit that in the modern world

“foreign policy is not divorced from domestic policy but a central part of any political programme.”

Robin Cook said very clearly:

“Our foreign policy must have an ethical dimension and must support the demands of other peoples for the democratic rights on which we insist for ourselves.”

That must be the yardstick, must it not? What we would want for ourselves is what we would want for other people.

Those are fine words, and I do not need to entertain the Chamber with the outcome, or perhaps the lack of outcome. Tellingly, looking at the four priorities that Robin Cook outlined, I have picked out some words that give something of a flavour. He used words such as “security”, “disarmament”, “prosperity”, “exports” and “jobs”. He talked about improving the quality of life in the UK and the quality of our environment, and as I said a moment ago, said:

“Our foreign policy must have an ethical dimension”.

We can see the direction of travel in his remarks.

Looking at the present, with a commitment to delivering unparalleled socioeconomic change by achieving net zero by 2050, it is clear that domestic policy is, at least rhetorically, geared towards fighting climate change. Yet, the Government and UK foreign policy in general have unfortunately undermined the climate effort, tarnishing the UK’s international credibility and, in some instances, exacerbating rather than lessening the decarbonisation challenge.

I have to concede that many other countries are doing no better. There was a report today from the Clean Air Fund that noted that between 2019 and 2020, Governments in the world gave 20% more in overseas aid funding to fossil fuel projects than to programmes to cut air pollution, which those very projects cause. However, it is the Government who have delivered unprecedented cuts to our international aid budget. It is also the Government who have continued support for hydrocarbon projects that undermine our collective climate goals, and it is the Government who have largely missed the unique opportunity of being both the COP26 co-host and president of the G7. That challenge, which has largely been missed, is one of delivering leadership and securing climate action in a decade that will make or break our collective future. It is, indeed, an emergency.

From addressing climate change to the debacle in Afghanistan, it is quite clear that we must revisit the aims and the claims of global Britain, which is in the title of this debate. We must ask fundamental questions about what the UK Government’s foreign policy priorities are and how they intend to deliver them.

Against the backdrop of the climate crisis, rather than sending gunboats or aircraft carriers overseas, or securing some fairly marginal trade deals at present, the Government should revisit the notion of an ethical human rights-based foreign policy. By beginning with such a policy framework we can capture the human rights challenges posed by climate change; we can establish responsibility and frameworks for action. We can use existing international law and thus promote and enable collective buy-in by the global community. It is an extremely practical way to start.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I am glad he mentioned Afghanistan, because I believe it was a turning point for our thinking on global Britain, whatever than means. The US is going towards a more isolationist position, which leaves the UK somewhat stranded. The rational course of action is to improve our links with Europe, especially on security and defence. Does he share my concern that the incumbents of very important Ministries in Whitehall are probably the last people to rebuild those important bridges?

[Hywel Williams]

We are in danger of going off on somewhat of a tangent, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As far as our party was concerned, when the votes came in on the invasion of Afghanistan and the military action there, I was one of the 17 who voted against. I think I am the last person standing of that group. The point that we made at the time was that we should internationalise the response to the conflict by drawing in actors who were not involved in military action in the first place. That is a fine aim for action on climate change—drawing people in is obviously the way to do it, rather than sending gunboats.

The climate crisis has been described as the biggest threat to our survival as a species, and is already threatening human rights around the world. Rising global temperatures are driving unprecedented harmful effects, from drought to floods, rising sea levels to heat waves, extreme weather events and the collapse in biodiversity and all ecosystems. In both its scale and its devastation, climate change is the ultimate threat to the freedom and rights of human kind and to our environment—they all come together.

Most directly, environmental instability threatens basic human rights—the right to life, the right to health and the right to development. The World Health Organisation believes that between 2030 and 2050 alone, climate change will cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths every year. That is the scale of the effect. Those deaths will occur from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress—a multitude of effects with one overriding cause: climate change.

Life will be harder for millions of the most vulnerable people in the world, especially children. By 2040, one in four children—around 600 million—living in areas of extremely high water stress, will be vulnerable. The World Bank believes that an additional 100 million people could be impoverished by 2030 due just to climate change. The potential for increased migration is obvious, and our response needs to develop. In the short term, we have our strategies, debates and disputes, but we must look properly at development in-country and in neighbouring countries.

Other freedoms, including the right to self-determination and political freedom are also threatened. It is no surprise that in some of the countries which are most threatened by climate change there are the most despotic regimes and the most conflict, death and disease.

Rising sea levels, which take no account of sovereignty, so prized by the Government, now affect the very existence of several island countries. That is the scale of the problem. Conflict is made more likely by climate change, as I said a moment ago. In Syria, sustained drought brought about by changing weather patterns is widely seen to have been a substantial contributing factor to the brutal civil war there; a conflict that has claimed 500,000 lives and has already led to mass displacements and migration. I concede and congratulate the Government—the previous one, at least—on the huge spending that the UK made in response; there was 500 million almost immediately. That is certainly a very good thing but, again, it provides an idea of the scale of the problem.

I am glad that these dangers are recognised, and I welcome previous ministerial comments calling on countries to ensure that climate action complies with human rights obligations. I hope that in his closing remarks the Minister will expand on these comments and detail how the UK Government are seeking to hold countries to their climate change commitments in a manner that respects and builds on human rights, especially given the UK’s current status in world affairs.

It is clear that we simply cannot say any more that we did not and do not know the consequences of our actions, which have become abundantly clear, if we continue to degrade the environment and pollute our atmosphere. As the UN Secretary-General has noted, we are

“on a code red for humanity”.

We must act accordingly, yet I fear that the Government are failing to meet the challenge. Prime Ministerial slogans about world-beating global Britain have not generated significant success ahead of COP26 and the UK’s performance as president of the G7 has been disappointing. One such failure was the inability to secure a definitive ban on the use of coal by the world’s largest economies at the G7 summit in Cornwall, and the promise of $100 billion climate-change assistance for developing countries has been largely unfulfilled.

More reports abound about the isolation of the Prime Minister in his own political group. His recent policies, ranging from international aid cuts to promoting domestic coal production, have gravely undermined his diplomatic efforts ahead of the summit in November. The Foreign Secretary yielded to the Chancellor with his savage cuts to the UK’s aid budgets, and actual world-leading programmes crashed because of fiscal circumstances—that was the real effect. However, as leading commentators have noted, the Chancellor managed to increase the UK’s defence budget, including finding money for nuclear weapons.

Worryingly, the UK has pledged £720 million of UK exports finance to support an offshore liquid gas project in Mozambique, at the same time as hosting COP26 and chairing the G7. Taken together with the domestic climate-change record and continuing Back-Bench opposition to net zero commitments, the Government have largely failed to present a credible climate-change action strategy to outside partners, which could be leveraged to inspire global action at COP26.

To close, as we head into the final straits before COP26 in November, the UK’s diplomatic efforts compare poorly with, for example, the French, who co-ordinated the Paris agreement. Their co-ordinated Government-wide approach led to the global success of the Paris agreement in 2015. The French-negotiated agreement could be the basis and the solution for this Government’s performance, and the reason for that is quite obvious.

The 2015 Paris agreement was the first universal, globally agreed, legally binding climate-change agreement explicitly to include human rights, requiring parties to “respect, promote and consider” their human rights obligations as they address climate change. That is why today I urge the Government to revisit the concept of an ethical foreign policy, particularly after the bloody events in Afghanistan, and for the Government to become an actual green force for good.

The public understand and value human rights, international law provides definitions, obligations and parameters, and existing international organisations can be a guarantor. The frameworks and the opportunities to do the right thing are there. This Government just need to seize them.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams]

I thank all hon. Members who took part. The debate has been a rich source of comment, analysis and points for action. In fact, the debate should be of interest to anyone who is concerned about climate change. That should be everyone, not just anyone.

I cannot summarise what has been said in just one minute, but there is a breadth of interest, knowledge and information, from the Council of Europe to Madagascar to Fairbourne. That should give people pause for thought. I am glad to give credit where credit is due, of course, but the burden of my speech was that we should start from a specific point and that should be human rights, from which other actions will flow. We are in the Westminster Hall Chamber and outside, in the other Westminster Hall, there is a plaque that people look at every day as they pass. That is the spot where Sir Thomas More stood trial and, of course, was condemned. He is famous for lots of things, but he is famous for five words: “no man is an island”. No island is an island, for that matter, so let us have some action from this island.

Official Development Assistance and the British Council

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Wednesday 30th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]]

It is a pleasure to follow the effective speech by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). I suspect that we will see a good deal of consensus across the House this afternoon on these points.

The Government’s sudden default on their commitments, enshrined in law, and the way the cuts are being implemented, with minimal information for this House, has damaged plans, partnerships and trust that have built up over many years between the UK Government and international partners. At a stroke, the Government have succeeded in damaging the UK’s reputation as a reliable partner, at a time when they are supposedly developing the UK’s role as a global player. All of this is purportedly to ensure that we can shoulder the burden of their disastrous covid policy, while conveniently playing into the supposed prejudices of their new and possibly fickle supporters.

These cuts have been rushed, with no consideration or assessment of the impact they will have on the people who receive UK aid or the effect on UK-based overseas aid projects, particularly small-scale initiatives without the robust structures or funding to absorb large-scale cuts made by their main or only real source of finance. There has been no real consultation, not least with this House, and there has been a failure, or more likely a refusal, to understand and take into account the likely impacts, or to engage with partners and communities, so as to try to minimise the damage, if that is at all possible.

Throughout this process there has been poor communication with partners. The Government have failed to provide dependable and predictable information, and the repeated failure to deliver on promises of forthcoming decisions and information has left organisations and projects unable to plan or manage the situation.



Let me turn for a moment to small-scale projects in Wales. Hub Cymru Africa reports that the closure of the FCDO’s small charities challenge fund—the most accessible grant scheme up to £50,000 for Welsh NGOs—is hitting, for example, the Teams4u project in Wrexham. The closure of the FCDO’s partnership grants of up to £250,000 is affecting the successful delivery of projects such as Interburns. Perhaps the Minister would like to explain why the partnership grant of £249,000 to Bees for Development Monmouth for its work in Ethiopia is being cut by £102,000, thereby closing the project early. That explanation might be useful for his ministerial colleague at the Wales office, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies). United Purpose in Cardiff has been working in Malawi for 32 years. Its work has been rated A++ for performance and value for money by the FCDO itself. It has had to drastically reduce its work, with only weeks of warning, due to Malawi’s law on staff notices and severance packages. Some Welsh NGOs are considering closing down entirely.

Such cuts stand in clear contrast to the Welsh Government’s aid schemes, such as Wales for Africa. Wales takes international aid seriously; achieving sustainable development is written into the Welsh constitution. The Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 commits to a “globally responsible Wales”. This Government are betraying those Welsh values. Even our universities—responsible for so much of the success of the domestic vaccine programme—are affected. UK Research and Innovation has already confirmed that the ODA cuts will lead to a £120 million budget shortfall in 2021-22. That conflicts with the Government’s own ambitions for R and D to reach 2.4% of GDP by 2027. This is disastrous not only for Welsh universities, but for the wider UK research community.

Let me turn to an example of broad-scale effects. Plan International reports that an estimated 20 million women and girls will now not be reached; 700,000 fewer girls will be supported by girls’ education programmes; 2 million fewer women will be supported by humanitarian assistance; 8 million fewer people and girls will be supported by nutrition interventions; and 9 million fewer women will be supported to access clean water and sanitation. This is a disaster.

This is not a deliberate wrecking by a perfidious foreign competitor. It is not an explicit hostile action by an enemy. It is not even the unintended consequence of absent-minded and careless prime ministerial policy making aimed at grabbing a headline or two. It is a deliberate disaster of this Government’s own making, and it will not be forgiven or forgotten by its survivors.

Israel and Gaza: Ceasefire

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Wednesday 19th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I am not able to confirm the reports to which my hon. Friend referred, but I reinforce the points that I made about the need for Iran not to be a destabilising influence in the region, for Hamas to step back from this conflict and for both sides to step back and pursue peace so that we can work to a negotiated, permanent two-state solution to the region.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I associate myself and my party with the Minister’s opening words about the wholly unacceptable deaths and casualties, particularly of children.

Self-evidently, the first step to peace is to stop the violence. President Biden has expressed support for the ceasefire, according to press reports. Can the Minister reassure me that all relevant international partners are actively working for an immediate ceasefire as a prelude to a substantial international attempt to secure a permanent and just solution?

[James Cleverly]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that everyone I have spoken to in the international community is absolutely focused on bringing about an end to this conflict and a ceasefire. That is true within the region, and in respect of our European friends and partners and, indeed, the recent conversations that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has had with President Biden’s Administration. That will remain, I have no doubt, the focus of the international community.

Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy

Hywel Williams Excerpts

Tuesday 9th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]]

I thank the right hon. Members for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) and for Warley (John Spellar) for securing the debate.

I fear that the review is compromised by the assumptions on which it is founded, not just the assumptions about global affairs—new and unclear threats abound, and old friends of course change leaders—but rather, the assumptions about the very state whose interests the review seeks to safeguard and advance. An effective review must pay due attention, not only to the state of international affairs but to the political and economic environment here in the UK. More than half the population of Scotland now support independence in every poll. More than half the population of Northern Ireland say they want a referendum in the next five years on reunification. Even in Wales, disregarded as the most docile part of the kingdom, support for independence now stands at over 30%. The Prime Minister and his friends might prefer to ignore these humdrum matters in their grandiose consideration of global affairs, but for any international strategy to be worth the candle, it needs a degree of domestic consent.

Let us suppose for a moment that Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales choose to remain in the UK. The first finding of the review should be that the centralisation of international engagement in Westminster and in Whitehall will no longer do. So far, this Government have shown themselves wonderfully adept at failing to work with these diverse national interests. They subordinate the Union to the wishes of the largest number. The review should therefore enable proper participation by the four parts of the UK in international affairs, from approving trade deals to consenting to offensive operations by armed forces drawn from, and paid for by, all four parts of the state.

Plaid Cymru wants Wales to play a constructive international role, from supporting climate action to eradicating want, to striving for peace in conflicts in places like Yemen. The Prime Minister’s view is different and, I am afraid, more than a little confused. He said in this place on 19 November:

“We have a chance to break free from the vicious circle whereby we ordered ever decreasing numbers of ever more expensive items of military hardware, squandering billions along the way.”—[Official Report, 19 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 488.]

That is all quite true, of course. That is what he said then, but he followed it up with support for Trident. He has, as we say in Welsh, “Pen punt a chynffon dimau”, which very loosely translates as “A pound in the head but a ha’penny in the pocket”. Change is essential.

On a local note, the MOD has acquired training aircraft that cannot normally fly over the sea and that make a very loud noise over land. They are based on Ynys Môn. Ynys Môn is, of course, an island; the clue is in the name.

The time for global pretensions, when foreign affairs were conducted by a Westminster and Whitehall elite, has had its day; and, given its multitudinous failures, quite rightly so.