International Day of Democracy

James Naish Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Blake]

I wholeheartedly congratulate the hon. Member on the work that she is doing to encourage and support young women into politics. That is something really important in our role as Members of Parliament. I definitely agree that we need to be supporting women into politics, as Members of Parliament and throughout public life, to give young women confidence that there is a place for them in public life.

We also need to push power to our communities and neighbourhoods with the landmark English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, with a community right to buy and a right for any area to ask any power of central Government. I think we can go further still. That is why I am so honoured to open this debate. It is inspiring to know that Members across Westminster Hall want to talk about our democracy and how we can have these debates together and openly.

I am delighted to be joined by colleagues from the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, with whom I am working on the UK’s anti-corruption strategy. I know they will agree with me that we need to fight head-on the money and influence attempting to corrupt our politics. I am really pleased to see so many MPs present who share my background in local government and so keenly support this Government’s agenda to decentralise power out into communities. Residents in my constituency and across the country are raring to go to take on the responsibilities that for too long have been held in the Palace of Westminster, not the Cities of London and Westminster.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I am very aware of her background in local government. Does she agree that the local level is where we see democracy work? We see excellent representation by councillors and an opportunity to have local debate through neighbourhood plans or other mechanisms. Does she agree that we must prioritise those local voices and that local representation to protect our democracy?

[Rachel Blake]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and for that support for local councillors and the hard work that they do every single day working with communities. It is important that we support and empower them to deliver for communities. In fact, that is a vital part of restoring confidence in our democracy.

It is a pleasure to see members of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections, who are leading a wide-ranging discussion on the future of our electoral system. I know many of us across the House are concerned about the division that our electoral system has seen. It is right that we have a robust discussion about that. In recent polling for More in Common, 62% of voters stated that our political and social institutions are worth preserving and improving in spite of the headwinds that we face. This is the country that I know: one that faces the challenges before us and acts to meet the moment. We can address the frustration and disillusionment that last weekend saw people marching in my constituency, while making our democracy richer and more inclusive.

Today let us mark International Day of Democracy by recognising the threats that face us and the opportunities that change can bring. I look forward to hearing from all the speakers gathered here today and from the Minister, what such change can and should look like.

--- Later in debate ---

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this really interesting debate. I echo your words, Sir John—it has been really valuable. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, many of which I agreed with very strongly and some of which I did not agree with quite so much, but it has been an excellent illustration of what a functioning democracy looks like on this International Day of Democracy.

It is often said these days that we face a crisis in democracy. Authoritarian regimes in Beijing and Moscow become bolder, while long-standing democracies in Europe and the USA appear to struggle in the face of populism. It has never been more important for us as British parliamentarians to stand against those who would erode and diminish our hard-fought democratic freedoms, both here and abroad.

I will speak today about this crisis, but also about the opportunities that the response to it presents both here in the UK and around the world. It starts with respecting the building blocks of any successful democracy—the rule of law, free and fair elections, rights and freedoms, and accountability and transparency.

In some countries, the erosion of these building blocks is worrying. In Georgia, for instance, the stakes could not be higher. Last November the Georgian Government suspended EU accession talks, a choice that outraged a nation where polls consistently show overwhelming support for integration with Europe. Since then, protesters have filled Rustaveli Avenue almost daily, braving batons and water cannons to say, “Our future is ours”.

Over the summer, the Georgian Dream Government started arresting opposition leaders. Just weeks ago, I was informed that my friend Giorgi Vashadze, a leading opposition figure, had been arrested and sentenced to eight months in prison. Just yesterday another, Elene Khoshtaria, was arrested. The heinous crime of which she is accused? Damage to the mayor of Tbilisi’s election posters. How we respond to these challenges to democracy defines us as much as it defines those countries who are seeing their rights diminished.

Another example is Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the Dayton peace agreement is being undermined by Milorad Dodik and his breakaway Republika Srpska. Less than a week ago, Dodik was hosted by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow. The decision under the last Government to withdraw British troops from the EUFOR peacekeeping force in 2020 was a strategic blunder. The Liberal Democrats have called on the Government to recommit to the EUFOR mission, to support the civic groups painstakingly building bridges between communities and to reinforce Britain’s commitment to democracy and peace in the Balkans.

That also holds true in Serbia, where anger over corruption, negligence and brutality erupted after the Novi Sad railway station disaster last November. What began as mourning for victims became a nationwide anti-corruption movement, drawing hundreds of thousands on to the street. Rather than listening, President Vučić smeared protesters as foreign agents and invited Russian backing, while riot police fired stun grenades and tear gas. There were five nights of unrest and party offices in flames, but still there has been no meaningful reform.

The UK must send an unmistakable message: the Balkans cannot become a playground for Moscow’s interference. That means fair and transparent elections where the results are respected. Those of us in positions of responsibility and power must uphold those standards. If we do not, the consequences can be violent, as we saw in January 2021 when the US Congress was stormed by those who agreed with the current US President that the election result, in which he had been clearly defeated, was illegitimate and sought to overturn it.

Across Europe and around the world, we find democracy under pressure. From Tbilisi to Hong Kong, hard-won freedoms are being eroded, legislatures hollowed out and the voices of citizens silenced. The Liberal Democrats understand that democracy is more than just a mechanism for simply choosing Governments; it is a covenant between people and power—between rights and responsibility. It is how ordinary citizens hold the mighty to account. These crises are a symptom of a broader malaise.

[James Naish]

On the point about accountability, the hon. Member may be aware that at the end of August, the leader of Nottinghamshire county council banned the Nottingham Post and Nottinghamshire Live from speaking to him and his organisation with immediate effect. That included a ban on the local democracy reporting service. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me and the Society of Editors that picking and choosing media scrutiny is avoiding accountability, it is profoundly wrong and it is dangerous to our democracy?

[James MacCleary]

Yes, I did see that story, and it is absolutely shocking. Anyone who purports to care about free speech and accountability, then bans journalists from attending meetings for no good reason, does not respect that at all. We cannot pick and choose who provides that scrutiny. I have not spoken at length here about the media, but it performs a fundamental role. We have spoken today about the iniquitous role of some social media, and that has shown the transition in the way that people consume information about democracy. We must protect and support local government reporters, which the hon. Member mentioned, who are absolutely essential to the democratic process in this country. That is an important point.

I was just about to say that globally, records show declines in press freedom on every continent. Rule of law is slipping. One in five nations saw a deterioration in freedom of expression, economic equality and access to justice. Hong Kong activists face intimidation, even on British soil, with Chinese Communist party-linked bounties pinned to lamp posts, even in our own towns. In Iran, the Revolutionary Guard exports terror and targets women demanding freedom. In Russia, Vladimir Putin claimed an 87% “victory” in a sham election while jailing and killing rivals. These regimes do not simply repress at home; they meddle abroad, launder their money through London and seek to divide our alliances.

Crucially, Britain’s credibility must start at home. Many people feel that democracy is not working for them in this country. They feel detached and distanced from this place, and look to those who offer easy answers. Our politics is realigning, and our system of democracy must realign with it. That means real electoral reform; a system of proportional representation that reflects what people actually voted for. There is a real danger that at the next election the distorted first-past-the-post system, which both the Conservative and Labour parties have done so much to protect, will sweep them away. The time for change is now.

Democracy is something precious that we must all work to protect, but it is not certain, and it is not inevitable. Too many people who claim to cherish our democracy now spend time subverting it—deliberately or not—by undermining our judiciary, discrediting serious media outlets and attacking the integrity of election results that do not suit them. The Liberal Democrats’ answer is clear: we must restore Britain’s moral authority by defending rights robustly, here and abroad; champion a proportional electoral system, so that every vote counts and political monopolies cannot fester; enshrine the ministerial code in law; uphold the Human Rights Act 1998 against those who would dilute it; impose Magnitsky-style sanctions on those who persecute in Hong Kong, Georgia, Serbia and elsewhere; and fund development and diplomacy properly by reversing aid cuts that leave vacuums for autocrats to exploit.

Democracy is not merely a ballot box. It is a citizen in Tbilisi protesting without fear; a journalist in Belgrade exposing corruption without a midnight knock at the door; a student in Hong Kong refusing to be silenced by Beijing; a Ukrainian citizen voting for their future under Russian fire; and a voter in Lewes knowing that their vote will really count. Authoritarianism spreads when democracy grows timid, and we Liberal Democrats will not be timid. We will stand with the people of Georgia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia, with Hong Kong’s exiles and Ukraine’s heroic defenders, and with every community fighting to have their voice heard. Britain must be known as a country that does not just lecture on democracy, but lives it, defends it and invests in it.

Middle East

James Naish Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

I associate myself entirely with the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks. It is not only unacceptable; it also diminishes the Israeli Government in the eyes of young people across the globe who look at this with horror and cannot understand it, so I urge them to just step back and recognise the damage they are doing to their reputation collectively.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

Attempts to settle the E1 area of the west bank, splitting Palestinian areas in two,

“buries the idea of a Palestinian state”,

in the words of an Israeli Government Minister, by the end of this month. Would the Secretary of State commit to a further co-ordinated response with European partners over the coming weeks to ensure that those destructive plans are halted?

[Mr Lammy]

Yes, yes, yes. I have spent time in Bedouin villages that would be entirely gone as a result of these abysmal plans, so of course I will continue to work with partners to oppose them.

Political Prisoners

James Naish Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Blake]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for our task today and for raising that important case.

Despite Mr Lai’s being told that his trial would last only 80 days, today marks the 1,630th day of his detention. Every day that he is detained, his health deteriorates further and his family rightly worry about his chances of survival in prison. The detention of Mr Lai is a human tragedy that undermines the very principles of democracy, freedom and the rule of law on which our international order relies. The idea that a British citizen can be detained by a foreign Government for standing up and expressing the British values of democracy and freedom of speech is an affront to all of us in this House, and across the country, who hold those principles dear.

Mr Lai’s son Sebastien has campaigned tirelessly and admirably for his father’s release; I know that many hon. Members here have had the honour of hearing directly from him and Mr Lai’s legal counsel. At this very moment, Sebastien is addressing the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, and recently he has been in the United States and Canada to meet senior officials and lawmakers in both countries. Next week, he travels to Brussels to meet European parliamentarians and the European External Action Service.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. She has just mentioned Canada; I understand that the Canadians are considering granting honorary citizenship to Jimmy Lai, as a small but significant contribution to demonstrating their commitment to him. Does she agree that that is something that the British Government could consider?

[Rachel Blake]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention; later in my remarks, I will come on to using all possible levers to secure Mr Lai’s freedom.

When Sebastien is at home, he is my constituent—a man deeply concerned about his father’s welfare. That is the position in which I speak to the Chamber today: as a Member of Parliament standing up for my constituents in the face of unbelievable, state-sanctioned cruelty.

I am grateful for the work of this Government and Members across the House to secure Mr Lai’s freedom. Already, Sebastien has met people across Government, and it has been encouraging to see the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister call for Mr Lai’s immediate and unconditional release. We cannot stay silent while Mr Lai remains detained. The Government calls for his release are welcome, but I want to see those included urgently in any trade negotiations and international meetings that Ministers of all Departments conduct with their Chinese counterparts.

I also support the calls for the Prime Minister to meet Sebastien to discuss his father’s case. We must use every lever at our disposal to make the case for Mr Lai’s safe return. The attention and time of our most senior politicians represent a clear signal from our Government that we will not let the international spotlight shift from Mr Lai’s arbitrary and illegal detention.

Mr Lai is not the only British person to be detained politically overseas. He was not the first and he will not be the last, and this debate is about the wider issue of unlawful detention. We cannot forget Craig and Lindsay Foreman or Alaa Abd el-Fattah, British citizens who remain imprisoned in Iran and Egypt, respectively. The events of the past few weeks, months and years have shown that inter-state relations have significant potential to get more tense, not less, and with that comes the potential for more political imprisonment of British nationals. We need to ensure that all British citizens imprisoned overseas have the same support and advocacy that Jimmy Lai has had.

Every day that my constituent Mr Lai remains in detention abroad is a day that the life and health of a British citizen is put at risk by a foreign state, and another day when democracy is undermined across the world. We must bring him home and we must bring him home now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on securing this important debate. I put on the record my interest as the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on arbitrary detention and hostage affairs.

I am going to speak in general terms about the issue of state hostage taking and arbitrary detention. Hon. Members have spoken eloquently about some of the cases and the constituents for whom they are fighting for so powerfully. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) talked about Ryan Cornelius, who has now been in prison for 17 years and in May 2018 was sentenced to a further 20 years, meaning that he will not leave prison in the Emirates until he is 84. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister), who spoke strongly about his constituent, Jagtar Singh Johal. Many of us will know of the case of Alaa Abd El-Fattah as well. The individuals in those cases, along with Jimmy Lai, have something in common: they are considered by the UN working group on arbitrary detention to be arbitrarily detained. Their rights have been trampled on and they are being incarcerated effectively unlawfully, without any due process or regard.

When we talk about victims of arbitrary detention, we need to remember the impact on their families as well as on them. Ryan Cornelius’s son was six years old when his father was imprisoned; he is now 23. Alaa Abd El-Fattah’s mother, Laila, has been on hunger strike for some time now. The impact still scars those lucky enough to have been released. I saw Matthew Hedges last week and hon. Members will have met Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her husband Richard, who fought so powerfully for her release.

We need to have a conversation about why the UK struggles, in some cases, to free its citizens from arbitrary detention abroad. I have the highest regard for the Minister and our excellent diplomats, but the Foreign Affairs Committee report “Stolen years”, from the previous Parliament, highlighted some clear failings in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office approach to those who are arbitrarily detained. It talked about the need for urgency and to be clear about when our citizens are facing torture, interrogation and having their rights trampled on. Indeed, the case of Ahmed al-Doush is being considered at the moment by the UN working group on arbitrary detention because the UK has not explicitly said that it believes his rights are being trampled on. Saudi Arabia has said, “Well, the United Kingdom has not raised any issue about his rights being trampled on” and uses that as an argument in the working group itself. We have to be extremely clear when we see our citizens’ rights being traduced.

[James Naish]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. The number of organisations involved was referenced earlier; in the case of Jimmy Lai, different countries and Congress have also lined up in support. What are my hon Friend’s reflections on the fact that even the support of all those organisations is still not making a difference?

[Tim Roca]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It sometimes seems that the full glare of publicity is needed to make any progress with a case; I am thinking particularly of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. As hon. Members have said, perhaps there is an argument for our being much more assertive in dealing with such cases—not to look solely through the lens of geopolitics, but to consider clearly and squarely the first priority of all Governments: defending their citizens. Other countries seem to have a better record on that.

Clearly, there are things that we can be doing. I am looking forward, hopefully, to a Government announcement about a special envoy of some sort whose sole role would be to focus on getting British citizens out of these horrible situations. I believe that a cultural change probably needs to happen in the FCDO as well. We need to change what Chris Patten calls “by the way” diplomacy; he mentioned it when he was with Sebastien Lai at one of our hearings. At the end of a high-level conversation between a Foreign Secretary or Prime Minister it is, “By the way, this person is arbitrarily detained by you.” That does not give the sense of urgency and importance that the case deserves.

We can do much more. I am sure that the Government will be enacting the recommendations. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says because the issue is about serving British citizens and getting them out of horrible situations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Falconer]

I welcome and commend the hon. Member’s efforts on freedom of religious belief, not just in Hong Kong but across the world. We have raised the circumstances of Mr Lai’s detention and will continue to do so. The UK will not stop pressing for consular access in that case, and indeed in all other cases where consular access is denied, and we will not stop calling for Mr Lai’s immediate release.

[James Naish]

I thank the Minister for that. I referred to Canada and the gestures that it has made. What more can we do, in gestures or actions, specifically in the case of Jimmy Lai? What more could be done practically? I appreciate all the warm words and the efforts that have been put in, but are there not more physical things that we can be doing?

[Mr Falconer]

In each case, different things are likely to make progress. I am very conscious of my own experience—I negotiated the release of British nationals with the Taliban over a long period. I am sure that in that case publicity would have made the release more complex. It will vary case by case, and I am sure the Minister responsible for China will be happy to discuss these matters further.

I will end my remarks there in order to give my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster the chance to respond.

Ukraine: Forcibly Deported Children

James Naish Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Westminster Hall

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for securing this debate. It is on a harrowing subject—the systematic abduction and deportation of Ukrainian children—but it is absolutely one that we should be discussing in the House, so I thank her for her work.

As has been outlined, by day 1,000 of the conflict, according to UK Government figures, at least 19,500 Ukrainian children had been unlawfully deported to Russia, and independent estimates put the figure much higher. Behind each number is a name, a family, a severed childhood. Children have been taken from foster care homes, boarding schools and hospitals, and even directly from their families. Many have been placed with Russian families, sent to so-called re-education camps or absorbed into military patriotic training programmes aimed at erasing their Ukrainian identity.

The individual stories already outlined by Members are heartbreaking. They involve children being renamed, issued with Russian passports, told that their homeland no longer exists, separated from their siblings and told that their parents have never tried to find them. Some children have even been issued with military draft papers. These actions are not merely incidental violations of the rules of war; they are part of a co-ordinated state policy to erase Ukrainian culture. In my view, they represent war crimes and constitute crimes against humanity.

It is important that we recognise and pay tribute to the resilience and courage of the many people working to bring the children home: the Ukrainian officials, non-governmental organisations, lawyers and, of course, families, who have refused to give up even in the face of enormous obstacles. The UK must support those efforts, not only with words but with practical assistance, by funding legal support, supporting reunification logistics and ensuring that international pressure remains focused and sustained.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree that we should support not only the return of the abducted Ukrainian children, but their reintegration into their families and communities through rehabilitation programmes that address the psychological and developmental trauma that has been inflicted by their forced deportation?

[James Naish]

I wholeheartedly agree. Prior to coming to this place, I led a council, and one of the motions we passed twinned us with part of Ukraine, because we recognised that the long-term reintegration of Ukrainian people and rebuilding of Ukrainian society would take a long time. It will require a huge global effort to make that work.

This is not only a question of justice for Ukraine, but a test of our commitment to international law and the protection of children in conflict. If we allow the forced deportation and indoctrination of children to go unanswered, we risk setting a devastating precedent for future conflicts. I serve on the International Development Committee. International law and international humanitarian law are being broken in many conflicts across different zones around the world, and it is important that the UK stands up for the established order, which has protected billions of people over several generations but is under huge attack on many fronts.

I note that the Government have worked closely with the US on this issue—a couple of organisations have been mentioned. What further steps does the Minister think can be taken? I believe there are already three sanctions packages that target those attempting to forcibly deport and indoctrinate Ukrainian children, but what else is being considered or will be considered in the future? Will the Minister outline what the next steps of the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children are likely to be? The UK is part of that organisation, so what role will the UK Government continue to play?

We in this Chamber today may not be able to return these children ourselves, but we can send a clear message that their abduction will not be ignored, their identities will not be erased and their safe return will remain a priority for as long as it takes. Justice demands nothing less.

--- Later in debate ---

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. Like everyone else, I thank the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for securing this important debate and for the commitment and tenacity that she has shown in raising this topic, about which she cares so deeply.

It is so important that we are discussing this shocking topic today. Of all the crimes that the Russian leadership has committed in its invasion of Ukraine, this is the most distressing. No Ukrainian deserves to be caught up in this horrendous war, but we are all touched by the vulnerability of babies and children, so it is heartbreaking to consider what has been done to them and to family members who see their child ripped from their care. The emotion we have seen here is testament to how deeply that is felt by Members of this House.

Members have spoken with compassion and concern about this subject, and I welcome the consensus across all parties and the shared commitment to work together to challenge Russia’s crimes. Many, including my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Steve Darling), for Woking (Mr Forster), for Horsham (John Milne) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) and the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), have referred to the impact of their visits to Ukraine and the experiences they had there. I am grateful for their testimony.

Members have underscored the depth of friendship between the UK and Ukraine. The hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) recalled celebrating Ukraine’s independence day in the beautiful Victoria Park. Others have highlighted specific cases. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) for referring to the experience of disabled children, and to the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove for drawing our attention to the experience of the Ukrainian children and young people here in the UK. We have also heard practical suggestions from Members, including the day of action proposed by the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) and the seizure of Russian assets that my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove called for.

This gruesome project is the product of the twisted will and inhumanity of one man: Vladimir Putin. Driven by his imperial ambitions and archaic vision of a Russian empire, he aims not only to destroy Ukraine’s independence, but to erase its future. His systematic programme for the abduction and forced assimilation into Russia of at least 20,000 Ukrainian children will go down as one of the vilest acts not only of this war, but of this century.

As other Members have said, the Yale University humanitarian research lab has indicated that the real figures are likely to be much, much higher, and sadly, we can only expect them to continue to rise, so long as Putin’s invasion and control of occupied territory continues. The Yale lab has identified at least 43 children’s camps throughout Russia that house deported children, of which at least 32 are explicitly labelled as “re-education facilities”. The former Ukrainian children’s rights commissioner Mykola Kuleba puts it chillingly: he said that these re-education programmes constitute

“death camps for Ukrainian identity.”

As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) highlighted, in March President Trump and Elon Musk took the callous decision to slash funding for the Yale lab, an organisation that has been helping to lead the search for the tens of thousands of Ukrainian children abducted by Russia. Gathering evidence of these war crimes is critical. It matters because it will allow prosecutors to go after the architects of this atrocity. It also matters because it increases the chances that when the conflict ends, these children might be returned to their Ukrainian homes.

On 1 April, I asked the Foreign Secretary whether the UK would step in to fill the funding gap left by the US Administration. He said:

“It is not our assessment that we can meet the shortfall left by the withdrawal of USAID”.—[Official Report, 1 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 149.]

I know that the Minister is committed to this issue, so may I take this opportunity to ask him what sum would be required for the Yale lab to continue its critical work and what the Government have done, working with partners, to secure the future of this project? Reports suggest that the lab’s data repository could soon be transferred to Europol so that its vital work can be taken forward. Can the Minister state whether those reports are accurate and what support the UK is offering?

[James Naish]

This morning, I met the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, which does great work around good governance, electoral integrity, democratic rights and citizen engagement. It has lost 70% of its funding as a result of USAID cuts, but it recognises that it will play a fundamental role in how Ukraine is rebuilt by dealing with the disinformation that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) talked about earlier. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to look at how such organisations are protected so that, when Ukraine rebuilds, it rebuilds in the right way and deals with the challenges that its neighbour will present?

[Calum Miller]

I wholeheartedly agree. This country, as well as the USA, should take responsibility for its hard power and its soft power. Just as the UK and its US ally have historically been willing to support Ukraine’s defence in the face of Russia’s aggression, we must make sure that we invest in peace by supporting those kinds of democratic institutions. I believe it is the shame of this Government that they have cut so significantly the UK’s aid budget.

I welcome the steps taken and the agreement that was struck on Monday to restore elements of judicial co-operation with our European partners. I hope that the Government will now take the opportunity to strengthen co-operation with Europol ahead of the transfer of any data relating to these crimes so that it can support the work of tracking and bringing home Ukraine’s stolen children.

Although there are no signs of a change in Russia’s policy now, we must also plan for a future when the children are returned, and we must support those already rescued by organisations such as Bring Kids Back. They will undoubtedly be traumatised and deeply affected by their experiences, as my hon. Friends the Members for Woking and for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) and the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury have highlighted. What steps can the UK Government take now to support the Ukrainian Government and civil society in developing programmes of psychological support for children and their families?

The previous Conservative Government agreed to the sale of Chelsea football club and that the proceeds would be forfeited by Roman Abramovich and used to benefit civilians in Ukraine, yet those funds—£2.5 billion—have still not been deployed. I asked the Foreign Secretary on 24 February what progress was being made. I asked again on 17 March, and he said that he was frustrated by the lack of progress and that he would consider

“all the tools available to Government.”—[Official Report, 17 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 41.]

Can the Minister update us on what is holding up the release of those funds and say which tools the Government are now using to secure their release?

As other Members have mentioned, the ICC has issued arrest warrants for President Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova in recognition of their crimes. It is a foul irony that she is Russia’s children’s rights commissioner. All those involved must be held responsible and accountable for their complicity. The Government need to be laser-focused in identifying the individuals and entities against whom sanctions should be applied so that they can be held accountable today for their actions. The Government should do that in concert with our international allies, as the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) highlighted.

By strengthening Ukraine and undermining Putin’s ability to prosecute his war, particularly through the use of sanctions, we can give President Zelensky the maximum leverage he needs in any future peace negotiations. A core aspect of any just peace must be the return of the Ukrainian children stolen by the Kremlin. Anything less will only embolden Putin and other authoritarian leaders like him, who would otherwise hope to continue acting with complete impunity and relentless cruelty.

As Ukraine continues to fight not only for its freedom today but for future generations, I am glad that this House is recommitting itself to that cause. Ukraine’s security is our security. We have a categorical moral imperative to help to secure its future by supporting every effort to return Ukraine’s stolen children.

Gaza: Israeli Military Operations

James Naish Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

We continue to oppose forced displacement in Gaza.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I put on record my sincere desire to see the Israeli hostages returned as soon as possible. The International Development Committee recently spent time in Geneva as part of its inquiry on international humanitarian law. We discussed at length the way that countries increasingly conflate the legality of resorting to war with the legality of conduct in war. We see aid being blocked and land being annexed without, it seems, legitimate justification, or even significant condemnation. Will the Minister please explain what the Government are doing to ensure that international humanitarian law stops being openly broken, and is given the respect it deserves?

[Mr Falconer]

My hon. Friend and east midlands colleague is right to raise the issue of the deterioration of the application of international humanitarian law. There are too many places in conflict where there is a very serious risk of breaches of IHL in the conduct of hostilities. We are doing all we can in Geneva and New York, and on the ground in places including Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, to ensure that the risk of breaches of IHL does not continue.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

James Naish Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the destabilising hybrid activities of Russia, not just in Bosnia but across the region. He knows the steps that have been taken in this country against RT and other Russian outlets; indeed, we have called them out across Europe and have worked with partners on that. He is absolutely right that free, fair, truthful and legitimate media are needed to ensure that citizens have the truth about what is happening, not the kind of lies that are peddled from the Kremlin. I cannot make specific promises, but he knows that we treat the BBC World Service very seriously. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), is here with me and will have heard his comments closely.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

As has been noted, the actions of Milorad Dodik over the past few weeks and months have seriously undermined the stability of Bosnia and Herzegovina and have undermined the Dayton peace agreement, which ended the country’s 1992-to-1995 war in the aftermath of the horrific genocide that took place in Srebrenica. What steps are the Government taking to work with partners such as the US, the EU and other western Balkan countries to ensure that the territorial integrity of Bosnia is upheld during this fragile period?

[Stephen Doughty]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the need to work with our partners. My French counterpart Minister Haddad and I convened our Quint partners and the EU institutions on Friday for a joint meeting; Minister Haddad was visiting London and we took the initiative to meet our partners, because we were deeply concerned about the situation in Bosnia. We have also been engaging with those in the region, including Serbia and Croatia. I, along with the special representative, the Foreign Secretary and others, will continue to do so.

Syria

James Naish Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman’s many years of work on Syria as the Secretary of State for International Development and in many other capacities. I confirm that I and we will remain focused on events in Syria, which are of vital importance to the region and to the UK. We will continue to give them the focus that they deserve.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I wholeheartedly welcome the UK Government’s efforts to support the Syrian people on their country’s fragile path to building democracy following the overthrow of the brutal Assad regime. Given the rapidly evolving situation, are the Government considering further boosting their foreign aid support and spend in Syria during this fragile period?

[Mr Falconer]

As I said in the statement, we have provided £62 million since the fall of Assad, and we will keep such questions under review. There is a pledging conference on Monday where we will be talking to our partners; as my hon. Friend knows, not all the aid will come from the UK, so co-ordination with our partners is a vital component. I expect to be able to say more in the coming days.

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

James Naish Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this subject for this very timely debate, which is in my name and the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). I also thank the members of the International Development Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee for their support in securing it.

Let me start this debate by welcoming the Government’s commitment to increasing our defence spending; that is long overdue and much needed. However, there was no need to announce a decision on where the funding was coming from before the spending review or, indeed, before the defence review concluded. It will not surprise the House to learn that I will use this debate to argue that the decision to take all the defence uplift from official development assistance was wrong.

When the former US Defence Secretary General James Mattis was asked in Congress whether it was wise to properly fund international development work, he replied:

“If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition”.

It pains me to say so, but the Prime Minister is setting exactly this dangerous course for the UK. By planning to take 40% out of ODA, he is taking the axe to our most effective tool for reducing global conflicts and for increasing our national security. Do not take my word for it. Instead, consider this warning given last week by General Richard Dannatt, the former Chief of the General Staff:

“Every pound we cut from development aid today risks costing us far more in future military operations…slashing aid further to fund defence spending is not just shortsighted—it is dangerously counterproductive.”

He added:

“we are setting ourselves up for greater instability, which will require even more military spending in the long term…If we cut aid, we will be forced to deploy military resources in areas where we could have mitigated instability through targeted development.”

I urge the Prime Minister to recognise that if we abandon our commitments to the world in this way, we will see greater numbers of people displaced from their homes as a result of climate disasters, poverty and war. More people will lose hope, and will instead look to extreme ideologies for the answer, and civil societies will no longer have the skills to hold rogue Governments to account.

It concerns me greatly, as it should the whole House, that the Government have yet to carry out an assessment of the impact of their decision, which has been rushed through without proper scrutiny. I urge Ministers to study carefully an analysis by the ONE Campaign, which demonstrates the real-world impact of cutting ODA assistance from 0.5% to 0.3% of national income. It has calculated that if the 40% reduction in UK aid is distributed evenly across global health and food programmes, there will be nearly 40 million fewer children immunised; 600,000 fewer lives will be saved because of reduced support to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria; and almost 300,000 fewer school children will receive nutritious meals and essential food assistance through the World Food Programme.

I appreciate that the Prime Minister has pledged to protect what he considers to be the most vital areas of spending—Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine, vaccinations and climate—but as the powerful resignation letter written by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), the former development Minister, lays bare, that is, sadly, a delusion. As my right hon. Friend, who knows the reality better than anybody else, has written:

“It will be impossible to maintain these priorities given the depth of the cut; the effect will be far greater than presented…It will likely to lead to withdrawal from regional banks and a reduced commitment to the World Bank; the UK being shut out of numerous multilateral bodies; and a reduced voice for the UK in the G7, G20 and in climate negotiations.”

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her work as Chair of the International Development Committee, on which I sit. Earlier today, I had the privilege of meeting representatives from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, to hear at first hand about its lifesaving work. Gavi has, of course, played a pivotal role in ensuring that millions of children worldwide receive vaccines against deadly diseases, protecting global health and preventing pandemics. Does she agree that we need to make an urgent commitment to the Gavi replenishment, which is under debate at the moment?

[Sarah Champion]

I thank my hon. Friend and fellow Committee member. As he is well aware, the Committee is doing a value-for-money inquiry, and Gavi is one of the best ways to get value for money by vaccinating children around the world. It is not just that the House wants that commitment to Gavi and all other bodies. Do the British public really want us to step away from the international stage, and to lose all our soft power and ability to support the most vulnerable in the world, so that they can lead a healthy, prosperous life?

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office plays a vital role in supporting and protecting people around the world, upholding Britain’s diplomatic presence and promoting our values and interests. In my short time on the Foreign Affairs Committee, I have been repeatedly struck by the impressive quality of the people we are fortunate enough to have working on our behalf around the world. However, even as we face increasing geopolitical instability, transactional diplomacy and wars in multiple regions, the financial pressure on the Department is testing our ability to play the role that Britain should be playing in the world. For over a decade, the maintenance of the FCDO overseas estate, which includes 6,000 properties across 180 countries, has been funded through the sale of assets. That is not a sustainable model, and the reality is that there is no more silverware left to sell.

Giving evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, Sir Philip Barton, the then outgoing permanent under-secretary, acknowledged that the current funding structure will not work for much longer. The cost of essential maintenance is estimated to be £250 million a year, and that figure is only rising. From next year, the ability to draw down from receipts of previous asset sales will disappear completely. Unless the Treasury allows for that additional cost in future budgets, the cost will have to be met by cuts elsewhere in an already overstretched Department.

This issue goes beyond bricks and mortar. The UK’s overseas presence is a direct reflection of our diplomatic standing and soft power. We cannot expect our embassies to champion British interests when they are in dire need of investment. The Foreign Secretary himself has recognised the need for a sustainable funding settlement and highlighted the condition of our estate in China as a particular concern. The Government must set out an alternative long-term funding model—one that does not rely on the fire sale of national assets.

At the same time, we must address the deeply concerning cuts to ODA. The UK has long been a world leader in international aid, and we are the fourth highest donor in absolute terms. The Government’s decision to reduce our aid budget risks undermining our ability to deliver on those commitments and the ones we have made to the world’s most vulnerable. The Prime Minister has rightly stated that the UK will prioritise Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, climate finance and global health, but with a shrinking budget, delivering on those priorities will be close to impossible.

I recognise that difficult choices must be made to stand firmly with our allies in Ukraine during this critical time. Our support for the Ukrainian people must be strong and unwavering. It is a sad indictment of the current state of global affairs that in a war between the west and Russia, the first to withdraw from the fight was the United States. It is therefore even more vital that we increase defence spending to ensure that our allies around the world know that they can continue to rely on Britain in this increasingly unstable world.

The answer, however, is not to cut ODA. The Foreign Secretary himself warned of the risks of stepping back from development aid. The reality is that budget cuts will severely limit our ability to counter malign influence and to support fragile states. My party has warned that the UK’s decision to reduce its aid spending will

“leave a vacuum for Russia and China to fill”.

[James Naish]

It is worth reflecting on the fact that UK service personnel are obviously key to the defence of our country, and those cuts started during the time when the Liberal Democrats were in government. The hon. Member talked about his party regretting the actions of this Government. Does he regret the decision to start cutting our service personnel from 2010 onwards?

[Edward Morello]

I am not going to waste time re-arguing the coalition years—we have a global crisis happening. Either we all work together on this, or we keep nit-picking over the past. That is not the way to go forward.

I urge the Government to look at Liberal Democrat proposals to fund the much-needed uplift in defence spending not by cutting vital overseas development aid, but by reversing the tax cuts for banks introduced by the previous Government and by taxing the social media companies that, even now, are profiting from spreading disinformation on behalf of our enemies. We must work together to secure a sustainable funding model for the FCDO—one that protects our overseas estate and ensures that our diplomats have the resources they need to represent Britain effectively.

Finding a pathway to a just peace in Ukraine, a workable solution for the Palestinian and Israeli people, security for Europe and a united global approach to tackling the climate crisis, as well as the many other issues facing the world right now, in the face of a US Administration seemingly intent on joining malign states like Russia and Iran in rejecting international norms, requires the UK to be centre stage in international relations. Having a Foreign Office able to project British influence has never been more important. I urge the Government to set out a clear path on how we will maintain our diplomatic and development commitments in this increasingly uncertain world, and to ensure that Britain does not become just “some random country” but continues to play its historic role in global affairs.

Middle East

James Naish Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on medical support. We will continue to support UK-Med, and we made a decision to give it more funds when we were just a few days into office. Half a million people have received essential healthcare as a result of that funding, and UK-Med has supported over 300,000 people across Gaza. It is hugely important work, and I suspect we will have more to say in the coming days about what more we can do.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his very measured statement. I have met dozens of constituents in Rushcliffe who I know will wholeheartedly welcome yesterday’s news. However, I have received a lot of emails specifically about the decimation of medical facilities in the northern part of Gaza. Can I ask the Foreign Secretary what steps are likely to be taken to ensure immediate improvements to healthcare access as a result of this week’s announcement?

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. For the reasons I have set out, security will be essential if the aid is to get in and if international partners are to be reassured, so that the reconstruction of hospitals can properly begin.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Naish Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that point. We are preparing at pace for that Paris conference, which is incredibly important. We need to do all we can to secure access to the food required, and it must be nutritious, healthy food. In addition, the UK is preparing to sign up to the Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty—something that I committed the UK to doing in Brazil just a few weeks ago.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

T9. I have lived and worked in the western Balkans, where Governments continue to increase efforts to tackle human trafficking, exploitation and coercion. What steps are proactively being taken with Albania and other western Balkan and mediterranean countries to tackle human trafficking at source?

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)]

The Government are committed to working more closely with partners across Europe, including Albania and partners across the western Balkans, to tackle people trafficking and the gangs profiting from it. That has been a regular part of my bilateral discussions. In July, we announced steps to reinforce our co-operation with Europol and committed £4 million towards the Rome process—an Italian Government project to tackle the root causes of irregular migration.