Pakistan: Freedom of Religion
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for organising this important debate. From the many examples he has given from his long time spent fighting for religious freedom in Pakistan and for Christians around the world, I can see that this is something he cares deeply about, and it is important that we are discussing it today.
Like the Minister, I spent some time working in Pakistan with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I spent three years working in Islamabad and Lahore from 2019 to 2021. I spent a lot of that time traveling around Punjab—I had responsibility for that province within the FCDO—and a lot of the examples that the hon. Member for Strangford gave are really familiar. I will talk about some of those examples in a moment, but before I do so, I want to highlight some of the other aspects of Pakistan that I saw there, including some of the more positive ones, which may be examples of how religious minorities should be treated that we can give when we are talking to Pakistan in the future.
In my time travelling throughout Punjab, I got to see many religious sites. Travelling through the old city of Lahore, there is the very impressive Badshahi Masjid. You can travel down to Derawar in Bahawalpur and see a fantastic fort there; there is the Rukn-e-Alam shrine in Multan, as well as the gurdwara at Nankana Sahib, and of course there is Lahore cathedral. I mention all those sites not because I want to give people a tour of Pakistan, or indeed to promote its tourism industry—although that definitely should be encouraged—but to highlight that all those magnificent buildings are from different religions. Pakistan has a proud history of various minorities throughout the ages, from the Buddhists of the Gandhara civilisation to Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims of various sects, Ahmadis and Christians. There are parts of the country that recognise that history. Spending time with each of those groups was a real privilege.
Of course, this is a debate on freedom of religion and belief, and while there are huge concerns about the treatment of minorities in Pakistan, I wanted to give one positive example of something that has happened in recent years. Towards the end of my time in Pakistan, I had the opportunity to visit the Kartarpur corridor, on the border between Pakistan and India. It is a site built on the location that was used by Guru Nanak when he first established the Sikh community in the 16th century. For a long time, it was divided between India and Pakistan, but in 2019 Narendra Modi and Imran Khan allowed access for the community to cross between their two countries. When I visited in 2020, I met pilgrims from India who had come to Pakistan to meet relatives in the Sikh community whom they had not seen since partition nearly 80 years before. The joy on the faces of those people, who were enabled to do that by the promises made by the Pakistani Government, showed that it is possible for the Government to be more positive toward some religious minorities.
In the three years I was based in Punjab, there were numerous cases of brutal attacks on religious minorities, some of which the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned. I will give three more examples from the time I was there. In April 2021, there was a mob attack in Faisalabad on Mariam Lal and Newsh Arooj, two Christian nurses who had been asked to clean up lockers in the hospital in which they were working. They were set on by a mob after accusations of blasphemy, and they were later arrested by the police and held in prison for some time. They have now been released, fortunately. In December 2021, there was the lynching of Priyantha Kumara in Sialkot. Priyantha was a Buddhist from Sri Lanka who was running a factory as the general manager. He was lynched by an angry mob after accusations of blasphemy while the police stood by and were unable to intervene. In August 2022, there was the stabbing of Naseer Ahmed, a 62-year-old Ahmadi grandfather, who refused to chant slogans in support of Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan. For that crime, he was murdered in the streets by an angry Pakistani man.
I raise those three incidents not because they are extraordinary, but because they felt routine. On a weekly basis when I was there, I would hear of bad examples from the Christian community, the Ahmadi community and others about the brutal violence and humiliations to which they were subjected. Sumera Shafique, a friend of mine who works for the Christian Lawyers Association of Pakistan, would call me regularly to update me about the false conversions she was working on, particularly in the south of Punjab.
Many people from the Ahmadiyya community, who would obviously prefer to be anonymous at the moment, regularly raise with me the victimisation they are facing, with their mosques being destroyed and their schools being closed down. As we heard from other Members, schools have also been nationalised by the Government. There has even been the introduction of a new marriage law meaning that an Ahmadiyya Muslim in Pakistan must renounce their faith to get married. The level of discrimination is quite outrageous.
I am lucky to have a significant Ahmadiyya community in my own constituency, with the Baitul Ghafoor mosque on Long Lane in Halesowen. It holds a number of inter- faith events, and I have been to many of them. I have been pleased to see the welcome that members provide to many people from different religious backgrounds. The contrast with the way the Ahmadiyya community is treated in Pakistan is striking.
When I was in Lahore, I had many discussions with the Human Rights Ministers of Punjab, Khalil Tahir Sandhu and Ramesh Singh, whom I still count as friends. I know they face a very difficult situation, and it is very challenging to work within the system to improve the conditions of religious minorities. Many people in Pakistan and in the Government are trying to do that, but I would of course encourage them to do more.
Finally, I thank the hon. Member for Strangford again for organising this debate on a subject that I think we should be talking about more. I know it is an extremely difficult subject for the FCDO to work on, and I understand the limitations we are working under, but I ask the Minister to continue to raise the deteriorating situation that religious minorities have faced in recent years with our counterparts in Pakistan. I also ask him to commit to include freedom of religion or belief in the discussions about the future co-operation and trade agreements that we are having with Pakistan, and to use every opportunity across Government to hold discussions to push that forward.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on bringing forward this debate and allowing us to discuss this incredibly important issue in this House.
On 25 November 1981, the General Assembly of the United Nations passed resolution 36/55, which said:
“Discrimination between human beings on the grounds of religion or belief constitutes an affront to human dignity and a disavowal of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and shall be condemned as a violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
Nearly half a century has passed since those words were written, and they came just seven years after the passage of the second amendment to the constitution of Pakistan, which declared that Ahmadi Muslims were
“not a Muslim for the purposes of the Constitution or the law.”
My speech will concentrate on the Ahmadi community, but that should not diminish the persecution and discrimination suffered by other communities, which has been mentioned by many hon. Members.
Many decades on, we still find ourselves grappling with the critical injustice, prejudice and persecution that that amendment enshrined in law and enabled. That is what the current legal framework in Pakistan has done. It has enabled not just legal exclusion and prosecution, but ongoing hate speech and violent persecution. Extremist clerics in Pakistan have called for Ahmadi Muslims to be hung or beheaded, for their women to be murdered to prevent more Ahmadi Muslims from being born, and even for the Government of Pakistan to understand that if they do not act, the people will take matters into their own hands and kill Ahmadi Muslims themselves. If anyone has any lingering doubt about whether that awful rhetoric extends only to calls for violence within Pakistan’s borders, I refer them to one rally this year where the following was said:
“We have to strangle each and every Ahmadi…You have no idea how powerful this slogan is! You will raise it here, an Ahmadi will die in Great Britain.”
That abhorrent rhetoric has no place in a democratic republic such as Pakistan, and I know from conversations with many of my constituents, as well as Ahmadi Muslims across London, that it absolutely terrifies Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan and here in the UK.
We too often forget that rhetoric has consequences, and violent rhetoric becomes violence as surely as night becomes day. Sure enough, violent hate crimes across Pakistan and around the world against Ahmadi Muslims are at shocking levels. This year, four Ahmadi Muslims were killed in a targeted manner. Tahir Iqbal, president of a local Ahmadi Muslim community, was shot dead by two motorcyclists. Zaka ur Rehman, a dentist, was killed in his own clinic by two gunmen. In both cases, no perpetrators have been identified and brought to justice. In Sadullahpur, two Ahmadi Muslims, Ghulam Sarwar and Rahat Ahmad Bajwa, were murdered in separate incidents on the same day. The alleged perpetrator, a 16-year-old student of a madrassah, confessed to the killings, citing religious reasons—16 years old. I invite hon. Members to recall the poisonous rhetoric that I have just outlined, and to which that young man must have been exposed in order to carry out such a heinous act.
It seems that violence against Ahmadi Muslims is rarely investigated, and in many cases is seemingly encouraged or enabled by local officials and policemen in Pakistan. In June, 30 Ahmadi Muslims were arrested for the crime of celebrating Eid. Ahmadi homes were attacked, an Ahmadi mosque was ransacked, and the police stood by and did nothing. Earlier this year in January, it is alleged that local police in the Punjab region, acting under instructions from a local official, took part themselves in another disconcertingly common and awful act of hatred: the desecration of tombs in an Ahmadi Muslim graveyard. Desecration is a particularly cowardly and heinous act, and serves only to underscore the severity of the situation facing Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan.
Freedom of worship is inextricably linked with freedom of expression and speech, and as a Liberal I will always place the greatest currency on that most cherished of virtues.
But as all liberal societies have found, freedom of speech cannot extend to freedom of hate speech or the freedom to incite violence and hatred, and the Pakistani Government ought to be reminded of that fact in our bilateral engagements. Nobody should have to live like that, and to face hatred, threats, violence and death just for worshipping their own religion in a peaceful manner in a democratic country. It goes against every principle we hold dear in the community of international law, and against our every principle as an open, democratic, tolerant nation ourselves, not least as a nation that is bound to Pakistan by a common history, a common language and a track record of collaboration on tackling extremism in the region. We must be a critical partner of Pakistan. I call on the Government to respond to the concerns raised in the House today and to please come forward with reassurances that, at every single opportunity, the plight of Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan will be raised with the Government of that country. Our conscience calls on us not to turn a blind eye.
Ahmadi Muslims, like members of all faiths, deserve to worship free from intimidation and discrimination. The Liberal Democrats have long been in favour of a rigorous, values-based foreign policy that puts our money where our mouth is. We cannot just talk a good game on protecting minorities around the world and standing up for the fundamental freedoms outlined in the declaration of human rights; we must use our leverage with Governments such as that in Pakistan to encourage them to take serious and concrete steps towards making it a reality. This should be an issue that unites us across the House—I am encouraged to hear that it does—and one that reminds us not just of our obligations under international law but our moral duty to those facing oppression everywhere.
Israel-Gaza Conflict: Arrest Warrants
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Hamish Falconer
I welcome the questions from the right hon. Member across the Benches. Utmost in the Government’s mind is the need to bring an immediate end to the conflict in Gaza and to secure the release of the hostages, whose families I have met. She knows that I am familiar with these issues from my previous life. We also need to see more aid going into Gaza. The questions at issue with the ICC are separate from that.
Diplomacy will continue regardless of the ICC process. But I had understood it to be the common position of the House that the international rule of law is an important commitment. The International Criminal Court is an important body—the primary body—in enforcing those norms, and the issues on jurisdiction and complementarity were heard by the pre-trial chamber. Its three judges issued their findings. I think we should respect those.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The International Criminal Court was created when 120 countries put their names to the Rome statute and signed up to the principle that certain basic standards of behaviour must be enforced internationally, with those laws applicable to everyone, no matter who they were. From the time when Winston Churchill led the Conservative party, this country has been a proud supporter of international law. It is wrong for us to try to undermine it. Does my hon. Friend share my deep disappointment that the Conservatives have fallen as far as they have?
Hamish Falconer
As I think has been clear from our actions from July when we became the Government, the international rule of law is incredibly important to this Government. All our actions will be guided by it.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The conflict between Israel and Hamas has had a devastating impact on Palestinian and Israeli civilians, with women and children paying a particularly terrible price. Now that the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for those it believes are culpable, the UK has obligations under international law, which we must uphold. The previous Conservative Government chose to be selective with those obligations when it came to the ICC’s jurisdiction in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That was deeply regrettable and damaging for our country, and I greatly regret that Conservative Front-Bench Members are pursuing that same line today.
It is right that the Government have committed to uphold the ruling, and I welcome the Minister’s statement that they will support the process to enforce the arrest warrants. Does the Minister share my concern about the words of Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who has proposed sanctioning nations—including the UK—who uphold the ruling? Will he outline the specific new steps that the Government are taking to secure an immediate bilateral ceasefire with all parties, so that we can put a stop to the humanitarian disaster in Gaza, get the hostages home and open the door to a two-state solution?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind Members not to use the word “you.”
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I thought the Conservative party styled itself the party of law and order, but it seems that that is increasingly not the case when it comes to international law. The Government are right to uphold the ICC’s decision, and they were right to vote for last week’s UN Security Council resolution on a ceasefire.
The Minister will be aware that there is increasing evidence, including from organisations such as Human Rights Watch, of the forcible displacement of Palestinians from the north of Gaza. He will be aware that this is a crime against humanity, and that two of the main proponents are Israeli Ministers Smotrich and Ben-Gvir. The Prime Minister has confirmed that the Government are looking at this, so when will the Government move to sanction those Ministers as part of a wider package of further action to uphold international law?
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords]
Judith Cummins ExcerptsTuesday 22nd October 2024
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Act 2025 View all Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alicia Kearns
I thank my hon. Friend. It is so rare for us to celebrate the positive in this House, but the Bill does exactly that. We should be proud of how His Majesty has championed the Commonwealth, both before he became our monarch and since. I look forward to his arrival in Samoa in the coming days.
The Conservative Government proudly ran multiple projects with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to strengthen the democratic nature of legislatures and how decisions are approached and made. Ultimately, the Bill will amend the legal environment to ensure that the CPA remains headquartered in the UK; again, we can all agree that that is unambiguously positive. In an increasingly dark world, it is worth fighting for those small shoots of light that offer a glimpse of a path to a better future. This is one.
I will turn to the International Committee of the Red Cross. The ICRC has a unique legitimacy to engage all parties to conflicts and unparalleled access to vulnerable people in conflict zones. Frequently, it is the only agency operating at scale in conflicts. For example, it is currently operating in Ukraine, Afghanistan and Syria—I declare an interest, as I have previously worked with the organisation in some of those zones.
In 2023 alone the ICRC’s 18,000 staff supported over 730 hospitals, mainly in conflict zones, and provided food assistance to more than 2.7 million people. I am proud that the previous Conservative Government committed £1 million to the ICRC to provide life-saving care and essential supplies to people affected by the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.
The Bill will guarantee to the ICRC that the sensitive information that it must be able to share with the Government will be protected. We do not want the ICRC to have to restrict the information that it shares with the UK because of the risk of disclosure, so the Bill makes an important step, particularly when it comes to hostages. Given that there is so much suffering globally, we need to take every possible step to ensure that our humanitarian efforts are effective. I am pleased that there will be, I hope, cross-party agreement on that.
The Bill will mean that the UK extends the privileges and immunities to both organisations in a manner comparable to that of an international organisation of which we are a member. The measure may be a little novel, but it is a neat legal solution that addresses both central challenges around which the Bill is centred. Although the changes provide a firm footing for the future work of both the CPA and the ICRC, they also offer the opportunity for the fulfilment of foreign policy objectives. If they are to be a success, the Government must seize the opportunities presented by the Bill.
Once our relationship with the ICRC is secured, how do the Government plan on improving collaboration and, most importantly, results? What shared areas of interest will the Government focus on and how will those manifest in tangible outcomes? Has the Minister assessed which specific parts of the Bill will facilitate that work? If so, will he share that assessment with the House?
On the CPA, has the Minister scoped any additional support that the Government could provide to both the delegation and the institution as a whole to bolster its work? Will he commit to building on the good work of the Conservative Government to help strengthen institutions in Commonwealth countries, using a whole-ecosystem approach? Finally, when we were in government we committed that the Foreign Secretary would consult the chair of the UK branch and the secretary-general of the CPA and the president and director-general of the ICRC respectively, before finalising secondary legislation. Can the Minister confirm that that has taken place?
If democracy is to thrive, there needs to be equilibrium across a range of areas—from justice and the application of the rule of law, to the protection of human rights, freedom of speech, safeguards against corruption, effective efforts to counter extremism, integrity in the public sector, and the capability to face down external threats and protect our people. At a time when the world is more insecure and more dangerous, we are faced by authoritarian states bent on undermining the open international order on which so much of our security and prosperity rest.
The Commonwealth is more important than ever, and we must not allow any insinuation otherwise to undermine our efforts on its behalf. The organisation accounts for more than quarter of the membership of the United Nations, and more needs to be done with it. Crucially, through the Commonwealth charter, it is a champion of the sound values and principles that must prevail in the future if we are to build a better world. The Government must not forgo the opportunity to deepen that co-operation with Commonwealth partners and enhance the benefits of membership.
Membership of the Commonwealth can and must be seen as a route to a better future, fundamentally rooted in the noble values set out in the Commonwealth charter. We must strengthen intra-Commonwealth trade, build up the economies of countries struggling to attract inward investment, boost resilience, particularly when it comes to small island developing states, and do what is central to today’s debate: promote democracy and good governance through respectful understanding and collaboration.
For every tyrant sacrificing innocent lives in pursuit of unbridled power, there are thousands of hard-working, conscientious people working to make their contribution for a better future. The CPA and the ICRC embody that noble tradition, and the changes today will secure their continued success. We support the Bill, as we did in the last Parliament. We will encourage the Government to make the most of every opportunity that it confers.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
It is a real honour to follow the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns). I agree with her high praise of both the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
I am going to focus on the Red Cross/Red Crescent but should also say that personally I have benefited so much from the CPA. Its members have shared their experiences, and it is always a joy when they come to Parliament here—as parliamentarians, we love learning from each other. To build on the points made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, I should say that we are in a very fragile world. This is an opportunity for us to invest time, money and commitment into our Commonwealth family. We need each other right now more than ever.
Let me now turn to the International Committee of the Red Cross, and, indeed, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement as a whole. Every day, they provide hope for hundreds of thousands of people across the globe who are facing disasters of many kinds. I want to thank the ICRC personally for its consistent and valuable engagement with my Committee. For those reasons, I fully support the Bill.
The network consists of 80 million people, most of whom are volunteers. They help others facing disasters, conflict, health issues and social challenges, and I pay tribute to them. The movement consists of the ICRC, 191 national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies, and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. The ICRC itself has more than 18,000 staff in over 90 countries, and its work has gained it three Nobel peace prizes. At a time when more than 65 million people are fleeing 120 armed conflicts globally, the work of this organisation is vital and cannot be underestimated.
The ICRC is also crucial to parliamentary engagement with these situations, and I am sure that Members on both sides of the House have benefited from its wisdom. Its ability to provide the International Development Committee with up-to-date, impartial, trustworthy and relevant briefings from the ground—and it does that in private when necessary—has allowed successive IDCs to raise the profile of disasters, and, importantly, to hold Governments to account for their responses. In February this year, its teams in Egypt met our Committee to discuss the humanitarian situation in Gaza. The Egyptian team were co-ordinating all the supplies into Gaza at that point, and their work was phenomenal. Here was a group of volunteers who uprooted themselves to go where others needed their support the most, and what I witnessed was nothing short of remarkable.
The brave workers in this movement continue to pay the ultimate price. In 2023-24, six ICRC staff members were killed globally. As of 21 October, 21 Palestinian Red Crescent Society workers had been killed in Gaza and the west bank. Six members of the Magen David Adom, the Red Cross in Israel, have also been killed while helping others since 7 October 2023. Yet their colleagues continue the lifesaving medical care, food distributions, water and sanitation projects, supporting those who have been detained and reminding parties of their obligations under international humanitarian law in diabolical war zones. I should like us all to remember and pay tribute to their sacrifice today.
Early in my first tenure as Chair of the International Development Committee, I met the former ICRC president, Peter Maurer—virtually, as this was during the covid-19 pandemic. We discussed the impact of covid on conflict-affected communities, the situation in Yemen, Syria and Myanmar, and the need for the IDC to continue to shine a light on conflict-affected contexts around the world. That is a commitment that we continue to honour. In November last year, the Committee met the ICRC’s director for the Africa region to discuss Sudan. In the last Parliament, the ICRC submitted evidence for the inquiries into climate change, aid effectiveness, racism in the aid sector, and preventing sexual exploitation and abuse. Its submissions were hugely helpful as the Committee made its recommendations to the Government, and, again and again, they have proved to be an invaluable resource for Parliament on the application of international humanitarian law.
This much-needed Bill will allow the ICRC to continue to operate in the UK with its international mandate, and will provide the securities needed for it to continue its vital, impartial work with immunity from jurisdiction. I hope that the House gives it a safe passage.
Lebanon
Judith Cummins Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a statement on the situation in Lebanon.
On 27 July, Hezbollah launched a series of rockets into northern Israel and the occupied Golan Heights. Tragically, in Majdal Shams, one strike killed at least 12 civilians—young people, one just 10-years-old, who were playing football. I extend my deepest sympathies to their families and to the Jewish community as they grieve for their loved ones. The Government are unequivocal in condemning this horrific attack and calling on Hezbollah to cease its rocket strikes. This atrocity is a consequence of indiscriminate firing and paying no heed at all to civilian life. This attack is part of an intensifying pattern of fighting around the Israeli-Lebanese border. For months now, we have been teetering on the brink. The risk of further escalation and regional destabilisation is now more acute than ever.
At the end of my first week in office I spoke to Lebanese Prime Minister Mikati, and yesterday I called him again to express my concern at this latest incident. I have also visited Israel and discussed the situation with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Katz. I shall visit Lebanon as soon as the security circumstances allow. We support Israel’s right to defend itself in line with international humanitarian law. As I have said before, it is in a tough neighbourhood, threatened by those who want to see its annihilation. More than 40 people, including 24 civilians, have now been killed by Hezbollah strikes in northern Israel and the Golan Heights, and tens of thousands of Israelis have been displaced from the area, while in Lebanon more than 100 civilians have died and almost 100,000 are displaced.
A widening of the conflict is in nobody’s interest. Indeed, the consequences could be catastrophic. That is why we continue to press for a diplomatic solution based on UN Security Council resolution 1701, which called for a long-term solution based on the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, no foreign forces in Lebanon without its Government’s consent, and no armed forces, other than the UN and the Lebanese Government troops, deployed south of the Litani river, near the border with Israel. It is why, even in the face of serious provocation, our counsel is restraint.
We welcome the Lebanese Government’s statement condemning violence against civilians and urging the cessation of all violence. We continue to support the Lebanese armed forces, and the UK has provided more training and equipment to four of Lebanon’s land border regiments. We are working intensively with the United Nations and our partners, including the United States and France, to encourage de-escalation.
With our partners we will do all we can to prevent the outbreak of full-scale conflict, but the risk is rising. I therefore want to underline the Government’s advice to British nationals. We advise against all travel to the north of Israel and the north of the Golan Heights, and against all travel to Lebanon. There are frequent artillery exchanges and airstrikes. Tensions are high and the situation could deteriorate rapidly.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister chaired a Cobra meeting this morning, and I am working with Foreign Office consular teams to make sure that we are prepared for all scenarios. However, if the conflict escalates, the Government cannot guarantee that we will be able to evacuate everybody immediately. People may be forced to shelter in place. History teaches us that in a crisis such as this one, it is far safer to leave while commercial flights are still running, rather than run the risk of becoming trapped in a war zone. My message to British nationals in Lebanon is quite simple: leave.
The tensions on the Israeli-Lebanese border are one aspect of a wider crisis in the middle east. Across the region we see evidence of malign Iranian activity—in their support for Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis and other groups whose actions destabilise the region, and who show scant regard for the death and destruction that this causes. This Government are committed to working alongside our partners to counter Iranian threats.
Meanwhile, in Gaza, fighting continues. The scenes at the Khadija schools—civilians killed and shocking images of injured children—underline the desperate conditions endured by civilians. The reports of the humanitarian situation remain sobering, with the threat of disease and famine looming ever larger. This Government continue to do all they can to provide relief to Palestinian civilians. I recently announced new funding for field hospitals run by UK-Med, which has treated more than 60,000 Gazans since the conflict began. We have restored funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, providing £21 million in new funds to the agency that is able to deliver aid at the scale needed.
What is urgently needed is an immediate ceasefire. All the hostages must be freed. The fighting must end, and much, much more aid must get into Gaza. A ceasefire would not only alleviate the suffering in Gaza and secure the hostages’ release but reduce tensions across the region, helping to prevent an escalatory cycle in Lebanon, and it would offer hope of renewed peace processes between Israel and Palestinians.
As I said in my first appearance at this Dispatch Box as Foreign Secretary, we are committed to playing a full diplomatic role in efforts to secure a just and lasting peace. Our overarching goal is clear: a viable sovereign Palestinian state alongside a safe and secure Israel. We do not want to see more civilians killed or more innocent lives cut short, but the risks are clear. We are urging the de-escalation of the current crisis while ensuring that we are prepared if diplomatic efforts do not succeed, with a clear call today for all British nationals in Lebanon to leave immediately. I commend this statement to the House.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and his advice to British nationals, which seems like a very wise precaution and could prevent our having to evacuate British citizens in the future. I join him in condemning the Hezbollah strike in the Golan Heights, which killed 12 Druze children. Our thoughts go out to their families.
However, now we find the region on the precipice that many of us have feared since 7 October last year: the escalation of this dire conflict to another front, with Israel’s Minister Smotrich warning of an all-out war with Hezbollah. The UN special co-ordinator for the middle east peace process has urged “maximum restraint” and the immediate cessation of rocket fire across the blue line. We welcome that call and urge the UK Government to work closely with regional powers to do whatever we can to de-escalate the situation. My question to the Foreign Secretary is this: has he, and have his colleagues, engaged with the UN special co-ordinator? If not, will they do so, given the special co-ordinator’s vital role in moments such as this?
The Liberal Democrats welcome the Foreign Secretary’s call for an immediate bilateral ceasefire to end the humanitarian devastation in Gaza, to get the hostages home and to open the door to a two-state solution. This is a deeply insecure region and that insecurity is felt by everybody who lives there: Israelis, Palestinians and others. A two-state solution will deliver the dignity and security they need, and I am reassured to hear that he will be making those calls on regional powers when he next visits the region.
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to the Lib Dem spokesman for the tone and manner of his remarks. I can reassure him that I have been in touch with the UN special envoy, Amos Hochstein. I have spoken to him several times and I intend to speak to him again over the coming days. As I have indicated, it is my hope to get to the region if the security situation allows.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that an immediate ceasefire is what we need. We need those hostages out and we need the aid in. If we get that immediate ceasefire, if the Biden plan is adopted, it will allow de-escalation across the region. That is why we need to see that plan adopted by both sides as soon as possible.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I take this opportunity to welcome you to the Chair?
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement on Hezbollah’s horrific attack and his condemnation of the awful strike in Majdal Shams. What steps will he take to put maximum pressure on Hezbollah to cease its rocket attacks for good?
Mr Lammy
It was very important for me to visit the occupied territories and Israel within the first week in office. We said this in opposition and we say it again in government: of course, given the hostages who are still in Israel, Israel has a right to defend itself, but it is a qualified right—it has always been, within international humanitarian law. The scale of civilian loss of life—the children and the women who have lost their lives, the aid workers who have lost their lives—against a backdrop in which journalists are not allowed into the country has been a matter of deep concern and worry across the international community, so of course I have raised these issues. It was also important to meet hostage families and to be absolutely clear that we want to see those hostages returned.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your appointment.
I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees that the escalation of violence can be reduced if we look at ending the suffering in Gaza. At a briefing that I attended today with Oxfam and Medical Aid for Palestinians, they talked about how Israel was using water as a weapon of war. People have 4.7 litres of water per day to wash, clean and cook. That is less than a toilet flush. I welcome the position that we have taken—we have moved greatly—but does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to go much further and much faster?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who I know has taken up these issues over many years in this Parliament. Let me be clear: what I saw and what I continue to see in the occupied territories is unacceptable. He will know that the community who experience this violence in the Golan heights are Druze in background, and that this is occupation of the Golan heights—I do recognise that. I want to see de-escalation across the board and a solution along the lines of Oslo and 1967. A two-state solution is what we all want to get to, and we will achieve that if we have an immediate ceasefire and get back to political dialogue and conversation.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
I was not down to ask a question, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I always have a question. [Laughter.] Sorry, humour is not what this is about. I apologise for that—I should not have said that.
I thank the Secretary of State very much for his calm and measured statement, which encapsulated the temperament and concern of all of us in this Chamber, on both sides. The attack at the football pitch in Majdal Shams was deadly and full of complete evil: 12 children and young adults were slaughtered. Will he outline what steps are being taken to find the perpetrators and hold them accountable, and to ensure the message is sent that these attacks will not bring peace, but instead further division? What steps will be taken to assist Israel, whose very existence is under threat from Hezbollah? Hezbollah are terrorist murderers of innocents, and must be neutralised.
Oral Answers to Questions
Judith Cummins Excerpts(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
Leo Docherty
I agree that there is a strong moral case for using Russian assets to repair the damage that Russia has wrought on Ukraine. We are clear about the fact that Russia should pay, and we continue to assess what legal path there might be to achieving that end.
Judith Cummins
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees recently said:
“I think the big difference from last year to this year is that this year…There is somehow a trend towards getting used to Ukrainian suffering.”
It is more than 200 days since the Opposition tabled a motion necessitating Government legislation to bring about the full seizure and repurposing of Russian state assets within 90 days, but no plan has yet been forthcoming. Why are the Government so out of step with our allies and partners in this regard?
Leo Docherty
We are not out of step; we are leading the pack, and have been doing so for the last two years. Our resolve is shown by our own financial commitment but also by our permanent commitment to the UK-Ukraine relationship, which was demonstrated when the Prime Minister signed the UK-Ukraine agreement on security co-operation at the start of the year. We are in it for the long haul.
International Child Abduction
Judith Cummins Excerpts(3 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
Before we start, I welcome members of the public to our proceedings. I remind Members here to err on the side of caution so as not to prejudice any live cases in this country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call our first Member, I remind Members to err on the side of caution in order not to prejudice cases that are live in this country.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you as Chair, Mrs Cummins. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) on securing the debate and setting out, in his usual clear and methodical manner, the issues that we will deal with.
I know that other hon. Members, without crossing any sub judice rules, will want to talk about individual constituents’ cases, and to use them, as I intend to, to illustrate this serious matter. I could not agree more with what the hon. Gentleman said; this is about where proceedings have taken place and due process has been followed, often at great expense, and where, almost invariably, one party is unhappy with the outcome—normally litigation—but resolves that simply by not following the rules and by taking children out of the jurisdiction. The question is: what happens then? Does the system work? If it does not work, how can we make it work?
I wish to focus on a rather specific area of the issue, with its own particular problems. I have given notice to the Minister and the shadow Minister that I will raise issues that specifically relate to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, where there are all the usual problems and more—that is, children being taken out of this jurisdiction to that jurisdiction without the consent of the responsible parent. Perhaps we should call it an unintended loophole as, because the children are taken to the TRNC—if I may call it that—against the direction of the courts, and because northern Cyprus is not a signatory to The Hague convention on child abduction, the systems break down almost immediately. Our Government rightly do not recognise the TRNC, but there is therefore no co-operation, even from stage one, in organising the return of the children, even though, as I say, due process has been followed. I appreciate that there are particular problems with other countries; Poland has been mentioned already. There are always problems in child abduction cases and I think that all Members present today will have dealt with quite a number of them, but with northern Cyprus we do not even get to first base.
The constituency case that has been brought to my attention, which I think illustrates the issue well, is that of a father whose children were taken to northern Cyprus in 2018. The two parents separated in 2011. Residence proceedings began for two brothers who were then aged four and two years old. There were seven years of litigation, which again is not uncommon, because one parent made it as difficult as possible for the court to do its work over that period. There were many court hearings and appeals, and much turmoil, and a final appeal decision in 2018 unambiguously granted custody to the father.
The children, who were four and two at the beginning of the process, were 10 and eight at the end of the proceedings in this country. They were then taken out of this jurisdiction and are now aged 15 and 13. They have spent most of their lives embroiled in litigation or its consequences, because on the day before the final appeal decision was handed down, and in knowledge of what that decision was likely to be, the mother fled to the TRNC with the two children, following a convoluted route that went from Scotland to Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland to Turkey and then finally to northern Cyprus. One can infer from those facts that she knew exactly what was happening and that there was a disregard for the law in this country. The father has not seen his children since and has had no contact with them. He continues to instruct counsel in northern Cyprus, again at further significant personal cost, to try to arrange some visitation rights. However, any attempts to have his children returned to him have encountered immovable barriers.
All the proceedings through all the UK courts are not taken into consideration. I think they will be read for reference, but clearly they do not apply in northern Cyprus. There is likely to be some bias towards resident rather than non-resident parents; clearly, neither the father nor the children is at fault for that. There is also no role for child welfare—that is, it is a pure consideration of rights of visitation. The whole process is starting again, with the time and the costs and everything else that that involves.
A return order is in place. The UK authorities, like the father, are aware of the children’s location in northern Cyprus, but there has been no action. The courts in England and Wales recognise the father as the legal guardian of the children, but they are powerless to bring them home unless the mother co-operates with the return order, which all her conduct so far has shown that she will not, or unless—this is the point of my taking part in the debate—the UK authorities are able in any way to intervene. This is not an isolated case. As I am sure the Minister has been made aware, other parents face a similar ordeal to be reunited with their children with little or no support or guidance on how they to do that.
It is easy to find out, simply by internet research, that some organisations give advice and assistance to help those who wish to leave this jurisdiction to do so, and a number of parents have specifically gone to northern Cyprus because they know of the jurisdictional problems —or fracture—and that it is therefore a place where they can more easily escape the enforcement of judgments by UK courts. The Government should be particularly concerned about that, if there is an organised flouting of court orders that brings the whole process into disrepute. I am told that this has been going on for more than 10 years.
As I have said, there are now a growing number of cases—word gets round, people find out. In my experience, this is quite an unusual form of child abduction. It is going to a location with which the errant parent may have no connection. It is not, as is often the case, somebody taking a child back to their own country of birth, or where they have existing contact links or other family. This is about purely using a jurisdiction that is unlawful in the eyes of many countries, including the UK, in order to escape attention.
To be honest, it is not good enough for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to say that there is nothing that it can do about this, and, effectively, that is what it says. If we look up the TRNC on the FCDO website, we will see that there is a specific footnote to say that there is nothing that it can do in child abduction cases. That is not satisfactory. It may be that the Minister cannot give a full response today on what legislation or other steps would be needed, but I hope that this is at least the start of a dialogue that will look at that. I would like to hear from the Government what their thoughts are on this matter. I would also like the Minister’s agreement that we can go away and look at the cases of children taken to the TNRC specifically against the rulings of the courts in this country.
Perhaps I should add that there is some below-the-radar contact between the two jurisdictions. There have been examples in serious criminal cases of co-operation between the law enforcement agencies of both countries. I am told that we recognise the qualifications gained through the education system in northern Cyprus. I know that in this country property is advertised for sale in that area and, indeed, that many holiday companies in the UK will offer holidays there as well.
I understand the Government’s dilemma that they do not want to give plausibility or credibility to a country that has been illegally occupied for a number of decades, but the fact remains that it is in people’s humanitarian interests—and, it appears, in commercial interests, as well as, in some cases, law enforcement interests—for business to be done in that way. I would say that child abduction cases are certainly as serious a matter as commercial dealings and recognition of qualifications. It is clear that there are practical means, as well as some legal means, that can deal with this situation.
Before I conclude, let me suggest one or two other things that could be done. The first is that there is no legal aid available for non-Hague convention cases, which seems a double unfairness. Many parents fighting to bring their children home face huge pressures on their finances and, no doubt, some simply cannot afford to continue. Such proceedings can be ruinously expensive and can run on for years—often through deliberate delay in the courts. Unless there is some financial assistance—this should not be a matter of how deep people’s pockets are—it may be that some families will never be reunited and children will remain separated from their parents.
I would also like the FCDO to look at how we engage specifically with individual countries and jurisdictions on the issue. Clearly, there is not a one-size-fits-all answer. It would be useful to have a clear procedure that applies to the TNRC as well as to other countries where there are particular problems. It would also help if there were a more proactive role for Government to work with parents in that position to identify pathways for the return of their children. To prevent what happened in this case, the Government could consider the suspension of children’s passports during residence proceedings to limit the chance of children being taken abroad to avoid complying with court orders.
I will leave my remarks there. I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) says. What I am looking for from the Minister is an acknowledgment that there are particular problems with the TRNC and such countries, and that they are not being addressed now. I would like some idea of what the Government think can be done. If there are other matters that can be raised in correspondence after this debate, then so be it, but I would like to see a willingness to engage with myself and my constituent, as well as other people who have been affected in the same way, to address the issue.
The problem has been going on for far too long now. It has been put into the “too difficult” column because of political and jurisdictional issues. However, as a consequence, court orders made in this country are being flouted, and, more importantly, children are growing up without seeing parents because one parent does not like the judgment they have been dealt. I hope we can make some progress today, although I realise it is the beginning, rather than the end, of the matter.
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
Order. I ask Members to keep their remarks to around seven or eight minutes, then we can get everybody in.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Cummins. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I warmly congratulate my London colleague, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), on securing this hugely important debate. It will not be top of the headlines today, but this issue is of high importance to many families across the country. When we talk about crimes, we describe some crimes as being high in number but low in impact and others as low in number but very high impact, and that is what we are talking about today.
It has been a pleasure to work with the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner on this issue. I hope this debate is a watershed moment for those parents suffering because of this injustice. I hope that it acts as a wake-up call to Government to right a wrong that was done—inadvertently, I believe—over the time of Brexit and can be put right.
We are talking about children who are settled in school, settled in their communities and with their families, including their wider family. I am here on behalf of a constituent who is a wider family member, not a parent. That shows the impact that child abduction has; it impacts not just the parents and the close family, but the wider family.
These children are seeing their mother and father on a regular basis in accordance with what the UK courts agreed and stipulated, but then, without the consent of one of the parents, the other parent suddenly, and illegally, takes the children, or the child, from that stable home and community, and relocates them in another country. Twenty-eight days pass and the children are still not home. At this point, under UK law, such actions become a criminal offence called parental child abduction. The parent knows where their children are and who they are with, and they know that a criminal offence has taken place and that their children have been taken illegally. They try all the legal procedures and remedies one by one, but they have been failed and let down by them, and then they are left without their children, without justice and without help and hope. I cannot imagine the despair felt by those families.
The sad reality is that, in 2021, over 1,200 cases involving child abduction were considered by the UK courts. That is not just a handful of children. But the core problem, and the reason why we are here today, is that Brexit left a gaping hole in the legal framework that is supposed to protect children and parents from this crime and ensure that children return to their settled homes. There is a human right to a family life—a human right to live with your family and, where this is not possible, the right to regular contact, which is being contravened by the situation at the moment.
Up until the withdrawal agreement, families could rely on the Brussels II regulation. That piece of EU law provided greater protection for victims of child abduction by ensuring the reciprocal enforcement of family court orders. In matters of child abduction, if the child is not returned under the 1980 Hague convention, the court in the country from which the child was abducted can make its own finding as to whether return is necessary, which is automatically enforceable in the other country. The process is generally quick and completed within a matter of weeks, and it enables that human right to be upheld, but this vital protection was stripped from the statute book after Brexit and has not been replaced.
The most frustrating thing is that, in the intervening years, the Government seem to have been tone deaf to the problem and have not yet worked out a solution, so I have been reading the views of the current Secretary of State in various pieces of correspondence. What he has said so far suggests that he has not really turned his full attention to the issue or worked hard to get a solution. For instance, he said that:
“The Government is satisfied that the 1980 Hague convention provides an appropriate mechanism to seek the return of children wrongfully removed from the country of habitual residence.”
However, I do not agree with that and neither do victims. It is not what we are seeing from families coming to us. It may be true of certain countries, but there is huge variation in how rigorously the convention is applied. The UK and Australia may be held up as examples of good practice in returning children swiftly, but some countries rarely return children promptly, if at all.
We have focused on Poland today, and I agree that Poland is a strong ally and a friend of our country. I have many Polish constituents who are a valuable part of our community, but Poland seems to be one of the problem countries in this regard. Estimates from Polish family lawyers suggest that less than 5% of all abducted children are returned, and a look at the latest publicly available data shows that the number of returns from Poland is consistently below the global average. Last year, legislation was passed in Poland that allows the return of a child to be suspended if the prosecutor general, the commissioner for children’s rights or the commissioner for human rights issues an extraordinary appeal to the Supreme Court. For whatever reason, there seems to be growing resistance in the Polish courts to return children under The Hague convention, which is why it is important to hold this debate now and to solve the problem before it becomes embedded.
It was very concerning to read the Secretary of State’s view that the UK must respect the jurisdiction and laws of Poland. I agree that we must respect those laws, but the Polish courts need to respect the decisions of our courts and the rights and welfare of British children who have been taken from their home. The Government may well argue that additional protections exist in the form of the 1996 Hague convention, which reinforces the 1980 convention by underlining the primary role played by the authorities of the child’s habitual residence in deciding on matters that affect the child in the long term. In short, it helps with enforcement, but there are big problems with this option too.
First, it is far slower, usually taking around a year to be processed. A year of young children’s lives is a year far too long. Secondly, the 1996 Hague convention allows the country to which children have been abducted to exercise discretion. The destination country may choose to ignore this on domestic policy grounds. Therefore, in certain countries, where there is resistance to returns, the return of abducted children may be near impossible, and that cannot be justice.
The main takeaway from this is clear: ending our participation in the Brussels regulations has left victims of child abductions and our own courts worse off. I end with some questions to the Minister. Why are the Government dragging their heels on reinstating the Brussels regulations? Can she provide any good reasons for their doing so? Will she recognise the serious pitfalls and inadequacies in The Hague conventions? What discussions has she had with countries with a low return rate, such as Poland, and will she recognise the fact that that is the situation? How can we ensure that their courts respect decisions made in our courts? Will she meet hon. Members who are here today, in this debate, to look at the particular cases that we are raising? I implore the Minister to show common sense and justice, and restore Britain’s participation in the reciprocal enforcement of court-ordered child arrangements under—
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
Order. This sitting will be suspended for 15 minutes for a Division in the House, or 25 minutes if two Divisions are expected.
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
Order. The debate may now continue until 4.17 pm. I call Fleur Anderson to conclude her remarks.
Fleur Anderson
Thank you, Mrs Cummins.
To conclude, the main takeaway is clear: ending our participation in the Brussels regulation has left victims of child protections and our own courts worse off. There was a legal regulation in place, but that legal regulation now needs to be put into our own UK law. There were supposed to be Brexit benefits, not exactly the opposite. Back in 2017, the Justice Committee said:
“We recommend that the Government should seek to maintain the closest possible cooperation with the EU on family justice matters, and in particular to retain a system for mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments.”
That is exactly we are talking about now.
Surely no one intended the UK’s withdrawal from the EU to remove our country’s ability to protect British children from abduction. The absence of this protection from the withdrawal agreement is yet another oversight in a deal that was far from “oven-ready” and that has exposed families such as that of my constituent, and of the constituents of other Members, to the pain and trauma of abduction. That cannot be left to diplomatic fixes and to the whim of which ambassador will work with us in another country; instead, there must be a legal fix for justice to be seen. It can and must be fixed.
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
Thank you, Mrs Cummins, for the opportunity to speak in the debate. Like my colleagues, I believe that this is an important topic, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for securing the debate.
First, I welcome the supporters of the group Hague Mothers, who are attending the debate. As we know, the 1980 Hague convention was intended to ensure the quick and safe return of children removed from their primary carers and taken abroad by their non-custodial parents. In that regard, the convention is highly effective. Hague Mothers, however, points out that about 75% of the parents brought before the courts are mothers with the primary care of their children, most of whom are fleeing domestic abuse or trying to protect their children from abuse.
There are limited options under the convention for mothers to oppose orders for the return of their children, and in most cases the courts decide that the child must return. The only defence available under the convention that could apply to domestic abuse is the article 13(b) defence that provides that the court may not order return of a child if the person opposing return establishes that
“there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.”
The courts of most contracting states interpret what constitutes a “grave risk” very strictly. Most cases of domestic abuse are not considered to give rise to a “grave risk” or “intolerable situation” for a child. In particular, it is almost impossible for mothers to prove that coercive and controlling behaviour, which has rightly been a criminal offence in England and Wales since 2015, constitutes the basis for an article 13(b) defence. Despite the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 stipulating that children who see or experience the effects of domestic abuse are victims in their own right, those same children can be and are returned to the country and often the care of the abusive parent.
Mothers escaping domestic abuse across borders are therefore left in the terrible position of having to choose whether to return with their children or to send their children back on their own. Most mothers decide to return and face continued, or worse, post-separation abuse; sometimes, they face destitution, homelessness, isolation or even criminal proceedings. They frequently have little or no family, social, financial or legal support, which provides a perfect context for continued abuse.
I want to bring the attention of the House and the Foreign Office to the case of my constituent Nataly Anderson, who is appealing for assistance from the UK Government in bringing her twin boys safely to the UK from Croatia.
Judith Cummins (in the Chair)
Order. I take it that the hon. Member is not referring to a live case in UK courts.
Mr Lord
It is not a live case.
Nataly Anderson says that her British-Croatian twin boys, who are now nine years old, were taken back to Croatia on the pretext of a holiday by their father in 2016, just as the family had been establishing their life in England, including schooling for the children. She requests that the British Government escalate her complaint about Croatia with the bodies of the European Union, and warns that parental alienation claims can be used to cover up child abuse, including child abduction, to award custody to abducting or abusive parents, and to stop mothers and children moving to locations where they would have more favourable living conditions. She believes that is what has happened to her and her children in Croatia. She believes, further, that mothers and children who are not protected properly from domestic abuse have a human and legal right to asylum in another country, and that those rights should be upheld and enforced. She asks that the phenomenon of mothers and children fleeing across borders to escape from abuse be considered a humanitarian crisis and advocates for the approach advanced by the Hague Mothers project, as one that could be easily implemented and would do much to support the safety and welfare of mothers and children in this situation.
In her own words, Nataly Anderson says:
“This is now a child welfare matter. These are vulnerable children and it is unconscionable that the Croatian authorities have been violating their rights, wishes and welfare needs for so long. I am appealing for the urgent assistance of the UK Government in bringing my children safely home.”
She requests that the British Government raise the question of her case with all the relevant bodies of the European Union.
I have been trying to help and assist my constituent. I am grateful to the Foreign Office and the Passport Office for correspondence I have received. I know how assiduous our Foreign Office, embassy and consular officials are and often can be, but I appeal to the Foreign Office Ministers to have one further look at this case. I will not take up any more time today, but this is an important debate and I have been interested to hear about the other cases that hon. Members have brought forward today.
Ukraine
Judith Cummins Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), and to hear such unity across the House. A year on, this war will leave lasting imprints on every Ukrainian and, indeed, on world history. This time, and this milestone, will mean something different to every person affected by the war. Here today, we know that this moment shows that history will stand on the side of the Ukrainian people.
International security and the stability of the world order were threatened when Russian Federation forces began their invasion on 24 February 2022. While the future appeared uncertain, through the indescribable bravery and resilience of the Ukrainian people, its military forces and its Government, Ukraine has exercised its power and turned what could have been a brief moment in time into an historic struggle for freedom.
I have spoken before in this place about the human impact of this war. In December, I visited Lviv, Kyiv, and the region of Kharkiv with the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). We joined the charity Siobhan’s Trust, whose humanitarian aid reflects our core British values. Its work in feeding over 4,000 displaced Ukrainians every day is to be both admired and applauded. Everywhere we went, the real power of the Ukrainian people was clear to see. Putin’s forces had inflicted horrific damage on their towns, cities and villages. I saw blocks of flats—people’s homes—gutted by missile attacks in Kharkiv, schools destroyed in Slatyne, and homes peppered with shrapnel in Ruska Lozova.
One soldier told me about the horror of removing the dead bodies from bombed out buildings—mostly homes. He showed me a photograph of a dead little boy laid out on a bench. He told me that the boy’s father had clung on to the boy with desperation and had had to be pulled from his son. In typical Ukrainian understatement, he said, “It’s hard.” He told me of his men who had found it too hard and had gone home and shot themselves. He worried for his men—men who urgently needed help in dealing with the impact of stress while still serving on the frontline. Despite the inhumanity of war, the Ukrainian people live with dignity and compassion as they fight on bravely towards victory.
I met with businesses that were working to keep Ukraine’s economy functioning in the most challenging of circumstances, under bombing and planned power cuts. Businesses such as the potato factory have, despite the war, kept their investments in Ukraine. That is their contribution to the war effort: to keep the economy going, to provide food for the nation and jobs for workers, and to pay taxes to fund Ukraine’s war efforts. Those people and businesses defy Putin’s best efforts to crush the free spirit of Ukraine. They are essential to success in the war, and when the time comes, they will continue to support Ukraine as it flourishes again as a peaceful and independent state.
Of course, we must continue to support Ukraine by providing it with the necessary military capabilities. Equally, we must support the recovery effort. I praise the upcoming Ukraine recovery conference, jointly hosted by the UK Government and Ukraine, because no matter when the war ends, we must begin laying the foundations for structural and economic recovery now.
To close, everywhere I and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green went in Ukraine the same message was delivered to us: “Do not forget us!” Ukraine can claim astonishing victories already. The war may well continue, but Ukraine has achieved what many had once believed was impossible. For the last year, it has firmly withstood a hostile invading force intent on bringing democracy to its knees. History is being rewritten. History is being written by Ukraine. Freedom will win. Slava Ukraini!
Oral Answers to Questions
Judith Cummins Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mitchell
We take an absolutely pragmatic approach to this and we use the best possible vehicle for getting the humanitarian aid through. I can tell my right hon. Friend that we will meet the target of £156 million that we budgeted for by the end of the financial year.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I was in Japan just a couple of weeks ago, and I spoke to Foreign Ministers. The focus they are bringing to their G7 presidency will ensure that economic security and all that falls from it are at the heart of discussions.
Lachin Corridor and Nagorno-Karabakh
Judith Cummins Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered closure of the Lachin Corridor and the humanitarian situation in Nagorno-Karabakh.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am very pleased to see such a strong turnout for a subject that many of us have struggled to pronounce, let alone spell. I declare an interest: I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Armenia, and in April I took a delegation there at the invitation of the Armenian Parliament. I am glad that several of my fellow delegates are here to speak.
This is not a new subject for Westminster Hall, but it has certainly become a much more urgent one as a result of the clear breach of the terms of the tripartite ceasefire agreed between Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia on 9 November 2020. It was a breach by Azerbaijan after it invaded the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, and it is now clearly intent on waging illegal, immoral and inhumane suffering on the Armenian population of this troubled corner of south-east Europe that borders Asia. That military conflict, and now humanitarian crisis, has gone largely unnoticed and unremarked on by the west—especially western media—and, regretfully, partly by our United Kingdom Government.
I will give some brief background to the long-running conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, which has always been an integral part of historic Armenia, and has a predominantly Armenian population. The conflict was largely supressed while those countries were part of the Soviet Union. In 1991, unprovoked, the Azerbaijanis launched war against Nagorno-Karabakh, with the help of Afghan mujaheddin, and Russian, Belarusian and Chechen mercenaries, and attempted ethnic cleansing by deporting more than 600,000 Armenians from the area.
After four years of conflict and 30,000 deaths, Armenia prevailed, and a Russia-brokered ceasefire was signed in 1994. After that followed 26 years of relative peace, helped by the oversight of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe Minsk Group, which ensured implementation of security measures. The OSCE Minsk Group, co-chaired by France, Russia and the United States, has been routinely obstructed by the Azeris, and there have been numerous ceasefire violations, including the targeting of civilian infrastructure across the border into Nagorno-Karabakh and even into Armenian sovereign territory, and the destruction of Armenian cultural heritage.
Those violations culminated in 44 days of war between September and November 2020, when with assistance from Turkey, sophisticated battlefield drone technology from Israel, the assistance of mercenaries flown in from Syria and a blind eye turned by Russia, the Azeris invaded, terrorised and occupied large parts of Nagorno-Karabakh, leaving an effective island of Armenian-populated territory linked to Armenia only by a narrow strip of territory known as Lachin corridor. It is literally a lifeline—it is known as the road of life.
On 9 November 2020, a rather one-sided ceasefire was agreed with Russian mediation, and terms were imposed on Armenia, whereby Azerbaijan kept all the conquered parts of Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as the Armenian towns of Hadrut and Shushi. Those regions were subsequently cleansed of their Armenian populations. Disgracefully, at the end of that war, the Azerbaijan Government issued a set of commemorative postage stamps that showed Azerbaijanis in hazmat suits eradicating the rodents or pests, as they tried to put it, from Nagorno-Karabakh. That was a representation of the ethnic cleansing of the Armenian population, very unsubtly portrayed on the postage stamps of that country.
The remainder of Nagorno-Karabakh was left isolated and surrounded on four sides by a deeply xenophobic state with a clear intent to eradicate or expel the population. A small detachment of 1,900 Russian peacekeepers, whose numbers may since have dwindled because of their attention being elsewhere, was deployed to maintain the ceasefire and patrol the 25 km Lachin corridor—the sole lifeline to Armenia for the Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh.
To repeat, it was an express obligation under the trilateral agreement of 9 November 2020 that
“the Republic of Azerbaijan shall guarantee safe movement of citizens, vehicles and cargo in both directions along the Lachin corridor.”
It could not be clearer than that. But in the two years since the ceasefire agreement, there have been constant infringements by the Azeris—firing artillery across the line of contact and hitting civilian infrastructure, including nurseries. In the middle of September 2022, 300 soldiers were killed in an early flare-up of the conflict. They have still not handed over some of the prisoners of war from the original conflict. Indeed, in October 2022, Human Rights Watch reported on the extrajudicial killing of Armenian POWs by Azeri forces, and some alarming and distasteful footage has been posted on social media of decapitated Armenian soldiers and others. The Azeri forces routinely use loudspeakers across the border into Nagorno-Karabakh, warning people to leave or else come to harm. This is a constant war of attrition and intimidation of an Armenian population in Nagorno-Karabakh who have every right to live there and to live in peace, yet have been denied that by the Azerbaijani state.
Those of us in the delegation I mentioned met refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh. We went down to the border town of Goris. Many came across from Nagorno-Karabakh to meet us, because we were not allowed to go into Nagorno-Karabakh. They gave us their first-hand testimonies of the appalling oppression that they had been suffering, and of course things have got so much worse since the blockade of the Lachin corridor.
On 12 December 2022, the Azeri Ministry of Ecology made a statement that suggested that natural resources were being illegally mined in Nagorno-Karabakh, and it asked Russian peacekeepers to monitor the situation. Before that could happen, a group of so-called environmentalists from Azerbaijan bypassed Russian checkpoints and set up tents on the main road, thereby blocking the Lachin corridor.
In fact, many of those “environmental protesters” have been identified as members of the Azeri military with Government backing. They are posing as civilians. Some of them are members of the Grey Wolves, an extreme fascist group. They have been brought in by the Azeri state, and their transportation and stay are paid for by the Azeri Government. The Human Rights Defender of Armenia report lists and gives photographs of many of the characters who have been identified as those so-called environmental protesters. The report shows that they are clearly
“representatives of Azerbaijani non-governmental organizations, which are directly and exclusively financed by the Azerbaijani government, or the Heydar Aliyev Foundation headed by the first vice president and first lady of Azerbaijan. Furthermore, evidence has been registered that representatives of the Azerbaijani special services are also amongst the alleged ‘environmental activists’ who are currently blocking the only lifeline”
for Nagorno-Karabakh.
I could mention a list of names—it will drive Hansard berserk—to give some examples. Telman Qasimov’s personal page on his social media network shows that he is
“military with strong anti-Armenian views for many years, who, according to some sources, is an officer of the military special intelligence service.”
There is a photograph of him protesting. Fuad Salahov,
“an officer of the special purpose unit of the Ground Forces of Azerbaijan, is one of the organizers of the action.”
Ruhiyye Memmedova is
“President of the Public Union ‘Support to the Elderly and Single Persons’; the NGO operates with the funding of the ‘Heydar Aliyev Fund’”.
Samir Adigozelli is
“Director of the ‘Center for Socio-Political Processes and International Studies’; funded by the Government of Azerbaijan”.
I could go on. There are photographs of all those people protesting. They are not environmentally conscious civilian protesters. They are put there, paid for and supported by the Azeri state and Government, and they should stop pretending otherwise. In effect, they are agents of the Azeri Government who are blocking the Lachin corridor. Together with the Russians, they refuse to do anything about it. Videos of the Azeri protesters posted by Azerbaijan show them side by side with Russian troops watching football matches while supposedly protesting as well. The Russians are not even turning a blind eye to this; they are in full sight of it. What an extraordinary contrast there is with protesters in Moscow, who only have to hold up a blank sheet of paper anywhere near a Russian police officer or soldier to be bundled off. But blocking a lifeline by pretending to be a protester is perfectly all right, as long as it is in the Lachin corridor.
The Azeri Government have orchestrated all of this activity, with the supposed Russian “peacekeepers” turning a blind eye. Only Russian and Azeri vehicles are allowed to pass through the Lachin corridor. As a result, 120,000 Armenian residents of Nagorno-Karabakh, including children, elderly people and disabled people, are effectively under siege. The blockade and isolation of many thousands of people has created a dire humanitarian situation and an existential threat for the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh.
The humanitarian crisis there is worsening with each passing day. Amid brutal winter conditions, the people of Nagorno-Karabakh are being deprived of vital supplies of medicine, food and fuel from the outside world; the provision of healthcare and social services has been obstructed, causing human suffering and life-threatening situations; the shortage of food and other essential goods is becoming increasingly noticeable, because every day more than 400 tonnes of supplies remain undelivered; and the danger of malnutrition is becoming more palpable. In total, 41 nurseries and 20 schools have already had to close, with thousands of children being deprived of their right to education.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman, first for giving way and secondly for securing this important debate. Given the unfolding humanitarian crisis, which is due to the closure of the Lachin corridor, does he share the belief that a United Nations or OCSE fact-finding mission should be established to assess the humanitarian situation on the ground?
Tim Loughton
I completely agree. If the Azeris are so intent on putting up this façade that there is a genuine environmental protest and nothing is amiss, why would they not want to allow independent investigators, backed by the UN or whoever, to go and ascertain that? They do not and they will not—that is the problem.
Russia’s Grand Strategy
Judith Cummins Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) on securing this important debate once again. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Russia’s second invasion of Ukraine on 24 February was a critical moment in our history. It firmly dispelled any myth that Russia was “misunderstood” or acting in the interests of its own territorial integrity. Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, and its land grab in Georgia, were clear warning signs of yet further aggression to come. In the past decade, Putin’s Russia has purposely sought to overturn current rules-based relations. It looks backwards, to a Russian-dominated Soviet bloc, which divided the European continent and sought complete control over the people. Although we must continue to address the geopolitical threat created by Putin’s regime, we cannot lose sight of the real-world human consequences of Putin’s war.
Today marks the 330th day of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Over the course of less than one year, the lives of Ukrainian people have been entirely transformed. What Russia sees as a grand geopolitical strategy has become a tragic daily reality for millions of Ukrainian people.
Before Christmas, I had the privilege, along with the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), of joining the British charity Siobhan’s Trust to provide humanitarian aid to the dispossessed people of Ukraine. David Fox-Pitt from Siobhan’s Trust joins us in the Gallery today. He is a shining example of soft power and British diplomacy—dressed in a kilt, with his three pizza ovens and volunteers from all over the world, he feeds over 4,000 people a day. Travelling to the newly liberated villages, which are sometimes without power and water, he provides pizza, hot drinks and cheer. His charity, his work and his volunteers are to be commended.
I went to the recently liberated region of Kharkiv and I saw first hand the brutality of Putin’s regime. But I also saw the Ukrainian people, brave and resilient, showing immense fortitude in the face of extreme adversity. “We will win—it will be hard, but we will win”, they told me. We know that Putin’s regime rightly fears the immense resolve of the Ukrainian people. It is for that very reason that Putin has chosen to hold his sham referendums. He is desperately trying to convince his own people that the invasion is in fact an act of defence. The attempt to drive this form of rhetoric is baseless and reflects the growing, not diminishing, strength of the Ukrainian people.
Putin’s desperation can be felt just as clearly in his attacks on Ukrainian national infrastructure. Over past weeks, energy infrastructure in the Kharkiv region and in Kyiv has been badly hit. As the Russian regime continues its offensive on civilian life, the evidence of mounting war crimes becomes clearer and clearer. When we visited Ukraine in December, I saw the sheer scale of the atrocities and destruction that simply cannot be translated on to TV screens or into print.
In Kharkiv, I saw the numerous blocks of flats gutted by missile attacks—people’s homes, targeted and destroyed. I saw the burnt-out Russian tanks in Tsupivka. The whole village was devastated; its churches and schools were bombed. People’s houses were peppered with the shrapnel from bombs and bullets, in newly liberated Ruska Lozova. In Slatyne, I saw the school destroyed by missile attack. There was a huge crater where part of the school once stood, with live missiles still visible in the frozen ground. The whole area was littered with land mines, left by the Russian army—so many that we were told only to step on the snowy tyre tracks or pre-existing footprints. For innocent Ukrainians, land mines planted by the invading forces will cause untold devastation and heartbreak for decades to come: Russia’s grand strategy laid bare as nothing more than barbarism.
I met a local volunteer infantry unit—men who, prior to the war on Ukraine, were just ordinary citizens. One volunteer soldier told me that removing the dead bodies was the worst: the people in the houses and buildings killed—murdered—by the Russians. He said that moving the bodies was very hard, and showed me a photograph of a dead little boy laid out on a bench. The boy’s father had clung on to him. The father would not let go and had to be pulled away from his son. “It is hard,” the soldier said. He told me about his men who had found it too hard—who had gone home and shot themselves. He told me that he was worried for his men and that help is needed for them now.
People told me time and again that Ukraine needs more weapons, more modern tanks, more effective missile systems and armoured ambulances. They desperately need more training for paramedics so that the wounded can be treated before they arrive, sometimes dead, in hospital. But what is clear is that the war crimes committed against these innocent people will be the true legacy of Putin.
The determination of the Ukrainian people cannot be overstated, but the humanitarian situation is critical. Temperatures in Ukraine over winter hover at minus 3° and can plummet to minus 20°. With the Putin regime targeting infrastructure necessary for basics such as cooking and the heating of homes, people are facing impossible decisions. Many are left with no other option than to flee their homes. Over 155,000 Ukrainian refugees have entered the UK so far. Putin relies on generating fear among the Ukrainian population. Standing side by side, both in this place and with our European allies, we must continue to provide the necessary support to those fleeing the war.
As Putin attempts to redefine the borders of Ukraine with illegal referenda, the UK must continue to aid Ukraine in its fight to maintain sovereignty over its own territory. Russia’s land grab is not just a matter of politics; it is a fight for freedom and the basic right to live free from tyranny and aggression. Preventing a victory for Putin is necessary not only for the people of Ukraine; it is vital to contain an expansionist, totalitarian Russian state.
International solidarity on this issue remains critical. Putin must understand that he is isolated—he is alone. The UK and my own Bradford South constituency stand proudly with the people of Ukraine. This House and the United Kingdom must continue to play its part. Slava Ukraine.