Cyber-attack: Microsoft

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the points that he has made. The unanimity of voice among the international partners—the 39 countries that I listed—is incredibly important to us, and we will continue to seek to work collaboratively with our international partners in our response to this. My right hon. Friend makes the point about Chinese investment, or Chinese purchasing—specifically Newport Wafer Fab—and that is a decision that the Government are looking to review. He asks about the differential language between China and Russia. Our response is based on the actions, and we will continue to react robustly to any and all cyber-attacks that occur. He will understand, I am sure, that I am not necessarily going to go into details here and now about what further measures we might take, because to do so might undermine their effectiveness, but we will continue to work with international partners; and, as I said in my answer to his question, the Chinese Government should expect to be held to account if they do not come back into compliance with norms of behaviour.

With regard the Olympics, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said that we have not as yet made a decision on formal attendance at the Olympics. The attendance of athletes is ultimately a decision for the British Olympic authorities. On intelligence matters, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) will understand that we do not discuss intelligence-related issues on the Floor of the Chamber, but I take his point about making sure that people who are potentially the target of overseas intelligence actions are given the opportunity to defend themselves against them.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) [V]]

This is an unacceptable attack, costing businesses millions and raising the alarm for people across the country, who will be concerned that their personal information could be compromised. The Government confirmed yesterday that a quarter of a million servers were affected worldwide, but how many British businesses and organisations were victims of the attack and how many may still be vulnerable? What is the cost to British businesses of compromised data and were public bodies among those targeted? Can the Minister guarantee that hospitals, local authorities, universities and this Parliament have not and will not be compromised?

The Government have been repeatedly warned about this. A year after the Russian report was published, still no meaningful action has been taken. The Computer Misuse Act 1990 is now three decades old. It was written before smartphones, before Google—before the public could even use the web. When will the Government finally update it? The Minister says that this is a pattern of behaviour, and he is right, but Ministers have tried naming and shaming before. It did not work then, so why would it work now? Only weeks ago, President Xi said that those who expressed dissent about China’s actions would

“have their heads bashed bloody against the Great Wall Of Steel forged by over 1.4 billion Chinese people.”

Last year the Government were willing to act. They announced targeted sanctions against individuals involved in the Russian state-backed cyber-attack on the German Parliament. So why are there no sanctions in response to the Chinese state-backed cyber-attack on, among others, the Finnish Parliament?

The truth is that the Government are unable to send a clear, coherent message to Beijing because they are still arguing among themselves. Just two weeks ago, the Chancellor was telling Mansion House that it was time to realise the potential of our relationship with China. While the Foreign Secretary imposes sanctions, the Chancellor is cashing cheques. It is extraordinary that the Minister can stand at the Dispatch Box today and refuse to tell us how he will safeguard critical infrastructure, or whether he and his colleagues will board a plane to Beijing early next year to participate in a public relations exercise. The seriousness of this attack must concentrate minds. We need a coherent strategy. When are we likely to get one?

[James Cleverly]

In response to the specific questions that the hon. Lady raised, we estimate—we can only estimate—that 3,000 UK-based organisations were put at risk by this attack. It was an untargeted action. It was not targeted at specific sectors. We do not believe that Government organisations were a victim of it, and because it was an untargeted action it is not possible for me to give a credible assessment of the economic damage of this particular attack. The National Cyber Security Centre and Microsoft gave advice at the time and, as I say, by the end of March it was estimated that 92% of organisations had installed the patch to protect themselves. Advice is available to any organisation that still thinks it may be at risk in some way, both from the National Cyber Security Centre and from Microsoft.

With regard to our attendance at the winter Olympics, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary answered that point in departmental questions. There is nothing more that I can add to that.

The hon. Lady asked about naming and shaming. The fact that 39 countries collectively put their name to the statement is unprecedented, and it sends a significant signal that countries are working together to steer China’s actions. China is a significant economic and political player. We cannot pretend that China does not exist. We want China to change its behaviour, and we will work with international partners to urge it to do so. As I say, we reserve the right to take further actions if necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is right to point to the precarious situation in Afghanistan. We had long, detailed talks not just with the United States at Carbis Bay but with other allies. We had the NATO summit as well, which has been an opportunity to reinforce the need to stand by those who have stood by us in the way that my hon. Friend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee described, and to ensure that we encourage a political dialogue to avoid the spectre, or the risk, of civil war and that we bank not just the security gains from all the blood, sweat and tears that have been spent in Afghanistan, but a more inclusive Government.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the tributes paid to the brave workers of the HALO Trust and put on record our unequivocal condemnation of the targeting of a BBC journalist outside Parliament yesterday. Press freedom is under attack around the world; we must defend it here.

Yesterday, NATO recognised China as a systemic challenge to our security and the values that underpin it for the first time. While we welcome the reference to forced labour in the G7 communiqué, the failure to agree concrete measures in relation to Xinjiang was a missed opportunity to send a clear message that the world stands against genocide and anyone who seeks to profit from it. Can the Secretary of State assure us that he and the Prime Minister supported the stronger language and tougher measures that President Biden made it clear were needed, and that, despite the failure of the G7 to agree them, he will continue to do so?

[Dominic Raab]

I agree with much of what the hon. Lady said. Of course, she will know that there are varied views at the G7, including among our European partners, about quite how robust to be with China on some of these issues. She will know, because of the stance that the United Kingdom has taken in the Human Rights Council, the UN General Assembly, the United Nations and other forums, and indeed from the statements that we have put out and the sanctions that we have imposed in relation to Xinjiang, how importantly we take the issue, but the reality is that in relation to China, on this and many other issues, we need to be able to carry a broader group of like-minded countries with us. That is why the Prime Minister invited India, South Korea and Australia to join the G7 as guests, and why it is important to engage with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in the way that we have been doing.

[Lisa Nandy]

While I welcome that, if we want to carry a broader group of like-minded countries with us we need to lead by example. Does the Secretary of State regret whipping his MPs to support preferential trade deals with countries that commit genocide? Can he tell us why, last week, his Government turned down almost every single recommendation made by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee to get tough with China over forced labour in Xinjiang, and why the Minister for Exports, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), told parliamentarians last week:

“China offers more opportunity for the UK economy than perhaps any other market”?

The sheer incoherence of that approach is what, time and again, causes the Government to come up short. It gives us the absurd spectacle of Ministers standing up for human rights in the morning and then defending trade deals with countries that commit genocide in the afternoon. Will he please get a grip on that across Government, because who in the world could rely on a Government who cannot even rely on themselves?

[Dominic Raab]

I think the hon. Lady is a bit confused. Can she name a single country with which the United Kingdom under this Government is engaged on FTA negotiations that has committed anything close to genocide? Of course it is unthinkable; of course we would not do it. [Interruption.] Incorrect. What we have done—[Interruption.] She is chuntering from a sedentary position because she knows what she is saying is bereft of substance. We have imposed—we led the way in imposing—sanctions on Xinjiang. We have raised it at the G7 level. It is absolutely inconceivable that the UK would do a trade deal with any country that has engaged in genocide. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is chuntering again. It is absolute nonsense.

It is right, though, to say that we want a constructive and positive relationship, where that is possible, with China across the piece. In areas such as climate change, the hon. Lady talks a good game but does not seem to understand the elbow grease that needs to go into it. We need to have a conversation with China, because it is the biggest emitter and the biggest investor in renewable technologies, but we have demonstrated time and again that we never shrink from standing up for our values. She talks a good game; we do the business.

Belarus: Interception of Aircraft

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Monday 24th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his support for the actions that we have taken today. He is absolutely right about the threat posed to all of us as users of civil aviation and, indeed, to the international community at large, not least given that the ICAO regime is one of the most well-supported international instruments dealing with a common good that we have in the international community. He is right about the ICAO, and the UK has led the calls for an urgent meeting of the council.

I welcome my hon. Friend’s action among parliamentarians around the world. He rightly raised overflights, and he will have seen and noted the decisions that we have taken today. He also raised sanctions, and we will urgently consider further possibilities with our partners. The right thing to do is to co-ordinate to maximise our approach. He will know that we have already imposed targeted sanctions on 99 individuals and entities since the election in August 2020 and we very much led the way at that time. He also mentioned Nord Stream and other possibilities. We will consider and consult with our partners and see what further action they are willing to take.

Finally, I agree with much of my hon. Friend’s characterisation: on the face of it, the Lukashenko regime engaged in a particularly calculating and cynical ploy to force a civilian flight to land under the threat of a MiG fighter and under the hoax of a bomb alert, behaviour that is as dangerous as it is deceitful, and a flagrant violation of international law.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

After yesterday’s acts of modern piracy, it is clear that Lukashenko must now be recognised as an international threat—a danger not just to his own people but to the citizens of other countries. For a state to hijack a civilian airliner flying between two NATO allies in order to arrest a journalist is an assault on the freedom of the air and on freedom of speech. Unless the consequences are swift, robust and co-ordinated, it will create an extraordinarily dangerous precedent that will put journalists, dissidents and activists from the UK or anywhere else at risk every time they board a plane. I therefore very much welcome what the Foreign Secretary said today and, in particular, that he has summoned the ambassador and demanded the release of Roman Protasevich and other political prisoners. Those in the Belarusian pro-democracy movement are owed our solidarity and support as they fight for the right to determine their own future through free and fair elections.

I was pleased to hear the Foreign Secretary’s response when the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) asked about working with allies in NATO and the EU and through ICAO to ban flights through Belarusian airspace, to suspend Belarus from ICAO and, in particular, to block BELAVIA from operating in and out of the UK and to suspend direct flights.

I was interested to hear the Foreign Secretary say he was considering how best to ramp up economic pressure on the regime. In the space of 12 months, the Lukashenko regime has stolen an election, employed brutal repression against its own people and hijacked a civilian airliner, yet fewer Belarusian entities are sanctioned now than were in 2012. Will the Foreign Secretary now bring forward sanctions against state-owned enterprises, some of which continue to have UK subsidiaries, such as BNK (UK)? What steps will he take to stop the Belarusian Government using the London stock exchange to raise finance and sustain Lukashenko’s grip on power? Will he ensure that the UK is no longer a soft touch for corrupt elites from Belarus or elsewhere seeking to store their funds and assets, and will he consider targeted sanctions against individuals such as Mikhail Gutseriyev?

Given the apparent presence of Belarusian KGB agents on the flight, will the Foreign Secretary tell us what assessment he has made of the threat to Belarusians in exile and what can be done to disrupt any Belarusian agents who may be operating in the UK, Europe and NATO allied countries?

Some of these things are easy, and others are much more difficult, but all of them are necessary to stand up for our values and to defend our national interest. If the Foreign Secretary chooses to take a stand on this matter, he can count on our support.

Government Support for India

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) (Urgent Question)]

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the support the Government are providing to the Indian Government.

[The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)]

The heartbreaking scenes in India in recent days have shocked us all. The pandemic has brought horrific human suffering, and we send our solidarity and condolences to the Indian people at this difficult time. As the Prime Minister has said, we stand side by side with India as a friend and partner in the fight against covid-19.

The Foreign Secretary spoke with his counterpart, Minister for External Affairs Jaishankar, on 26 April. He emphasised the UK’s commitment to provide urgent medical equipment to support our Indian friends at this difficult time. Ministers and officials are in close contact with their counterparts in the Indian Government to follow up on that commitment. The Government of India told us that oxygen has been a particular challenge, so we have moved quickly to provide a package of urgent medical equipment to address that need. The first shipment, of 200 ventilators and 95 oxygen concentrators, arrived in India in the early hours yesterday, and is already being distributed to Indian hospitals. A further 400 oxygen concentrators will follow today and tomorrow. This equipment will boost oxygen supplies in India’s hospitals, which remain under severe pressure, so there is no doubt that the support provided by the United Kingdom will save lives.

I am pleased that other countries are also responding to India’s needs. The pandemic has shown the importance of international action. No one is safe until everyone is safe, so we will keep working closely with the Indian Government to help them to meet the huge challenge they face, and we will continue to show our solidarity with the Indian people.

This response is just a part of the UK’s wider international effort to tackle the pandemic. The United Kingdom has committed up to £1.3 billion of official development assistance funding to address the health, economic and humanitarian impacts of covid-19. We have been at the forefront of efforts to get vaccines to developing countries—we are one of the largest donors to the COVAX advanced market commitment, created to do just that. Our commitment of £548 million will support the distribution of 1.3 billion doses of vaccines to up to 92 low and middle-income countries; this includes India.

Despite the urgency of the current situation in India, this remains an important year in the UK-India relationship. India is a key partner for the UK and the Prime Minister had planned to visit India this week. Regretfully, he had to postpone due to the covid-19 outbreak. He now has plans to speak to Prime Minister Modi via video link in the coming period to take forward key deliverables across trade, defence, climate change, health and migration. We also look forward to the Prime Minister meeting Prime Minister Modi as the UK hosts the G7 summit in June and to welcoming India’s guest participation in the G7 foreign and development ministerial meeting next week. Subject to the covid-19 situation in India, there may also be an opportunity for the Prime Minister to visit in person later in the year.

We stand with the Indian people in this time of need, taking our lead from what the Indian Government advise us is most useful. We face this pandemic together and the UK will continue to support global efforts to overcome the grave challenges that we all face today.

[Lisa Nandy]

The domestic tragedy engulfing India is now of such a scale that it constitutes a global emergency. India is now afflicted with at least 40% of all new cases in the world. More than 2 million have been confirmed in the last week alone and the peak of this crisis may yet be weeks away. This surely ought to be a priority for the Foreign Secretary, who I expected to have made a statement to this House as the scale of the crisis became clear over the last 10 days.

For more than 1 million Britons with loved ones in India, this is a moment of fear and anxiety. The ties between our countries are woven into the fabric of this nation—something that, through my own heritage, I am personally and acutely aware of. Many Britons of Indian origin will have gone to work today in our NHS and in our care homes, helping to carry us through this crisis, while desperately worried about loved ones in India. We can and must do more.

Can I hear from the Minister today a clear plan to ramp up the delivery of vital equipment? I welcome the 600 pieces of equipment that we have shipped so far, but he will know through his discussions, as I do, that India is still badly short of oxygen cylinders, concentrators, ventilators and therapeutic drugs, especially remdesivir. He must co-ordinate with our global partners. I spoke to the EU ambassador this morning to discuss how we can avoid duplication and get help quickly to where it is most needed. Has the UK been part of discussions at the UN and with the World Health Organisation? The Minister needs a plan for increasing the production and manufacturing capacity for vaccines and to overcome barriers to expanding supply. I was surprised not to hear a commitment to make good on the Health Secretary’s promise to throw open our unique expertise to the world. We are world leaders in genomic sequencing and epidemiology. Tracking mutations and variants would be a major contribution not just to India, but to the world.

It is now almost a year to the day when the UK, steeped in our own crisis, woefully unprepared for the pandemic, was forced to ask the world for help. It was India who stepped forward and approved the export of 3 million packets of paracetamol in an act of solidarity and friendship. There are millions of people in India, around the world and here in the UK for whom this is really a test of the bond between our two nations. I heard what the Minister said. I thank him for his warm words, but words are not enough. Now is the time to step forward with a real plan of action to tackle this domestic tragedy and this global emergency.

[Nigel Adams]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. The Foreign Secretary may very well have answered this question today, but he is in Geneva speaking to the UN, so he is out of the country.

The hon. Lady makes some good points, particularly on the co-operation we saw from the Indian people and the Indian Government specifically around drugs last year. We are very thankful for the support we had in that regard. She references words, not deeds. I think what we have seen over the weekend is deeds, not words. We were the first country to deliver support to the Indian people. In fact, it is absolutely the case—this has been described by the BBC, no less—that the UK has been commended for the speed of its initial package. The BBC described it as

“the first international shipment aimed at stemming a devastating Covid-19 surge.”

I am not entirely sure how much quicker we could have been. We have been working on this late last week and over the weekend. I would like to thank staff across our networks and in the Department of Health and Social Care for all the work they have done in putting together this package. Instead of talking, we were shipping and delivering these vital pieces of equipment there, and there is more equipment and support to come. We are continuing to speak with the Indian Government on what they require, and we will respond to what their requirements are in very short order.

Global Anti-Corruption Sanctions

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

We warmly welcome today’s announcement. We agree that corruption is a global scourge. It costs the global economy billions every year, it sustains rotten Governments, it protects the dishonest and the criminal, it tilts the playing field against businesses that do the right thing and it denies people around the world money that belongs to them and that should be spent on our shared prosperity, our healthcare and our opportunities. As I told the Foreign Secretary last June, the absence of measures on corruption left a huge hole in the global human rights sanctions. If we want to crack down of human rights abusers, we have to follow the money, so we are really pleased to see the Government following the standard set by the USA and Canada in plugging this hole today, and we will study the regulations and the policy note carefully.

However, I hope the Foreign Secretary can assure the House today that there will be resources to support investigations and enforcement, because the current rate of prosecutions for economic crime is woefully low, as he knows. To put it bluntly, if he is serious about what he is saying today, he needs to put his money where his mouth is and ensure that agencies such as the National Crime Agency have the resources they need, allow Parliament to put forward names to be considered for designation and, as I pressed him to do last year, allow parliamentary scrutiny of who is and, crucially, who is not designated, to ensure that there is no prospect or suggestion that big money can corrupt our politics and influence the decisions that are taken. That last one really matters, because while I welcome his words today, the mass of revelations that have come to light in the last few days alone have shown a tangled network of financial interests and cosy relationships at the heart of Government that appear to send a green light to many of the very regimes that he has mentioned in his statement. We need to know that this announcement it is not just a gloss on the surface of a grubby system that underneath signals business as usual.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Saudi, but may I ask him what message it sends to the Saudi regime when he sanctions officials implicated in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi but we then find that all it takes is for the Crown Prince to WhatsApp the Prime Minister to tell him that relations will be damaged between our countries unless the path is cleared for him to buy a key economic asset in the UK, and that instead of standing up to it, he deploys his top aide to investigate? The Foreign Secretary mentioned sanctions against Chinese officials engaging in genocide in Xinjiang, but what message does it send to the Chinese Government when on Saturday we learned that a former Prime Minister could simply message the then Chancellor to ask for Chinese investment into the UK in areas of critical national infrastructure, such as energy, and could gain access, despite having been only 15 months out of office and despite this being in clear breach of the rules?

And for all the Foreign Secretary’s admirable words about Sergei Magnitsky, the UK still acts as a haven for the dark money that sustains the Putin regime, with more than £1 million in Russian-linked donations to the Tory party since the Russia report was handed to the Government, but not a single recommendation acted upon to safeguard our country in all that time. Surely the Foreign Secretary can see the problem. He signals an intent to crack down on corruption and human rights abuses by causing economic pain to those responsible, but just down the road those very same regimes can call up the Prime Minister to advance their own interests, even when those interests are at odds with the interests of the British people. The Foreign Secretary has used very strong words today, but while he is rightly pressing ahead with sanctions, he is either turning a blind eye to the real power relationships in Government or he is being played. We deserve to know which it is.

[Dominic Raab]

Let me start by welcoming the hon. Lady’s support for both the legal regime and the designations we have made today. I agree with much of her analysis on the damage wrought by corruption around the world, and I think we are at one on that. She raised the issue of the international corruption prosecutions, on which she made an interesting point. Of course, criminal prosecutions are done on the criminal standard of proof, whereas sanctions are done on the civil standard —[Interruption.] Well, she is shaking her head, but that is just a fact. One challenge we have with international corruption is with gleaning the evidence in relation to it, and one advantage we have with the sanctions regime is that it gives us more flexibility and agility to address to the hole, to which she rightly refers, that we are plugging.

The hon. Lady also asked about Parliament feeding in its views, and I think there is a role for not only hon. Members in this Chamber, but relevant Select Committees. As with the human rights regime, we are entirely open to views and evidence. Indeed, we will have to rely on that evidence in order to look at further designations in the future. She mentioned Saudi, but I am afraid that she rather confused herself, because the sanctions relating to Khashoggi were imposed by this Government and remain in place under this Government. That roundly rebuts and repudiates the point she tried to make, which was that somehow the Saudi Government were seeking to undermine the robust approach we take by political influence. [Interruption.] She makes some good points about corruption, but I am afraid she tarnished her statement with a range of political mudslinging.

I do, however, wish to address this issue relating to the Government’s response to the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report, which was published back in July 2020. It sets out multiple actions we have taken and are taking against the Russia threat, some of which I mentioned in the House today. We take action on cyber activity. We have introduced a new power to stop individuals at UK ports and the Northern Ireland border area to determine whether they have been or are involved in hostile state activity. We are introducing new legislation to provide the security services with additional tools to tackle the evolving threat. That Bill will help to modernise the existing offences. We have already implemented the National Security Council-endorsed Russia strategy and have established the cross-Government Russia unit, which brings together all of our intelligence, diplomatic and military capabilities to have maximum effect. This sanctions regime that we are introducing today on corruption is an additional tool, and we will be—[Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Tuesday 20th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Russia has amassed 100,000 troops on the border with Ukraine, Alexei Navalny lies deteriorating in a prison hospital, and a NATO ally has come under attack from the same hands as those who used chemical weapons on the streets of the UK. Yet in the 18 months since the Foreign Secretary was handed the Russia report, the UK has remained a safe haven for the dark money that helps to sustain the Putin regime, the Conservative party has taken £1 million in donations from Russian-linked sources, and oligarchs are welcomed with open arms. Seriously—I have asked him this before—what accounts for the delay in implementing the Russia report? Is it repercussions from Russia that he is worried about, or is it repercussions from his own party?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady, but I have to say that that is a pretty weak attempt to weave in partisan political considerations in what is a very serious international issue. On the Intelligence and Security Committee report: we have already taken multiple actions against the Russian threat, exposing the reckless cyber activity—we have done that and she is aware of that; we have introduced a new power to stop individuals at UK ports to see whether they represent a threat as part of the hostile state activity; we are introducing new legislation to provide the security services and law enforcement agencies with additional tools to tackle the evolving threat from hostile states; and, as she knows, I will shortly be introducing an extension of the Magnitsky sanctions in relation to corruption.

Just in relation to Salisbury, it was not that long ago that the hon. Lady was campaigning for the leader of her party at the time to be Prime Minister—someone who backed the Russians against this Prime Minister who, as Foreign Secretary, galvanised the international response to the appalling attacks on the streets of Salisbury.

[Lisa Nandy]

The difference between the right hon. Gentleman and me is that I stood up to my former party leadership when they got it wrong on this issue. It is pathetic that he cannot do the same given the gravity of the situation that this country currently faces. He has had 18 months since the publication of a report that his own Prime Minister tried to block. We have had no action on golden visas, no powers to sanction corrupt officials. Up to half of all the money that is laundered out of Russia comes through the United Kingdom and, in three years since the Salisbury attacks, it is still not illegal to be a foreign agent in this country. Meanwhile we have seen the oligarchs and kleptocrats who have profited from the Putin regime funnelling money to the Conservative party. [Interruption.] He shakes his head, but it is £5 million since David Cameron became leader. His own Minister, the Minister for Asia, has had multiple donations from a former Russian arms dealer who described himself as “untouchable” because of his links with the Kremlin. If the Foreign Secretary wants to clear this up, he can clear it up once and for all: implement those recommendations from the Russia report; defend the security, the democracy and the integrity of this country; stop the gross negligence; and give us a date by which all 23 recommendations will be implemented in full.

[Mr Speaker]

Can I just tidy this up? If we are going to make allegations, they have to be made on a substantive motion; that must be done in the correct manner. Things are getting heated. Let us just calm it down.

Human Rights Update

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

There is no question but that this is a welcome step, and I welcome the moves by the EU today and other partners. I am sure the whole House will stand in solidarity with our fellow European parliamentarians who have been sanctioned by the Chinese Government in response. This is an unacceptable attack on democratic lawmakers simply for highlighting the horrific evidence from Xinjiang.

However, the Foreign Secretary has just read out the evidence that we have known about for years. He rightly called it barbaric, but when it has come to taking concrete steps, for years he has not listened. He did not listen to his hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) or his right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). He did not listen to us. He did not listen to the Board of Deputies. He did not listen to the World Uyghur Congress. Yet suddenly today the Foreign Secretary has discovered a new-found sense of urgency about the desperate plight of the Uyghur, despite that mounting evidence over several years. The truth is that the timing is grubby and cynical; it is designed to send a signal first and foremost not to the Chinese Government but to his own Back Benchers. It is motivated primarily by a desire to protect the Government, not the Uyghur. For all the talk of being a force for good in the world, it is only when this Government are staring down the barrel of defeat that they discover a moral centre. Only now that the US and the EU have acted has the Foreign Secretary finally moved to take this step.

I urge all Members, especially those brave and conscientious Conservative Members, to think carefully before accepting that this signals a change of approach from this Government. This week we learnt that, despite his protestations, the Foreign Secretary has been talking up a trade deal with China in private at gatherings with Beijing officials. This week, the Prime Minister launched his global Britain policy, signalling a closer economic relationship with China. Members had eagerly awaited details of the Indo-Pacific tilt; we did not dream for a moment, from the talk over the last year, that it would be a tilt towards China.

Today is perhaps the most acute example of the Government’s decade-long incoherent, inconsistent approach to the Chinese Government. On the day the Foreign Secretary finally announces sanctions on some of the officials responsible for human rights abuses in Xinjiang he is also pulling every trick in the book to stop Parliament gaining the power to block any bilateral trade or investment agreement with China based on a determination of genocide.

I ask hon. Members to pause and ponder: if this is about co-ordination, why has it taken so long? The Government could have taken co-ordinated action with the United States when it brought sanctions in July last year, or if they felt so strongly they could have moved independently from the EU, as they have done in sanctions on other countries over the last year. Where are the sanctions on officials in Hong Kong when the US took that step this week? We should be taking a leadership approach given our historical commitments in the bilateral treaty, which China is in breach of. We are signatories to the joint declaration, not the United States. Where is the tougher sanctions regime that brings corruption into scope? Why did the Foreign Secretary say at a private gathering earlier this month that he had no reason to think that we could not deepen our trading relationship with China? Why did the Prime Minister say last month that he was committed to strengthening the UK’s ties with China

“whatever the occasional political difficulties”?

If this signals a change in approach, why on earth on the same day as the Government are announcing these sanctions are they twisting the arms of Back Benchers who want to support the genocide amendment?

Today I urge all parliamentarians to stand firm: to stand with the public, who overwhelmingly support a principled stance on genocide; to stand with their consciences; and most of all to stand with the Uyghur people. After a decade of rolling out the red carpet for Beijing and turning a blind eye to human rights abuses, this is the moment when we will finally force a change in Britain’s foreign policy, live up to our values as a country and be a force for good in the world.

[Dominic Raab]

I think the hon. Lady welcomed the step, notwithstanding everything she said that followed, but let me correct some of the—frankly—false statements she made. First, she said I talked up a free trade agreement with China—

Counter-Daesh Update

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Thursday 4th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of the statement. I hope this marks the return to the quarterly updates that we were used to. It has been seven months since the last statement, and as he has shown in his update, a lot has happened since.

I want to start by restating our support for the ongoing military operation against Daesh. In particular, I pay tribute to our armed forces, who continue their brave work to defeat Daesh, train and support Iraqi forces and create the conditions for the Iraqi people to rebuild their lives and their country in peace. They deserve our full support. Given the key role of the specialist support that the Foreign Secretary just outlined, can he confirm that, when the Government bring forward the integrated review that we expect imminently, there will not be a cut in numbers to our armed forces?

Yesterday, 10 rockets targeted an Iraqi military base—the Al Asad airbase hosting coalition troops. One contractor, sadly, died in the attack and 10 British personnel were, thankfully, unharmed. What discussions have the Government had about this incident and what assessment has the Foreign Secretary made of the ongoing threat to British and coalition forces?

The fight against Daesh is not simply a military conflict; it requires all the tools of our statecraft to counter extremism, to rebuild communities and to support development. The Foreign Secretary has just told us that the humanitarian response forms part of our security objectives; if he believes that, how does he square it with plans to drastically cut the development budget? UK aid is vital, and I would say indistinguishable from the security threat we face, in rebuilding Iraq to pave the foundations for lasting peace and prosperity, as well as in providing crucial humanitarian support in Syria. That is why we are so concerned about the effects of the Government cuts. The Foreign Secretary said a great deal in his statement about the important contributions that the UK has made in recent years and currently makes, but he said very little about what he plans to do over coming years. We already know that the Government’s cuts include a reduction of around £0.5 billion to the conflict, stability and security fund, which includes programmes such as the counter-terrorism programme fund and extensive activities in Iraq designed to reduce the probability of future insurgencies. Can the Foreign Secretary explain to the House why he thinks these cuts are in the national interest and how they will affect the fight against Daesh?

A record 12.4 million people in Syria are struggling to find enough food to eat and to access healthcare, with more than 80% living below the poverty line, while an unprecedented 3 million Iraqis have been forced to flee their homes due to violence, half of whom are children, and nearly 7 million are in need of humanitarian assistance. We must tackle the social and economic challenges facing people if we are to defeat Daesh, so can the Foreign Secretary today rule out cutting aid to Iraq and Syria, as he has done in respect of Yemen, and can he tell us when the replacement refugee resettlement scheme will begin?

Can the Foreign Secretary also tell us what the Government plan to do to deal with the British citizens currently in camps in north-east Syria? His recent letter to four of his Conservative colleagues seemed to suggest that far higher numbers—up to 900 people—travelled to the region than we had believed, and a significant number of those remain. This is causing tension with our allies in the United States, who have expressed extraordinary frustration at the UK’s inaction. The Foreign Secretary does not need to take my word for it; he only needs to look behind him, because there is serious disquiet on his own Benches about this issue. Our US allies believe that the global threat from ISIS will grow if this remains unaddressed. Does the Foreign Secretary accept President Biden’s case that the global threat from ISIS will grow if this remains unaddressed, and given that the Government have it made clear that they do not intend to repatriate British citizens, can he tell me what alternative approach he intends to take in order to deal with this serious security threat?

I was deeply troubled to hear the Foreign Secretary outline how children are being targeted by Daesh propaganda. Does he agree that it is appalling that British children in the UK are being groomed to join Daesh, and will he therefore tell me what steps the Government are taking to protect children from this threat?

Finally, Iran has continued to make efforts to destabilise the region, including supporting and arming militia groups in Iraq, which the Foreign Secretary referenced. What specific steps are the Government taking to counter Iranian destabilisation efforts in Iraq, and what assessment has he made of the wider threat of Daesh outside of Iraq and Syria? Does the Government believe that this threat is currently growing?

We will continue to support the Foreign Secretary and appreciate the steps that have been taken and that he has laid out today, but, with so much Government policy currently under review in terms of the future of our armed forces, foreign policy, security, defence and aid, we must hear far more about our future focused commitments to defeat Daesh.

[Dominic Raab]

May I first thank the hon. Lady for her support for the military action we are taking against Daesh? We have not always had that from the Opposition side of the House, but it is important. It is important for our armed forces to know that they have cross-party support, and it is important for our enemies to know that they cannot divide us. She asked about the integrated review. I can reassure her that that will retain its strategic focus on countering Daesh and the terrorist threat that we face. She also referred to recent attacks on coalition forces. Of course, they involve both Daesh and Shi’a militias. Our approach is to work closely with coalition forces, but the big step change that we are seeing is the reinforcement of the capability of the Iraqi security forces. We will continue to work on that, ultimately for a long-term sustainable and better future for the Iraqi people. That is the course that we need to pursue.

I totally agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of official development assistance, and about the military approach that we are taking being in lockstep with having an effective humanitarian initiative. I have read out some of the figures that show how seriously we take this, and I can reassure her that we will remain among the leading countries around the world in all our ODA, particularly in relation to Iraq and Syria, and this is well above the level that we have had under previous Governments.

The hon. Lady asked about the global resettlement scheme. That is one for the Home Office, but she will have heard the message from the Home Secretary and the Home Office, and I am certainly engaged with that to ensure that it is effective and continues this country’s proud tradition of providing a haven to those who flee persecution.

The hon. Lady also asked about foreign terrorist fighters. Those individuals who have fought with or supported Daesh should face justice, primarily where the crimes have being committed, which is in the region, where the victims are. It remains our view that a prosecution pathway is most likely to be effective there, not least for evidence-gathering purposes. When individuals return to the UK, they can and will be investigated. She will know and respect the fact that that is handled by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service independently, but we work closely with all our partners in order to achieve that. What she said about the US was nonsense. We are in lockstep with all our allies.

The hon. Lady also asked about minors. That is particularly important because of the moral duty, which we recognise. Obviously we would advise anyone against travel to Syria. There is no consular support there—certainly not the kind of regular consular service that we would normally be able to provide—as conditions on the ground make that impossible. As I have said to the House previously, we continue to work with all those concerned to facilitate the return of unaccompanied or orphan children where that is feasible with no risk to security and where it can be done practically. I will not comment on the numbers, as that is obviously sensitive, but I take this very seriously. We regard those children as the innocents of the scourge of war, and wherever it is safe and possible, we will put our protective arms around them. I hope I have addressed all the various points that the hon. Lady raised, and I reiterate my thanks for her support on military action, which is so important.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have stood up for Israel when it has faced bias and, frankly, politicised attacks in the UN and other forums. We will continue to press for the abolition of item 7, because it is the only country-specific standalone agenda item and it focuses on Israel, and that cannot be right.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

The US intelligence report released last Friday makes a clear and compelling case that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman approved the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Last year, the Foreign Secretary said of those with “blood on their hands”:

“You cannot set foot in this country and we will seize your blood-drenched ill-gotten gains if you try.”—[Official Report, 6 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 664.]

Can he confirm that he will be bringing forward sanctions against bin Salman following this report and that he now finally accepts that it is time to fundamentally reappraise our relationship with Saudi Arabia?

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Lady is a bit behind the curve here. Of course, we have an important relationship with Saudi Arabia on security, on trade and on other things, but the reality is that it was this Government, and me, who introduced Magnitsky sanctions on 20 Saudis involved in the murder under our global human rights regime—[Interruption.] We did it last July. She ought to catch up.

[Lisa Nandy]

I am, frankly, astonished; I genuinely expected a better response from the Foreign Secretary. He will not stand with the family of Jamal Khashoggi as they seek justice. He will not stand to lift a finger against the dirty money flowing into the City of London. He will not stand with our allies in ending arms sales to Saudi Arabia. He will not even defend the children of Yemen against brutal aid cuts by his own Department, even as his Government seek to sustain the conflict that they are party to. Last year, we heard him talk tough about standing up to despots and henchmen, but now he tells us that in response to this report he is not prepared to take a single action, will not stand up to corruption, will not stand against humanitarian catastrophe, will not stand up for press freedom and will not stand up for human rights. Is there a single thing that he will actually stand up for?

[Dominic Raab]

I again say to the hon. Lady that we were already right out in the lead in imposing asset freezes and visa bans on 20 of the most directly responsible. She refers to the US report. The US has not put sanctions on the Crown Prince, as she well knows. More generally, she will have seen the action that we have taken—[Interruption.] She ought to listen. On dirty money, we have already said, and I have committed to this House, that we will introduce an extension of the Magnitsky sanctions to cover corruption—[Interruption.] She is now going on to talk about Russia. The reality is that we will continue to support standing up for human rights, and I will be introducing to the House Magnitsky sanctions and extensions in the corruption space shortly.

Yemen

Lisa Nandy Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his thoughtful contribution and the work he did as Minister on this portfolio. I can absolutely confirm that the United Kingdom’s desire to bring about a peaceful settlement in Yemen is unwavering. We will continue to work with our international partners—both the United States and regional partners—to bring that about.

My right hon. Friend made a number of specific points. The UK has—indeed, I have on a regular basis—spoken with the UN envoy to Yemen, Martin Griffiths, and we fully support his work. We will look at ways to bring together the various parties around the negotiating table. I note my right hon. Friend’s idea about a UK-hosted summit. He will understand that I cannot commit to something like that at the moment, but I welcome his thoughtful contribution. Similarly, he will completely understand that it would be inappropriate for me to speculate about what a military intervention might look like. The Saudi-led coalition was mandated at the UN Security Council; as he said, this is something he worked on during his tenure. We also note that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has a legitimate right to defend itself against attacks, and we completely condemn the attacks both within Yemen, at Aden airport, and cross-border, into the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) [V]]

We are not a bystander to this conflict—UK arms, training and technical support sustains the war in Yemen and the worst humanitarian disaster in the world. More than 80% of Saudi’s arms imports come from the US and the UK. The US’s decision to end all support for offensive operations, including relevant arms sales, is welcome, but it leaves the UK dangerously out of step with our allies and increasingly isolated. What is worse is that the UK is the penholder for Yemen at the UN. We cannot be both peacemaker and arms dealer in this conflict.

It was the Foreign Secretary who said:

“human rights will be at the forefront of our leadership this year”—[Official Report, 12 January 2021; Vol. 687, c. 178.]

This is the first test since that statement just four weeks ago, and he has failed it. It is surprising, given the obvious panic in Downing Street about relations with the Biden Administration, that the Government were so reluctant to challenge President Trump’s decision to change the designation of the Houthis and are now determined to continue to be an outlier in arming Saudi Arabia. It puts us out of step with our US and EU allies, despite the compelling moral and diplomatic case to change course.

When the Foreign Secretary re-emerges, perhaps he could confirm that he will now take long overdue action to end arms sales and support to Saudi Arabia and explain what possible reason there could be for not doing so earlier. Can he tell us whether he spoke with Secretary Blinken about this announcement before it was made and whether the US Government have asked for UK support in this matter? Will he tell us what he will do to live up to our responsibilities to reinvigorate the peace process and help bring this appalling conflict to an end?

[James Cleverly]

I do not know where the hon. Lady gets her assessments of Anglo-US relations from. I was very pleased that our Prime Minister was one of the first world leaders to speak with President Biden upon his taking office, that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke with his counterpart shortly after that appointment and that we have engaged with both the last Administration and the current Administration on our concerns about the implications of the designation of the Houthis as a foreign terrorist fighting organisation, particularly the implications for the passage of humanitarian aid, to which the UK has committed over £1 billion since the conflict started.

Obviously, the decisions the US takes on matters of arms sales are decisions for the US Government. The UK takes its own arms export responsibilities very seriously, and we continue to assess all export licences in accordance with strict licensing criteria.

I mentioned in my opening response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) the very recent assault by Houthi forces on Marib and the Government of Yemen’s need to defend themselves and to have support from the international community to do so.

I can assure the hon. Lady that our relationship with the United States of America remains very strong indeed, and we welcome the commitment that President Biden has made to the United States’ international responsibilities and his engagement on this most important of issues.