Government Support for India

Navendu Mishra Excerpts

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. The irony is that the Prime Minister would have been in India had it not been for this latest outbreak. I know that he will be speaking to Prime Minister Modi shortly via video link. We want to ensure that we continue that co-operation on trade, defence, climate change and health, which is absolutely key. We want to finalise a 2030 road map for future India-UK relations that will provide a strategic basis for our relationship in the coming years. We look forward to the Prime Minister meeting Prime Minister Modi as soon as practically possible. Depending on how the pandemic goes in India, there may be an opportunity for the Prime Minister to visit in person later this year.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) [V]]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for securing this urgent question. I have family in India and, like others, I have found the news from the country quite distressing. Do the Government believe that people in low and middle-income countries should have fair and timely access to life-saving covid vaccines and drugs? If so, are the Government willing to reverse their position on opposing the proposal from India and South Africa of a patent waiver in relation to covid vaccines, medicines and medical equipment at the World Trade Organisation?

[Nigel Adams]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we agree that low and middle-income countries should have equitable access to vaccines. That is why we are putting over half a billion pounds of UK taxpayers’ money into the COVAX arrangement, and also 1.3 billion people in those countries will be assisted by the vaccines that will be provided.

ODA Budget

Navendu Mishra Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

As I said, the economic situation has been forced on us by coronavirus. May I suggest that my right hon. Friend has misrepresented the situation in the FCDO in terms of the actions our officials have taken? I have been deeply impressed by the professionalism and the speed with which FCDO officials have responded to this once-in-a-generation—once-in-a-lifetime—situation. We are keen to get back up to the 0.7% as soon as the situation allows. Our officials will look very carefully at what programmes we are not able to continue with and what programmes we will be able, or would choose, to either restart or start anew once the financial situation improves.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) [V]]

In 2019, the UK pledged £400 million to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative between 2020 and 2023—£100 million per year. Last week, it was confirmed that the UK will contribute only £5 million to GPEI this year—a 95% cut. Will the Minister explain how his Government will make up for 2021’s shortfall in a subsequent year, and deliver on the £400 million commitment by 2023?

[James Cleverly]

I am not able to make commitments for future years. The economic situation is probably more unpredictable now than it has been in our lifetimes. What I can say is that we will seek to get the UK’s ODA target back up to 0.7% as soon as the fiscal situation allows.

World Water Day

Navendu Mishra Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered World Water Day 2021.

I thank the co-sponsors of this debate, ahead of World Water Day on 22 March—the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law). It also has the support of the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson). I also thank the many organisations that have campaigned on this important issue over the years—to name just a few, WaterAid, UNICEF, Oxfam and Global Justice Now. UN Water has done important work, as has, more widely, the United Nations. I also pay tribute to We Own It, whose tireless work on water access in this country has drawn attention to the spiralling cost of water to consumers since it was first privatised in England and Wales under Margaret Thatcher’s Government in 1989.

The need for clean, accessible water is universal. It should not be a privilege for countries with the highest GDP or those that benefit from a geographical location that means they are safe from the ravages of climate change. It is a disgrace that almost half the world’s population is without access to clean water. It is even more shocking, given that we are in the midst of a global pandemic and a key factor in halting the spread of covid is people’s ability to wash their hands regularly. Despite that, figures by WaterAid reveal that more than 3 billion people are unable to wash their hands with soap and water at home, half of healthcare facilities in low-income countries lack basic water services, and 60% have no sanitation services at all.

That is set to worsen with the climate emergency, with warmer temperatures, rising sea levels, increased floods, droughts and melting ice affecting the quality and availability of water and sanitation systems. Forecasts show that, by 2040, a quarter of all children worldwide will live in areas with extremely limited water access. Data from Oxfam, which has done so much to help communities gain access to clean water, reveals that 2.4 billion people do not have access to a toilet, while a staggering 4.5 billion people lack safely managed sanitation services.

The lack of access to water is a killer. Figures from the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development show that unsafe water accounts for more than 1.2 million deaths each year. Every minute, a newborn child dies from infection caused by a lack of safe water and an unclean environment. That is backed up by WaterAid’s research, which adds that unclean births caused by limited water supply account for 11% of global maternal mortality, while approximately 20% of all global deaths are due to sepsis, which often arises from contaminated water.

This crisis is being exacerbated by the ongoing pandemic. More than half of all healthcare facilities in low-income countries are operating without access to hand-washing facilities. At present, according to WaterAid, just 5% of climate finance is spent helping countries adapt to climate change. Even less is given to the most vulnerable countries. Less than 1% of total global climate investment goes on basic water infrastructure and services. The climate emergency is the greatest challenge facing our planet, and that approach falls well short of what is urgently required.

Just a week after International Women’s Day, it is worth noting that 80% of people displaced by climate change are women. That means that, in the aftermath of disasters, women are more likely than men to be displaced and become victims of violence. Women are also more affected by droughts and water shortages, and often have to walk even longer distances to collect water. This also has enormous implications for global food production.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is listing some really important interlinkages of how water is vital to achieve all these other important goals. Of course, many of them are the sustainable development goals. Is he worried, as I am, that covid has put back much of our progress on the SDGs—particularly the water and sanitation goal—and that 2030 is looking further off than it did a year and a half ago?

[Navendu Mishra]

I fully share my hon. Friend’s concerns about the sustainable development goals.

The cost associated with tackling this issue is not prohibitive; far from it. The World Health Organisation and UNICEF estimate that providing water, sanitation and hygiene in 80% of healthcare facilities in low-income countries by 2025 would cost approximately $3.6 billion, of which $1.2 is capital costs. To put that in context, funding the initial infrastructure costs would account for just 6% of the US Government’s $20 billion budget they set aside for global health, and it represents a tiny fraction of the $732 billion the US spends on its military budget each year. And that is just one country.

In the UK, sadly, our funding has often worsened, not improved, access to water when it is linked to projects that privatise services. For example, research by Global Justice Now revealed that, over the past decade, UK aid accelerated the privatisation of public services in the global south. Overseas development aid was invested in for-profit schools, unaffordable private hospitals, water and sanitation privatisation and private sector energy projects.

That approach does long-lasting damage. For example, in the 1980s and 1990s, a wave of privatisation swept across much of the global south, with Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa particularly impacted. Many indebted Governments who turned to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to restructure their debts were subsequently forced to reduce public spending and privatise public services as a condition of future loans. Under dictator Pinochet, Chile enshrined water privatisation in its constitution, and 40 years later it continues to pay the highest rates for water in Latin America.

Despite reassurances from the Prime Minister when it was announced last year that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development would merge, the Government have since shelved their ring-fenced commitment to spend 0.7% of national income on overseas aid, cutting spending to 0.5% despite the Conservative manifesto commitment to maintain the higher target. At the start of the pandemic, DFID announced a £100 million campaign to support better hygiene practices, including access to water. At the time, the Government stated that the programme would work in 37 countries and help implement country-specific activities on safe water and sanitation. Separate funding of £20 million was also made available in a humanitarian support package. All this is now under threat.

In the UK, we are incredibly fortunate to have access to clean, safe water that has been treated and tested to the highest standards. However, in the past three decades, we have also seen the privatised model lead to spiralling costs that are not matched by investment in infrastructure and quality of service. Research by We Own It revealed that between 1989, when the UK water companies were first privatised, and 2016, water bills increased by 40%. According to the Commons Library, there were price hikes of up to 50% in the decade after water and other utility companies were denationalised—this despite UK companies paying billions to shareholders. Indeed, between 2013 and 2017 alone, UK water companies handed out more than £6.5 billion to shareholders, clearly prioritising profit over people.

While the water industry is always quick to argue that the increase in bills since privatisation has been accompanied by investment in infrastructure by companies and improvements in service quality, the reality is that the infrastructure is poorly maintained. That has resulted in the network haemorrhaging water, with more than 3 billion litres lost each day, equal to 53 litres per person, which is 21% of the water taken from the environment each day by water companies. The reality is that it is far more commercially appealing for private companies and their shareholders to buy new and often protected tracts of land to build new reservoirs, rather than fix the existing leaking infrastructure. That has led to parts of London and the south-east facing severe shortages, and responsibility for that must, at least partly, be laid at the door of water companies.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that Britain is the only country in the world to have dabbled in complete privatisation of water. In places where Labour has maintained power, we have mutualised it and renationalised it. Many customers in Britain will be seeing rising water bills because they have been at home during covid. Does he agree that something the Government could do to help the pound in the pocket of ordinary citizens is bring water back into a mutual, non-profit structure and make sure that the money goes to where it is deserved?

[Navendu Mishra]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I remind the hon. Member that we are under massive pressure for time, so he should be looking to wind up very soon.

[Navendu Mishra]

I will, Mr Deputy Speaker. I fully share my hon. Friend’s concerns; his point about water companies going back into public hands is very valid, and I support that.

I will conclude in a moment, but first I would like to talk about the Flint water scandal. Time and again, we have seen that private water companies do not have the consumer’s best interests at heart, and the drive for increasing profit comes at the expense of health and safety. Perhaps the most notable example of that was the Flint water scandal in Michigan, which is one of the worst human-made environmental disasters in US history and a case that has been held up as a symbol of environmental injustice and racism.

In an effort to cut costs with the private water contractor, Veolia, former Governor Rick Snyder took the decision to use Flint river to supply water to the city’s predominantly African-American and economically poor population. The corrosive water, however, was not treated properly—a misstep that freed lead from old plumbing into homes. Despite desperate pleas from residents holding jugs of discoloured water, the Snyder administration and the drinking water regulator took no significant action until a doctor publicly reported elevated lead levels in children 18 months later. In the months and years that followed, 12,000 children were exposed to dangerous levels of lead, while residents experienced rashes and hair loss, and 12 people died from an outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease. It is time for private water companies to be prevented from treating our environment like a sewer and finally bring water back into public ownership.



In conclusion, I call on the UK Government to continue to play their part and help alleviate the suffering and harm caused by limited access to clean water. This means ensuring that water, sanitation and hygiene are fully integrated into all health programmes supported by UK aid, as well as using our role as chair of the G7 to bring donors together to make progress towards funding the $1.2 billion that is needed to build the basic infrastructure for water, sanitation and hygiene and health facilities in low-income countries.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

To assist those taking part in the debate, the wind-ups will begin at no later than 4.36 pm with Patricia Gibson for six minutes, then Anna McMorrin at 4.42 pm for eight minutes, then Wendy Morton at 4.50 pm for eight minutes, and then Navendu Mishra will have the last two minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Navendu Mishra]

I thank all those who have taken part in this debate ahead of World Water Day on Monday. I thank the shadow Minister and the Minister for their contributions. In particular, I thank the Backbench Business Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) for supporting me with this debate.

There is overwhelming support in this country for bringing water companies back into public hands—63% are in favour, and Scotland’s publicly owned Scottish Water is the most trusted utility company in Britain. From listening to the many contributions to the debate, it is clear that there is widespread consensus that the Government must honour the UK’s international aid commitment, restore the ring-fenced aid funding and reverse the cuts that have led to a number of programmes relating to the provision of clean water, hygiene and sanitation being underfunded.

What was also communicated today is that the privatised water system in our country is not fit for purpose and that it must be brought back into public hands to ensure the highest standards and value to the consumer. It must finally be restored after decades of failure.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered World Water Day 2021.

Hong Kong: Electoral Reforms

Navendu Mishra Excerpts

Wednesday 10th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We are of course liaising with our international partners, including our Five Eyes colleagues. The United Kingdom is not the only country that is offering access for Hongkongers, certainly since the national security law was introduced. He will know that this is a generous offer for BNO status holders and their dependants. As I said, we are working with international partners, across Government and alongside civil society groups and others to make sure there is effective integration of BNO status holders when they arrive in the United Kingdom.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) [V]]

Several international media outlets have reported gross human rights abuses in Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet. Today, 10 March, marks the anniversary of the 1959 Tibetan uprising against the presence of the People’s Republic of China and the subsequent crackdown on Tibetan independence groups. Does the Minister agree that senior Chinese Government officials who are responsible for these abuses should be sanctioned through the global human rights Magnitsky sanctions legislation?

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Member is right to mention Tibet. He knows the answer in terms of Magnitsky sanctions. We are very concerned about the human rights situation in Tibet, where there are restrictions on freedom of religion or belief, assembly and association, as well as reports of forced labour. We are urging China to respect all fundamental rights across the People’s Republic of China, including in Tibet, in line both with China’s own constitution and with the international framework to which it is a party.

Uyghur Slave Labour: Xinjiang

Navendu Mishra Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her continued work in this area. I agree that it is absolutely vital that China understands the breadth of international concern about the situation in Xinjiang. She knows that we have taken the lead internationally on this issue. We have gone from 28 countries supporting a joint statement in June to 39 countries supporting a statement at the UN in October. This does send a powerful message to China, and if international businesses continue to take the action we are urging to ensure their supply chains are free of forced labour—I note that a number of prominent UK businesses have already done so—that will also send an important message to China.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

Why has it taken the FCDO so long to apply the Magnitsky sanctions against Chinese Government officials responsible for grave human rights abuses against the Uyghur people—we have heard from other Members what has happened in Tibet and what is happening in Hong Kong—given the speed in which the Minister has said that they added sanctions to Belarussian officials previously?

[Nigel Adams]

The hon. Gentleman will know, because he has heard it multiple times at this Dispatch Box, that we are constantly and carefully considering further designations under the sanctions regime, but they have to be developed with absolute evidence in a responsible way. It is not right to speculate or rush into these measures. There is a pretty good chance of seeing asset flight if that is the case, but I can assure him that we are very carefully considering any further designations.

Global Malnutrition: FCDO Role

Navendu Mishra Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for securing this important debate, which follows hard on the heels of the Government’s recent announcement of the cut to UK aid, and could not have come soon enough.

I pay tribute to Concern Worldwide for its long-standing commitment to eradicating malnutrition, as well as the all-party parliamentary group on nutrition for growth, chaired by the hon. Member for Glasgow East, which has continued to put pressure on the Government to prioritise the issue.

As a member of the International Development Committee, I was appalled that the Government saw fit to abolish DFID in the middle of a global pandemic that has put some of the poorest and most vulnerable people at further risk. DFID was highly regarded as a world leader in its field and an excellent example of global Britain. However, the decision to scrap the Department and slash our aid budget has damaged the UK’s standing among our international peers. I am sure Members on both sides of the House will be interested to learn the amount of expenditure on the rebranding exercise that went on between the then Foreign and Commonwealth Office and DFID earlier this year.

With more, not less, funding required to meet the increasing demands placed on many countries as a result of the covid crisis, there must now be a clear commitment from this Government to set out a timeline for a multi-year financial pledge to tackle global malnutrition. That means pledging a minimum of £120 million each year to support high impact nutrition-specific programmes over the next four years, which will directly benefit 50 million women, adolescent girls and children. I hope the Minister will make urgent policy commitments to increase the FCDO’s commitment to nutrition programmes.

My constituents are rightly proud of the achievements of UK aid, which has lifted millions out of illiteracy and poverty, and provided so much support to some of the poorest communities around the globe. They have been directly invested in that process. Indeed, data made available by ONE, a campaigning global movement to end extreme poverty and preventable diseases, revealed that taxpayers’ money from my Stockport constituents helped more than 11,000 children receive a decent education, 40,000 people have access to clean water and better sanitation, and more than 37,000 people be vaccinated against meningitis and pneumonia.

In 2020, it is shocking that we still have children in this world suffering from malnourishment and starvation. It is deeply troubling that the figure, far from going down, is instead forecast to increase from 47 million people to 53 million, according to the medical journal The Lancet. Furthermore, it is concerning that the Tokyo Nutrition for Growth summit, which was scheduled to take place this year, has now been delayed to the end of 2021. Several Members have made the point about that summit.

The Government’s recent spending review and cuts to the aid budget add to the complications and challenges around a meaningful financial commitment from the FCDO to tackle global malnutrition. In light of the Chancellor’s recent announcement to reduce spending from 0.7% to 0.5% GNI, I hope the Minister can assure the House that cuts will not impact nutrition programmes. The reality of not providing that funding is stark. Malnutrition is a leading factor in 45% of cases of death of children under the age of five globally, according to the World Health Organisation.

Furthermore, Save the Children estimates that malnourished children score an average 7% lower in maths and are 19% less likely to read at the age of eight, hindering their chances of reaching their full potential in later life. Nutrition is a cornerstone of learning and development, and must be protected. I ask the Minister whether this Government plan to break their manifesto commitment to stand up for the right of every girl in the world to have 12 years of quality education, less than a year on from the general election and at a time when child malnutrition is rising sharply as a result of the covid crisis.

Mr Davies, we had excellent news this morning that the first covid vaccine has been administered in the UK. I am sure that the vaccine will help us overcome the pandemic, but the reality is that it is scientific fact that vaccination is less effective on malnourished people. In the sixth richest country in the world, we have a moral obligation and responsibility to intervene to alleviate that terrible suffering. A reduction in our financial support is unacceptable and would have long-term ramifications for those who find our funding a vital lifeline. We have a duty to act, and we must do so now before it is too late for the millions of people who desperately rely on us.

Official Development Assistance

Navendu Mishra Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to South Sudan. I could give a list of countries that risk the compound effect of conflict, covid and famine. We could add Yemen, Burkina Faso and north-east Nigeria, which is why I launched the first UK special envoy for famine prevention and humanitarian affairs, Nick Dyer, and why, as we go through the allocation process that I have described to the House, these are precisely the things—conflict, humanitarian and covid—that we will look very carefully to safeguard for all the reasons that she described.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

The UK is seen as a world leader when it comes to international development. Our legislation ensures that aid is focused on poverty reduction. Can the Foreign Secretary share his views on tied aid and address the concerns of numerous Members on both sides of the House about the Government making a return to tied aid, which will harm not only the people who benefit from UK aid, but our nation’s reputation globally?

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman asks a really good question. I do not agree with tied aid. I do not believe that we should go back to that system; I think it is from a bygone era. However, I have listened carefully to leading economists such as Paul Collier and, in particular, Stefan Dercon, who talked about the fact that the most enduring and profitable—for the countries affected—long-term partnerships, which are sustainable, do have a sense of partnership and two-way benefit. That is what makes them an enduring partnership. I was so impressed with the argument by Stefan Dercon that I hired him into the new FCDO when we merged the Departments to make sure that we had a really good progressive approach to the partnerships—particularly the long-term partnerships—that we take with those countries.

International Covid-19 Response: Innovation and Access to Treatment

Navendu Mishra Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for securing this important and timely debate. I pay tribute to the many organisations that have campaigned so powerfully on this issue, including Global Justice Now, Doctors Without Borders, and Just Treatment.

We are in the middle of battling a global pandemic, and in order to successfully overcome it, there must be a united cross-border approach. Anything less only undermines the United Kingdom’s reputation as a development superpower. It also jeopardises the health of our citizens, given the rapid speed at which the virus travels around the world. The Government’s failure to provide equitable access to covid vaccines means that many developing countries that already have overstretched and underfunded healthcare systems will suffer further still if they are unable to access affordable covid vaccines. As a member of the International Development Committee —it is great to see the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), in the Chamber—I know how the coronavirus crisis could set development progress back by 30 years. That is completely unacceptable, and a failure to intervene to prevent it would be wanton disregard for our international obligations. Countries in the global south should not continually be down the pecking order: they must be prioritised in order to help them, and us, to overcome this deadly virus.

Our Government must take the lead in tackling this crisis, but pharmaceutical companies must also play their part in finding a cure. Currently, the Government are handing billions to big pharma, which is taking very little risk while maintaining monopoly control of the drugs once they are developed. For example, AstraZeneca has stated that its costs in developing a covid vaccine at Oxford University will be fully covered by Governments. This approach will serve only to exacerbate gross health inequalities and cannot be tolerated during a pandemic when tens of thousands of lives are at stake. Terms and conditions must be attached to any funding the Government provide to ensure innovations for all those who need them, including those living in low-income and middle-income countries. Indeed, the Government should not relinquish their responsibility to introduce stringent public interest conditions on their funding to ensure equitable access. That means, with millions of pounds of public money going into the research and development of future covid medical technologies, that it is critical that the final products are sold at cost, and that the pharmaceutical companies do not profiteer from public funding when Governments are required to buy back the products that they initially funded the development of.

We are now in the ninth month of this crisis, yet there remains no clear policy from this Government to ensure that grantees ensure effective technology transfer, open sharing, and licensing of covid medical technologies to ensure that there is sustainable follow-on development and manufacturing globally, especially in the very poorest countries. That is why more than 130 cross-parliamentarians, led by the all-party parliamentary group on vaccines for all, wrote to the Government, as far back as April, to call for equitable access to a coronavirus vaccine. This followed the announcement that £250 million will be pledged to its funding, research and development. We have yet to see any stipulations attached to this funding. This is despite a YouGov poll commissioned by the Wellcome Trust that found that 96% of adults in the UK believe that national Governments should work together to ensure that all treatments and vaccines are manufactured in as many countries as possible and distributed globally to whoever needs them. Therefore, I would like to hear from the Minister whether the Government will stipulate that, as a condition of any covid funding, any vaccine and medical product developed as a result of public money will not be patented and exclusively licensed.

I would also like to hear from the Minister whether the Government will join more than 30 countries in supporting the World Health Organisation’s covid accessible technology initiative, aimed at making vaccines, tests, treatments and other health technologies to fight covid accessible to all. This would stop situations arising like the one I mentioned with AstraZeneca, which followed assurances from Oxford researchers that they would maximise access to the vaccine through open licensing before they subsequently signed an agreement with the pharmaceutical company. Although it has claimed that it will not make any profit from the vaccine during the pandemic, it was recently revealed that AstraZeneca has built a clause into the deal that states that the covid-19 crisis will be considered over in July 2021, regardless of what the situation is globally, at which point it will be able to hike its prices and begin profiteering. As the Financial Times made public last month, AstraZeneca’s deal with Oxford University allows it to make as much as 20% on top of the cost of goods for manufacturing the vaccine, and it has declined to reveal how much it is to produce.

The hon. Member for North East Fife made a very important point regarding the proposal set out by South Africa and India to waive intellectual property rights on health advances against covid-19. At-cost prices for pharmaceutical companies should be the norm, not the exception. Any profiteering will clearly hamper the ability of Governments and health systems around the world, including our own national health service, to be able to afford enough vaccines to meet the needs of their populations. We cannot have a situation whereby this or any other crisis is being privatised and putting at risk the lives of those who cannot afford or access vital vaccinations.

Will the Minister therefore provide assurance that the Government do indeed have plans to ensure responsible pricing for this vaccine both for our own health service and those of our global partners, and do so over the time-limited assurances such as those provided by AstraZeneca? Will the Minister also explain the Government’s reasons for failing to demand transparency of the conditions attached to public research and development funding, as well as for licences and agreements related to the Oxford University and AstraZeneca covid vaccine? This immoral situation cannot be allowed to continue, and the Government must now consider issuing Crown use licences in the case of future shortages of life-saving covid products and medicines.

This will help to offset the failure of the current patent system, which has dominated biomedical research for decades and hindered the rapid roll-out of equipment in countries that urgently need it as well as access to affordable vaccines. That is why I supported the call by the shadow Foreign Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), earlier this year, ahead of the global vaccine summit in the UK, to end the unilateral approach to accessing vaccines at the expense of other countries as well as to overturn export bans on potential covid products.

As I have made clear, multilateral collaboration is not simply the only way to ensure equitable access for all, but the only path for putting in place a global cure to end this pandemic, prevent an endless cycle of lockdowns and ensure that our country’s physical and economic health recovers as quickly as possible.

Detention of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang

Navendu Mishra Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Adams]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point. In recent months, we have seen deeply troubling allegations of forced birth control measures and sterilisation against Uyghur women in Xinjiang. We have also seen reliable reports that Uyghur children are being forcibly separated from their parents and taken to state-run orphanages, where lessons are taught in Mandarin and where political education, for want of a better phrase, is a key part of the curriculum.

Over 1 million Uyghurs, which is more than 10% of the Uyghur population, have been detained in internment camps without trial. Recent reporting, based on analysis of satellite images, suggests that the Chinese authorities continue to construct new internment camps.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) on securing this debate. The situation in Xinjiang is serious and Members from all parts of the House are talking about it. What is happening in Xinjiang is deeply disturbing, but it replicates what has happened in Tibet over the past few decades. We know the kind of oppression that Buddhist people have faced in Tibet. Does the Minister agree that it would be a welcome first step if the Government added the people from the Chinese Government who are responsible for these crimes to the list for Magnitsky sanctions?

[Nigel Adams]

I will come on to our approach. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that point, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood also raised the idea of sanctions. I will address it later in my remarks.

I am slightly concerned about how much time there is left. How long do I have? [Interruption.] Until 7.49 pm—jolly good. I had better crack on. I do apologise.

The construction of new internment camps runs counter to the statement of the Chairman of Xinjiang in December that all detainees had, in his words, graduated from the camps. It is not known for how long each individual is detained, what chance they have of release or whether they can appeal their detention. What is clear is that these detentions have split families, left children effectively orphaned and created a culture of fear. Our diplomats visited Xinjiang in November 2019, and their observations supported much of the recent open-source reporting on the region and reports by non-governmental organisations.

China’s initial response to allegations of human rights abuses in Xinjiang was to deny the existence of the camps. After a significant amount of evidence was reported and international attention increased, that position became untenable. It now describes the camps as education and training facilities. China claims that they are part of a legitimate and necessary policy to prevent extremism, and it has repeatedly dismissed international concerns, claiming that the UK and others are politicising matters and interfering in China’s internal affairs.

We believe that, based on all the available evidence, China’s actions in Xinjiang constitute an egregious abuse of human rights and, as a strategy to prevent extremism, are grossly disproportionate and deeply flawed. Untold numbers of innocent citizens have suffered under these policies and will continue to do so unless China implements UN recommendations to close the camps. It must also allow UN observers unfettered access to the region. China is contravening its obligations under the 1948 universal declaration of human rights and its own constitutional provisions on freedom of religion.

The human rights situation in Xinjiang remains a priority concern for me, the Foreign Secretary and the Government as a whole, and as the Foreign Secretary told the House on 20 July, the UK wants a positive relationship with China. He said:

“There is enormous scope for…constructive engagement. There are wide-ranging opportunities, from increasing trade to co-operation in tackling climate change…but as we strive for that positive relationship, we are also clear-sighted about the challenges that lie ahead.”—[Official Report, 20 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 1831.]

The Foreign Secretary has underlined our grave concerns regarding the gross and egregious human rights abuses being perpetrated against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, which is why we have repeatedly taken a leading international role in holding China to account for its gross human rights violations in Xinjiang.

Let me come to some of the points that the hon. Lady raised in the time that I have left. She raised the issue of sanctions. We are carefully considering further designations under the global human rights regime, which we introduced in July, and we will keep all evidence and potential listings under close review. I know that this is something that other hon. Members have raised. It is important, though, that sanctions are developed responsibly and on the basis of evidence. It is definitely not appropriate to speculate on who may be designated in the future as to do so may reduce its impact.

China

Navendu Mishra Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I thank my hon. Friend for the points that she has made. Of course, one of the points about the Magnitsky regime that we have introduced is that we have already put in place a co-ordination mechanism so that we can more regularly and generically co-ordinate with our Five Eyes partners and share information. There was quite a significant overlap—although not exclusively; it is the UK regime—in the designations that we have already made. We are putting in place that co-ordination. It is a reasonable point to make.

On genocide, I can only repeat the points that I have made before, but I have been clear that this is a gross violation of human rights and China does need to be answerable to and accountable for it. My hon. Friend talked about setting up an inquiry to examine the evidence and to glean it; we have to be realistic about what China would allow into Xinjiang. In the absence of that access, it is very difficult to see how we could do that. It is of course available to all the Select Committees in this House—as well as to the Government in their efforts to assess the evidence—to look at that independently of Government and, indeed, the United Nations.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

Anyone who saw the footage on “The Andrew Marr Show” yesterday would have found it chilling. In the light of that footage, when the Foreign Secretary meets Secretary of State Pompeo tomorrow, will he raise the implementation of the Magnitsky sanctions on Chinese officials implicated in the persecution of the Uyghur people in Xinjiang? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that imposing sanctions on the individuals involved should be an absolute priority?

[Dominic Raab]

I have already raised with Mike Pompeo, as well as with my other Five Eyes partners, not just the Magnitsky sanctions regime that we have put in place but the designations. We have also given due consideration to co-operation on future evidence. It is important that there is an evidence-based approach, although there is of course political accountability, and we will carefully gather and assess the evidence.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question about priorities, we have set out, through a policy note published in the Library of the House, the criteria that we will apply and the policy approach. That stresses the nature of the violations, their severity and our ability to hold to account the individuals at the right levels—sufficiently senior—so that we send the right message.