Overseas Territories

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 11th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I also thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), for securing this crucial debate and ensuring the concerns and priorities of the overseas territories remain within the focus of this House and for the Government to hear. As shadow Minister in that capacity, I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in particular my visits to Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands as a guest of their Governments in the last year.

I also thank the members of all the overseas territories and their representatives who are here today in the Gallery to watch the debate and who have been at many events this week. It was a pleasure to speak at the United Kingdom Overseas Territory Association conference yesterday and to meet many of the chief Ministers and representatives over the last few days. I particularly thank the presidency of UKOTA for the work they have done this year around the coronation of His Majesty and Her Majesty. It was a pleasure to see representatives of the overseas territories marching in that parade, as well as the flags and all the other things we have seen. I also want to thank the Speaker for his leadership and work on this issue and his generosity in hosting us all this week in Speaker’s House.

The UK’s overseas territories are indeed an integral and cherished part of the global British family, and it has been a profound honour for me in my role as Labour’s shadow Minister to have now met, I believe, all of the democratically elected leaders of the overseas territories. I have also been able to visit four of the overseas territories: I have seen at first hand the warmth, innovation, diversity and distinctiveness of the people and environments in each. I have swum with penguins in the south Atlantic in the Falklands; and indeed I have taken tea at the Rock Hotel in Gibraltar.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will not as I know what the hon. Gentleman wants to say; he is very kind, but we do not have a lot of time.

On that more humorous note, I also want to be really serious, candid and honest. Far too frequently, debate and discourse on this issue have been based on glib generalisations and a lack of understanding that fails to take account of the uniqueness of each overseas territory, be that constitutional, environmental or economic.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Will the hon. Member give way now?

[Stephen Doughty]

I will, briefly.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I am grateful. The hon. Member rightly refers to the overseas territories as being cherished. I rather doubt that I will get a commitment from the Minister for a referendum for Chagossians and the British Indian Ocean Territory, so will he and the Labour party, in the spirit of what the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) said, at least give a commitment that a future Labour Government would give those people the right to a referendum on self-determination?

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member knows my views on the Chagos Islands; indeed, I set them out clearly in Westminster Hall in a debate he initiated a few months ago. I will come to that later in my speech.

Despite some extremely committed individual officials and Ministers in the FCDO and those who work alongside the Administrations, we have seen far too little consistency, understanding, engagement and, crucially, listening. A future Labour Government would set out five key principles to guide our relationships with the overseas territories. First, we believe in devolution and democratic autonomy, and establishing clear consistency on constitutional principles of partnership and engagement. Secondly, we believe in listening. I firmly believe in the principle of “nothing about you without you.” Thirdly, we believe in partnership. A future strong and stable relationship between the UK and each of the overseas territories must be built on mutual respect and inclusion; indeed, that involves all Government Departments, not just the FCDO. We also believe that rights come with responsibilities. In our British family, we share common values, obligations and principles including a robust commitment to democracy, the rule of law and liberty, and the protection of human rights, including, as rightly mentioned, those rights of LGBT+ people, women and girls, and people living with disabilities. We also believe in the advancement of good governance and, of course, ensuring proper democratic accountability and regulation.

Finally, let me be clear that for as long as the people of the overseas territories wish to remain part of this British family, we will robustly defend their security, autonomy and rights. As has been rightly pointed out, that is not least in the case of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, where a firm commitment to self-determination has been expressed by their peoples. That is Labour’s commitment, and I know that it is shared by many across the House. We would also move away from the notion that one size fits all. It does not when it comes to the overseas territories.

We need to ensure that our constitutional relations are diverse and nuanced in law and practice. On sanctions, I agree with the point made that in many circumstances we saw the overseas territories and crown dependencies move faster than the UK Government in implementing robust sanctions regimes. We have also heard that, in many decisions, whether on our relationship with Europe, trade negotiations or climate negotiations, the overseas territories have not been heard, respected or engaged in processes at the heart of Government.

We also want to see transparency in how the territories are administered. I believe that many overseas territories have called for a code of conduct for governors and for robust processes and consistency in how they operate.

[James Sunderland]

I had the unique experience of sharing an apartment with the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski)—it was an interesting dynamic for that week. It is true: I saw the hon. Member swimming with penguins. However, the point is a serious one. Having got to know him, I know that he is a clever guy and that he gets it. Will he please assure the House that Labour’s policy is to respect the military capabilities, military basing and military strategic imperative that we have in some of our overseas territories?

[Stephen Doughty]

I absolutely assure the hon. Member of that. Indeed, I will come to that specifically.

I want briefly to reference the issues that have come out of the debate in relation to people. We heard many examples, many of which I discussed with representatives from the overseas territories yesterday. There is the impact for citizens when things are not done right, whether in relation to travel, healthcare or education. We heard how Tristanians cannot open accounts with UK retail banks and how students who hold British overseas territories passports require student visas in some cases, but they do not get priority, so the processing time means that they often have to defer positions at higher education institutions. We heard about the issues that Bermuda faced with its passport codes and issues that impacted on travel opportunities. I share the concerns raised about girl guiding suddenly being withdrawn from overseas territories.

There have also been direct impacts from the poorly executed Brexit deal, not least in the Falklands and Anguilla. The Falklands fisheries now have to pay €17 million in tariffs on those crucial squid. I raised that issue in debates during that period. Perplexingly, a British overseas territories citizen is not eligible to use the passport e-gates at UK airports, despite having biometric passports, often produced in the same way as ours. However, people from the European economic area can use those gates. That seems an absurd situation. The Minister is listening and I hope that he takes that into consideration.

We have heard about the issues of infrastructure and access, particularly to the remote territories such as Tristan. Anguilla is looking to expand its runway and faces issues with water and infrastructure. Departments need to work together. It cannot just be the Foreign Office; it has to be the Ministry of Defence, the Department for Transport, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and others.

We have heard a lot, rightly, about the environment. Our overseas territories play a crucial role, whether that be the marine protected area in the Pitcairn Islands, the national climate change policy of the Turks and Caicos Islands, St Helena’s blue green agenda, Montserrat wanting to invest in renewable energy and dealing with the legacy of the volcanic eruption, or the Cayman Islands’ conservation efforts. They play a crucial role not only in contributing to our climate change agenda and biodiversity but dealing first hand with the impact of climate change.

In my final minute I want to refer to security. We have a duty to protect and defend our citizens and our overseas territories, which the Opposition is resolutely committed to. We also have strategically important military bases and territories. In the face of geopolitical threats, whether from China, Russia or elsewhere, we must work closely with our overseas territories not only to defend their citizens but to recognise the strategic import of places such as Diego Garcia, Ascension, the Falklands and Gibraltar —places where the hon. and gallant Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) served. The Opposition are resolutely committed to that. We need to support them in their internal security. St Helena has not had Home Office support in checking watch lists and sanction lists. I hope that the Home Office can assist with that.

On Chagos there is a complex and nuanced set of issues. There is an historic injustice that I have rightly referred to in the past. We must balance national security, our compliance with international law and obligations, and the rights and wishes of the Chagos people, who have long suffered. I have heard their voices clearly. There are also environmental and biodiversity concerns, which I set out a few months ago.

The overseas territories are a crucial and indispensable part of our global British family. We must have a modern, respectful and engaged partnership with them all, and Labour will stand with them as part of that global British family.

Ukraine: Special Tribunal

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 9th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Davies. You are wearing an excellent tie; there are a number of good ties on display. I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) for securing this critical debate, and thank all colleagues for their valuable and insightful contributions. I also declare an interest: I travelled on the same trip to Ukraine as him. It gave us a huge insight into the reality of the devastation of Putin’s brutal actions against the civilians and people of Ukraine.

Over the weekend, we came together in this country to celebrate the coronation of His Majesty King Charles III, and to look forward to the future. It was a time of celebration, hope and optimism. In Ukraine, tragically, this weekend could not have been more different. Ukraine had to withstand yet another series of barrages against civilian areas. Yesterday morning alone, Russia launched 16 missile strikes on cities and regions, including Kharkiv, Kherson, Mykolaiv and Odesa, as well as 61 other airstrikes—barbarous actions that are feared to have killed even more civilians.

As we have seen throughout the conflict, Russia’s brutality truly knows no limits. Such damage has been done to the people and the country of Ukraine. Families have been torn apart, lives have been lost, injuries have been caused, and devastation has been inflicted on cities, towns and villages. There is also the impact on the economy. At the root of that is the flagrant disregard that Russia has shown towards Ukrainian sovereignty. Its actions are those of a tyrant who continues to believe that he and his regime are outside any legal or moral standard—outside the parameters of accountability. We need to show him and the Russian regime that that is not the case. That is why today’s debate is so integral to our efforts, and those of our allies and partners, to hold him to account for the atrocities being committed in his name.

As you will know, Mr Davies, the Opposition have been clear since the war began that the Government would enjoy our full support if they strengthened the UK’s position on the conflict in Ukraine, and the response to Russia’s actions. There is a great deal of unity across the House, whether on sanctions; tackling illicit finance; providing military, technical and humanitarian support to Ukraine; or expanding and emboldening our diplomatic coalition. The first lady of Ukraine will have heard that again when she attended the coronation at the weekend.

I have a series of questions for the Minister on the issue of a special tribunal. As far back as March last year, days after the latest phase of this brutal invasion, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) joined others in calling for the creation of a special tribunal to prosecute President Putin and others in the Kremlin regime for the crime of aggression. We welcome other ongoing efforts, which have already been discussed. That includes individual war crimes investigations and prosecutions in Ukraine domestically. The International Criminal Court has taken the welcome step of issuing an arrest warrant for the utterly brutal alleged crime of the illegal deportation of children. We have to accept that we can pursue distinct, potentially complementary, legal routes to ensure that Ukraine and its people receive justice.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said at the start of the conflict that the establishment of a special tribunal would be critical to holding Putin to account for the original sin—the crime of aggression. We and others have listened, and have added our voice to the growing international chorus that backs that practical and necessary step. I was going through the Library briefing on the issue. There have been a lot of questions and debates on this issue in the House, but we have yet to hear the Government’s thinking on a special tribunal. As has been mentioned, the Government have joined this core group, but the commitment appears to concern a hybrid model. It is important to note, and we have said all along, that we want to be led by Ukrainians—what Ukrainians want and what the Ukrainian Government want. President Zelensky has been very reluctant to have a hybrid model. Indeed, he recently said:

“only one institution is capable of responding to the original crime—the crime of aggression. A Tribunal! Not something hybrid that can formally close the topic…Not some compromise that will allow politicians to say that the case is allegedly done…But a true, full-fledged Tribunal. True and full justice.”

Throughout, we have listened to and been led by the wishes of Ukraine’s leaders and its people, and that needs to happen on this issue as well.

In February, the President of the EU Commission also announced that he would establish the International Centre for Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine, which will be headquartered in The Hague. We have heard about the excellent work going on in the Council of Europe and other international examples, some of which I will come to later, but we have yet to hear a clear position from the Government on this. It is very important that we do, because we have heard about the potential weaknesses and limitations in some of the other models. The ICC alone does not have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression unless both the victim and aggressor have ratified and accepted the Court’s jurisdiction over a specific crime, so another way forward must be devised if we are to hold the regime to account.

It is beyond any reasonable doubt that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its ongoing use of force against Ukrainian sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence is an act of aggression amounting to a violation of article 2(4) of the UN charter. Russia has irrefutably breached the threshold amounting to the legally defined crime of aggression under article 8 of the Rome statute of the ICC, which relates to the

“planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State”.

Similar questions can be raised about others who have been involved. Will the Minister comment on the situation with regard to Belarus and its aiding and abetting of the Russian regime, particularly as we saw in the early stages of the war and the attempts to capture Kyiv?

The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution on 2 March last year, which:

“Deplores in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine in violation of Article 2 (4) of the Charter”.

The Minister knows that that carried the support of 141 states and was a clear, incontrovertible and significant decision by the United Nations General Assembly.

[John Howell]

The hon. Gentleman speaks of other states being involved. Is he aware that a big impetus for the tribunal comes from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania? That is partly to support Ukraine, but it is also seen as a defensive measure should Russia invade those countries.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Indeed, he tempts me further forward, but let me refer to some of the other international support. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania made a joint statement on October 16 last year. I have mentioned the European Union, and the President of the European Commission made a statement on 20 November 2022, as did France. Indeed, there has been a growing chorus of other Governments, academics, legal experts and those who have been involved in similar processes in the past.

We can look at other tribunals that have been created, such as the special tribunals that were created for the former Yugoslavia and for crimes in Sierra Leone and Liberia. There are distinct differences, but we can learn important lessons from them. Indeed, the House of Commons Library refers to the Dutch Government’s willingness to hold a special tribunal. Although that is distinct from the ICC and its position in The Hague, the seat of international justice, the Dutch Government have indicated their willingness.

We have heard about the different options during this debate. That includes, first, amending the ICC’s Rome statute, although there are serious workability issues around that; secondly, a so-called hybrid model, but, as we have heard, President Zelensky does not feel that that is the right way forward; and thirdly, an international court established by the UN General Assembly with the agreement of Ukraine. We could also have a treaty between interested states, creating a special tribunal, and we have heard of a fifth option, which is the model that the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) referred to in relation to the Council of Europe.

There are two critical issues that we would need to address in any model. First, there is the issue of immunities. There are questions in some of the options about whether immunity would come into play. Secondly, there is the question of selectivity, but I do not think that those need to necessarily stand in the way of the model. As has been said, a number of international legal experts and countries believe that those can be overcome by the special tribunal model.

Let me be clear that the brutality—the sheer wickedness—of what we have seen in Ukraine requires some very creative, robust and ambitious thinking. That is why Labour Members, and many hon. Members across the House, have supported the Ukrainian proposal for a special tribunal. These are some of the worst crimes that we have seen and the most incontrovertible case of aggression. Also, establishing a special tribunal and finding against Putin and Russia, as I very much hope it would, would lead us to a place where we can potentially take further action to give practical help to the people of Ukraine—for example, on the sequestration of Russian state assets. If we can establish and prosecute that original sin—that original crime of aggression—it could help to underpin the international legal basis for other actions that could lead to direct support for the Ukrainian people, as well as achieving the fundamental aim of justice for the country and its people for the crimes they have suffered.

I will end by quoting President Zelensky. In recent days, he said:

“But we know that the lasting peace after victory is achieved by nothing else but the strength of values. First of all, it’s the strength of freedom and of law, which must work to the full to ensure justice. Not hybrid promises instead of human rights, but real freedom. Not hybrid impunity and symbolic formalities, but full-scale justice. Not hybrid peace and constant flashes of violence on the frontline, but reliable peace. When one respects values—true freedom, true justice, true peace is respected”

and that is

“exactly what we need now.”

We should show the same ambition and the same passion for justice, the rule of law and a lasting settlement for the people of Ukraine, after the brutality that they have faced. I am very interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the processes leading towards setting up a special tribunal.

[Geraint Davies (in the Chair)]

Last but not least, I call the Minister.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)]

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair once again, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) on securing this important debate and on the considered views he set out, as well as other hon. Members. I will do everything I can to respond to the points that have been raised.

Across the House, we are all horrified by the horrific acts, war crimes and atrocities being committed in Ukraine. It is great to continue to see that level of cross-party support in calling out and condemning these acts of aggression. The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) talked about the experiences of his family during the second world war. My mother grew up as a little girl in occupied Denmark. We need to condemn these acts; we should learn lessons from the wars that have taken place. There is a lot more that we need to do to call out these indiscriminate attacks on civilians, widespread sexual violence, torture and execution.

We are appalled by Russia’s continuing strikes against Ukraine, including missile attacks on Kyiv in the early hours of this morning and over the weekend, as the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) highlighted. We will continue to do all that we can to support Ukraine in the face of this assault on its sovereignty and territory. The United Kingdom stands with the people of Ukraine in their desire to see justice done. President Putin, the Russian leadership and the forces committing these barbaric acts must be held to account. Responding to that challenge requires a co-ordinated international approach on several fronts. That is why, over the past year, the British Government have been a leader on accountability. Working with our international partners, we have taken action on several fronts. I will set out some of the steps that we have taken.

First, we are supporting the Ukrainian justice system. It is clear that the majority of allegations of atrocity crimes committed will be investigated and, where there is a case to be made, prosecuted in the courts of Ukraine. Ukraine’s prosecutor general recently announced that Ukraine has already registered close to 80,000 cases of war crimes. Sadly, that number will increase. It is important that the Ukrainian justice system is able to rise to that considerable challenge. That is why we established the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group with the EU and US and provided a £2.5 million UK support package. By co-ordinating among the partners, we are better able to ensure the effective and expedient deployment of resources and skilled personnel in response to the needs of the war crimes units of the office of the prosecutor general.

Through our support, more than 100 Ukrainian judges have been trained in war crimes prosecution and management and nearly 80 members of the national police of Ukraine have been trained on the forensic response, which must not be forgotten. Our package has also supported 14 mobile justice team field visits within Ukraine, including at Kherson, thereby helping to gather and protect evidence that may be used in Ukraine’s investigations. We have assisted civil society organisations to deliver psychological and legal assistance to survivors of horrific sexual violence in conflict.

We are also supporting international justice mechanisms. In March last year, within weeks of Russia’s invasion, the UK led efforts to refer the situation in Ukraine to the International Criminal Court. That referral has now secured the support of 42 other countries, and it enabled the ICC prosecutor to proceed straight to investigation without the need for judicial approval. With the ICC investigations under way, we have intensified our support for the Court, including by organising meetings for international Justice Ministers, to encourage and co-ordinate offers of support.

The UK has led from the front. Last year, we made a £1 million voluntary contribution, on top of our £10.5 million of annual funding. That funding increased the ICC’s capacity to collect evidence and provided enhanced psychosocial support to witnesses and survivors of traumatic atrocities. In March this year, a conference in London hosted by the former Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), generated more than £4 million in voluntary contributions and new offers of practical support for the Court and its independent investigation. That included a £1 million contribution from the United Kingdom.

The ICC is an independent judicial institution and it is for the ICC prosecutor to determine the nature and focus of the Court’s investigations. Those investigations are now well under way and it is clear that they are making progress. The ICC arrest warrants for the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children that were issued for Putin and his children’s commissioner in March demonstrate that the international justice system is working and moving forward.

Let me turn to the issue of how to ensure accountability for the crime of aggression, about which many contributors to this important debate have talked. Ukraine wants accountability for the illegal, unprovoked invasion from which the war crimes stem. We share that goal and recognise the challenges in achieving it. The ICC does not have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression that has allegedly been committed in and against Ukraine. Under other circumstances, I believe the UN Security Council would have referred this act of aggression to the International Criminal Court to give it that jurisdiction. Russia’s position as a veto-holding permanent member of the Security Council means that that will not happen, which is why we are exploring other options.

In January, the UK accepted Ukraine’s invitation to join a core group that it created to shape thinking on criminal accountability for Russia. I am pleased that there is cross-party support for the Government’s engagement in that respect. The work of the group includes exploring whether a special tribunal on the crime of aggression against Ukraine might be feasible. The hon. Members for Tiverton and Honiton and for Cardiff South and Penarth indicated that the Government might have formed a definitive view. I should explain to colleagues that the Government have not declared their support for one particular option. We joined the core group to discuss how best to hold Russia to account for the crime of aggression, and the group will consider all options. These are of course complex issues of international law.

[Stephen Doughty]

I accept that complexity is inherent and that serious work needs to be done, but will the Minister assure Members that he has listened to what President Zelensky and, indeed, others, including the prosecutor general and Justice Minister of Ukraine, have said very clearly on this issue and the question of a hybrid model?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

It is welcome that the recovery and reconstruction conference is taking place here, but of course one of the crucial issues at the conference will be the finance for the huge amount of reconstruction needed. One reason why we support an international special tribunal and other legal mechanisms is that they can provide a firm foundation for action to sequester and seize Russian state assets, rather than just freezing them. Can the Minister update us on the Government’s thinking about the legal process for that? We have had a lot of stalling and flummery and there has not been a clear position on the issue, which will be critical for the conference.

[David Rutley]

I understand the point that the hon. Member makes. Clearly, the asset seizures have been important. We need to work out how they could be used in the recovery. He knows—he is very astute on these matters—that there are complex issues, but we are working away on this, just as we are on the other issues that we have talked about during the debate.

The hon. Member also talked about Belarus. We are taking every opportunity to remind the Belarusian regime that there will be serious consequences if it becomes more directly involved in Russia’s war.

The UK is determined to hold Russia to account for its illegal and barbaric actions in Ukraine, and to ensure that justice prevails. That includes providing support for the Ukrainian and international justice systems, and working with the core group established by Ukraine to consider accountability, including the possibility of a special tribunal. Meanwhile, we will continue to supply aid to help the fightback and crack down on supporters of the war through sanctions, all while remaining at the centre of diplomatic efforts to secure the strongest possible support for Ukraine across the international community. We share Ukraine’s determination that Putin’s illegal invasion must fail and that justice must be done. As President Zelensky said last week in The Hague,

“there can be no peace without justice”.

12.30 pm

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thousands of jobs in some of our key technological and scientific research institutions throughout the UK are now at risk. We are leaching talent and competitive advantage, and the Government have been dragging their heels. The Minister says that negotiations are ongoing. How long will those key institutions have to wait for an answer—days, months, or yet more years?

[Leo Docherty]

As I have said, I am not going to give a running commentary, but we are negotiating in good faith, we have optimism, and we are determined to secure a fair deal that recognises the researchers whom the hon. Gentleman has described. We are expectant that the negotiation will conclude in good order.

UK’s Exit from the European Union

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Dowd, to serve under your chairmanship, as it was to have served under Mr McCabe before.

I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) for presenting the petition today, and acknowledge the people who have signed it—over 180,000 people in total—including a number in my own constituency.

I am profoundly aware that this is an issue about which there are passionately and sincerely held views. I thank colleagues from across the House for their contributions to the debate, although I note the stark absence of Conservative Members, with one exception; they are clearly not willing to defend their record.

In contrast, we in Labour will not shy away from engaging constructively in debates about the impact of the Government’s handling of Brexit on people, communities and businesses across the UK. Many of those effects have rightly been highlighted and exposed today, including by my hon. Friends the Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), for Putney (Fleur Anderson), for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn).

We want to focus on some of the most important tasks today: making our relationship with the EU work; growing our economy; defending our security; and tackling common challenges, from energy to climate change. We will not seek to rejoin the EU, the single market or the customs union, but it is imperative that we make our future relationship with the EU work, fix the holes in the Government’s deal, deliver stability, trust and mutual benefit in our relationships with partners across Europe—both in and out of the EU—and make use of new forums, such as the European Political Community. Indeed, I had fruitful discussions today with friends from Norway, as I know the Minister did too.

I must say from the outset that we do not believe that expending scarce financial resources on a public inquiry that would take years to complete would be the right step forward. We already expose the many impacts and failures of the Government’s policy in this area on a weekly basis in this place, and this is a topic that should rightly be the focus of robust and democratic parliamentary scrutiny, as we have seen today, whether or not we agree with all the points that have been made. I would far rather see the millions that could be spent on an inquiry being used instead to address practically some of the many flaws and holes that we have been exposed today, but this is not just about cost; it is about bringing people together and looking forward rather than dividing them once again by looking back.

We are now almost seven years on from the referendum, and the world and our country have both changed considerably since the day of that vote. The impact of our departure from the EU is, of course, a contributing factor to where we stand today. Indeed, there is consensus among economists that the Government’s poorly negotiated deal with the EU, compounded by 13 years of economic stagnation, has contributed to the UK lagging behind the rest of the G7, as we have heard today.

For seven years, we have watched the Government pick fights with our closest European allies, allowing dogma to override pragmatism. All the while, we have seen investment down, growth sluggish, 45% of businesses saying they have difficulties trading with the EU, and, as we have heard, exports down by a third. We have seen an approach that has often left us isolated, less secure and stuck in the binaries of the past at a time when co-operation was needed more than ever: on security when we face war in Europe; on energy when we face an energy price crisis and the challenge of climate change; and on economic co-operation as we face inflation, the cost of living crisis and the challenge of responding to geopolitical competition and threats to the resilience of our supply chains.

We would completely change the tone and tenor of our relationship with the EU and form the basis for an ambitious partnership based on common interests and mutual respect—clear about our position outside the EU but optimistic about what we can do together in a critical strategic partnership. Fundamentally, that is something the Conservatives are inherently incapable of delivering. Let us take the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill as an example. The Conservatives are doubling down to appease the hard-line fringes by introducing an irresponsible piece of legislation that will only prolong uncertainty for businesses nationwide. The Bill is opposed by business organisations, trade unions and environmental groups, and it undermines the proper role of Parliament by handing Ministers, as we have heard, yet more unaccountable powers, placing hard-won rights at work, environmental standards and consumer protections at the whim of power-hungry Ministers. Frankly, we do not need an inquiry to tell us that this is a grave error or to expose the wider impacts of Tory Brexit policy.

Across the country today, the questions people are asking are, “How do I pay the bills?”, “How do I secure cheaper and greener energy?”, “How do I put food on the table when prices are going up?”, “What jobs and opportunities are there for my children?” and “How do we keep our country safe?” We do not need an inquiry to answer those questions; we need a Labour UK Government. Labour has a clear plan to make our relationship with Europe work and to address the broader concerns that have been raised in the context of the petition. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has set out a clear plan to secure this: securing a deal on the Northern Ireland protocol, which we called for and then supported; tearing down unnecessary trade barriers; supporting world-leading services and scientists; keeping Britain safe; and investing in Britain. Looking forward not back, let me touch on some of those points and address some issues that have been raised in the debate.

Starting with trade, let me be frank: this Government have no clear trade strategy. It is little wonder that the OBR forecasts that UK exports are due to fall by 6.6% this year, which is a more than £51 billion hit to the UK economy. The Government’s last manifesto promised that by the end of 2022, 80% of UK trade would be covered by free trade agreements, including an agreement with the US, but the reality is that these deals are far from complete. Indeed, the UK’s trade deficit with the EU widened to a record high in the final quarter of 2022 as imports from the bloc jumped. The shortfall in the balance of trade and goods ballooned to £32.9 billion in the three months to December—the largest gap since records began in 1997.

The trade barriers put in place by the Tory Brexit deal are accentuating the economic burden being shouldered by our businesses and constituents, and toning them down would be a priority for a Labour Government. Outside of the single market and the customs union, we need to be candid and frank that we will not be able to deliver completely frictionless trade with the EU, but there are things we could do to make trade easier, and we have heard many of them today.

We should build on the positive elements in the Windsor framework. We would expand agrifood and veterinary agreements to cover all of the UK, seeking to build on agreements and mechanisms already in place between the EU and other countries. We would negotiate a long-term deal for UK hauliers to ease the supply chain problems that are holding us back. We would put forward a supply chain working group within the G7 and use the 2025 TCA review to increase the UK’s prosperity. We would seek to agree mutual recognition of conformity assessments across specified sectors so that our producers no longer need to complete two sets of tests or two processes of certification. We would seek mutual recognition of professional qualifications to bolster our world-leading services industry and would sort out data adequacy to allow our digital services companies to properly compete.

Although we do not support the return of freedom of movement, we will seek to find flexible labour mobility arrangements for those making short-term work trips and, as has been mentioned by a number of colleagues, musicians and artists seeking short-term visas to tour within the EU.

On science and research, I want to discuss the opportunity that has been squandered by the Tory Government, about which we heard time and again during the debate. Many of our constituents feel that departure from the EU has restricted them from pursuing education and employment opportunities to which they otherwise would have had access. Of course, departure from the EU did not need to mean an end to Erasmus+ or, indeed, to Horizon. I recently met representatives from Universities Wales who told me of a triple whammy: the end of Horizon and European structural funds and the failure to replace Horizon has meant that 1,000 jobs are now at risk in crucial high-tech, high-skilled jobs across Wales.

The Conservatives made a manifesto promise that they would associate with Horizon. They have repeated that 50 times since, but we have seen instead years of delay and uncertainty, with jobs, projects and inward investment lost, and still no deal, despite the resolution of issues around the Northern Ireland protocol. We would unblock the UK’s participation in Horizon and bring about the co-operation that we need when it comes to science, technology, education and skills across the UK—in key regions and of course our nations.

Let me turn to security. Strong and smart British foreign policy has always started with secure alliances in Europe, but since 2016 our relations with Europe have been characterised by bluster, bombast and brinkmanship by the Conservative party at a time when the security of our country has faced some of its most severe threats. We would negotiate a UK-EU security pact, predicated on the defence of democracy and ensuring, with NATO as our bedrock, that we also see close co-operation and co-ordination with our European allies on foreign, defence, development and security policy, whether on sanctions, our energy resilience, our support for Ukraine, our co-ordination on cross-border crime, our efforts against terrorism, our response to instability on our own continent and near neighbourhood, or indeed our approach to China. We could have had a security pact when we left the EU, but the Tories failed to agree one. We would seek arrangements to share data, intelligence where appropriate, and best practice with our closest allies.

I understand calls from the many petitioners for a rigorous assessment into the Government’s failings when it comes to the Brexit deal that they secured and the impact that it has had on this country. The Labour party will not shirk from addressing those failings or denying their existence, but relitigating old arguments does not build a plan on which to base the future or set a new course for an ambitious partnership with our closest neighbours and allies. We have a plan to move the country forward, resetting our relationship with the European Union, and taking common-sense and practical steps to redefine that relationship to withstand the challenges of the present and the years and decades to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leo Docherty]

The hon. Lady should take encouragement from looking to foreign direct investment. FDI stock in the UK increased from $2.2 trillion in 2020 to $2.6 trillion in 2021. That is the highest foreign direct investment stock in Europe and the second highest in the world, behind only the United States, up from our ranking in 2020. That is just one measure of the expression of confidence in the future. Of course, there have been headwinds, but taken in the round the economic future of the UK is one of terrific dynamism and confidence. The hon. Lady should share that confidence, and be confident in the future prospects of the British economy.

Outside the EU, we are creating the best regulatory environment to drive economic growth and develop a competitive advantage in new and future technologies, where terrific growth lies. From artificial intelligence and gene editing to the future of transport and data protection, we are building a pro-growth, high-standards framework that gives business the capacity and the confidence to innovate, invest and create jobs.

[Stephen Doughty]

The Minister is talking about innovation and future technologies. He will have heard Members from both sides of the House raise concerns about the lack of funding outside Horizon. Even if a new deal is agreed, that will not be for a significant period. Does the Minister think that the challenges being faced by the university sector will boost growth, innovation and investment, or reduce them?

[Leo Docherty]

I foresee a future where we have a very dynamic innovation sector, supported by the Government but working in partnership with our European friends. I will not give a running commentary on our negotiations on the Horizon programme, but colleagues will know that they are under way. Our approach is one of buoyant confidence about the benefits of future co-operation—that is all I will say. I hope the hon. Member shares my confidence.

To give another example, we must also remember that the Chancellor’s work on financial services will see more than 30 regulatory reforms unlock investment and turbocharge growth across the UK. A new approach to regulation will make meaningful change for the British public, with, for example, faster access to new medical treatments.

Vladimir Kara-Murza

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Monday 17th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for submitting this urgent question and you, Mr Speaker, for granting it.

We are deeply disturbed and horrified by the sentencing today of Vladimir Kara-Murza to 25 years in prison. His only fault appears to be having had the bravery and courage to speak the truth about Putin’s criminal regime and the illegal and barbarous war against the people of Ukraine. The actions we have seen today are simply those of a regime that fears that its own people will come to learn the truth about their Government’s actions.

I too met Evgenia Kara-Murza recently and was overwhelmed by the incredible resolve of both her and her husband. She told The Sunday Times this weekend that she was “baffled” by the UK Government’s apparent lack of support. My greatest sympathies are with her and her brave family today. We have particular responsibilities to Vladimir, as a dual British citizen, yet his family apparently do not feel that has been provided. Indeed, Bill Browder described the Government as “negligent” in dealing with his situation. Vladimir is a patriot who has worked relentlessly, at great personal risk, for a democratic Russia free of the tyranny extolled by Putin and his regime of criminals. The actions of the Government in the coming days will be critical in securing his safety and wellbeing.

I have three questions. First, at least 31 Russian officials have been directly involved in the false prosecution and imprisonment of Vladimir. Can the Minister tell the House or publish a full list of how many of them have actually been sanctioned? The Canadians and the Americans appear to have sanctioned all those responsible. Have we done so? If not, why not? Secondly, he spoke about Vladimir’s wellbeing. There have been attempts to poison him twice. Those involved in his incarceration have a dark record and there is a real risk to his health. What assurances have we received? Lastly, how many times did Ministers raise the case publicly or privately? I was deeply concerned that, before the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), did not even appear to be briefed on the case when answering questions from the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns). What consular support has Vladimir been permitted or provided with? Have the Foreign Secretary or Ministers spoken to his family today or in the last week?

We stand firmly alongside Vladimir and all those who seek a free and democratic Russia, and who expose the truth of Putin’s barbarous regime.

[Mr Mitchell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I believe the Government have been extremely strongly supportive during this appalling trial and the events that have taken place. He asks me about the 31 officials involved in the trial and what steps the Government are going to take, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns). As I have told him, I have instructed officials to investigate the possibility of sanctioning everyone involved in the trial. We will report back on that in due time.

The hon. Gentleman asks for an assurance on Vladimir Kara-Murza’s health and mentions the two previous poisonings, in 2015 and 2017. The ambassador has been summoned—he should be arriving at the Foreign Office any moment—and the issue of Vladimir Kara-Murza’s health will be right at the top of the agenda.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, and his appearance in front of the FAC. I should make it clear that he is not the Minister responsible for this specific matter. The Minister responsible, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), is very much seized of all the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Ukraine’s 2023 budget alone has a $38 billion gap, and the cost of the damage done to critical infrastructure runs into the hundreds of billions. There is one party responsible: Russia. We support the Government’s plans for a reconstruction conference this summer, but we cannot have any dragging of the heels in making Russia foot the bill for its barbarous war. We have heard about other international examples, so when will the Foreign Secretary set out a clear plan to seize—not just freeze—Russian state assets and repurpose them?

[James Cleverly]

The sad but simple truth is that it is not as easy as the hon. Gentleman’s question implies. The fact is that there have been conflicts around the world before and there have been perpetrators before, but there has never been a seizure of assets. As I say, we need to ensure that we are compliant with both domestic and international law. We will look carefully at the proposals being explored and tested by our close friends and allies, but I can reassure him and the House that we will ensure, working in close co-operation with our friends internationally, that Russia pays for the brutality that we are seeing in Ukraine.

Russian Assets: Seizure

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for his role in securing the debate, and I thank Members on both sides of the House for their expert and powerful contributions. I refer not least to the expertise and campaigning of Members on our own side, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant)—whose Bill I welcome—my right hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) and for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), and my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer).

Let me also welcome our friends from the Rada of Ukraine. We are delighted that they are here with us today, and I hope they have observed that while there is much political division across the House on many other issues, one issue on which the House and indeed the country are absolutely united is the need for us to stand four-square behind Ukraine and ensure that Putin loses this war. Indeed, there has been a great deal of unity on the matters discussed today. I, like others, saw with my own eyes the damage to infrastructure outside Kyiv last September—here I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I saw the bridges that had been destroyed, and the devastation of residential buildings and key economic infrastructure. It was absolutely shocking, and it is clear that a huge amount needs to be done.

We in the Opposition have been consistent in our support for the Government in relation to expansion of the UK’s sanctions regime, and we have worked constructively with the Government and with Committees to ensure that it is as strong as possible. That said, we have serious concerns about the pace at which the Government continue to act, the glaring gaps in designations and enforcement, and the apparent reluctance on repurposing frozen Russian state assets. We have heard very clearly about the huge economic needs. The Kyiv School of Economics, working in conjunction with the National Bank of Ukraine, estimates that as of December the damage to residential and non-residential infrastructure amounted to $137.8 billion, while the vice-president of the World Bank suggested that the total reconstruction cost would be between $525 billion and $630 billion. In this year alone, Ukraine’s national budget has a $38 billion gap.

Moreover, before reconstruction can begin it will be necessary to clear the huge number of mines and unexploded ordnance that have been scattered across much of the country, including agricultural land. The other day I spoke to a representative of the HALO Trust, who told me that it would take more than a month for every day of fighting in Ukraine to clear the ground of unexploded ordnance and munitions. That means that if the war stopped today, it would take more than 30 years and billions of dollars to make many areas safe for habitation and economic activity to begin again.

We welcome what the Government have said about the reconstruction conference, and we will work across the House to ensure that it is a success. We also fully support the establishment of a legal process to provide for the seizure of Russian state assets and their repurposing to support the recovery and long-term reconstruction of Ukraine. As we have heard, at least £26 billion worth of Russian bank reserves are currently frozen In the UK. Imagine the good that that money could do if it were reappropriated for reconstruction.

We—indeed, many Members on both sides of the House —have been pressing the Government on this matter for the last year. I have been through a list of Government responses. In July last year, they told us that they were

“considering all options on assets that have been seized and whether they can contribute towards the reconstruction of Ukraine.”

In October, they told us that they were

“considering all options on the seizure of Russian-linked assets”.

In December, they told us that they were

“looking at legally robust mechanisms to seize assets to fund reconstruction.”

In February they signed the UK-Ukraine declaration of unity, which included the phrase

“We will pursue all lawful routes to ensure that Russian assets are made available in support of Ukraine’s reconstruction, in line with international law.”

We heard today in oral questions that the House should be assured that the Government were taking this seriously. I very much like the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), but the fact is that there has been no commensurate plan, no announcement and no clear action taken to move this forward over the last year. I hope that she can give us some reassurance today that there will be movement on this issue. She has heard the views of the House. As we have heard, the EU, the USA, Canada and other states are all moving in the right direction, so why aren’t we?

We have heard many different suggestions today, but I was confused to hear the Foreign Secretary say that there was no precedent for seizing assets. Of course, there is the precedent of the first Gulf war in Iraq, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) said earlier. The UN Compensation Commission was established and took in $52.4 billion-worth of Iraqi oil revenues, after 1.5 million claims from Kuwait, to pay for reconstruction and reparations in relation to Kuwait. There is much legal advice out there about the potential to have temporary counter-measures, which would perhaps deal with some of the legal objections. There is a lot of scholarly thought out there about that. There is also the question of whether we could temporarily manage assets to provide resources for reconstruction. We also support the establishment of a special tribunal on the crime of aggression, and that could lead to further institutions and processes to allow for the seizure and repurposing of assets.

The UN General Assembly has already voted on this, adopting a resolution during the emergency special session on Ukraine in November 2022 that called for Russia to pay reparations for its action against Ukraine. We have heard what many countries are doing, including the United States. The US Administration presented six proposals in April last year that would allow for

“the forfeiture of property linked to Russian kleptocracy, allow the government to use the proceeds to support Ukraine, and further strengthen related law enforcement tools”.

We have heard about what the European Union is doing, with the directive on asset recovery and confiscation and the suggestion to add the violation of EU sanctions to the list of EU-wide crimes. We have heard about the debate going on in the European Parliament today. We have also heard much about Canada, whose Budget Implementation Act—Bill C-19—contained numerous provisions. Part 5 of that Act made amendments to the Special Economic Measures Act, the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act—the Magnitsky law there—and the Seized Property Management Act. So the United States, the European Union, Canada and others are moving forward, yet this Government have yet to set out a clear plan here.

It has also been pointed out today that our regime is failing and fraying in other ways. I have mentioned the UK-Ukraine declaration of unity, which states:

“We will also ensure, consistent with our legal systems, that Russia has no access to the assets we have frozen or immobilised until it ends, once and for all, its violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity”.

But, given the very real concerns about the granting of licences that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill has raised on a number of occasions, I want to ask the Minister whether that is still the case. If we are issuing general licences, with minimal ministerial oversight, that can allow assets to be quietly siphoned off with virtually no transparency on why they are being granted, is that consistent with the statement that the UK Government signed up to?

I have asked a series of questions on these issues as well, but scant information has been provided in response. What did become clear was that the FCDO appears to be playing no role in this. I shall quote the answer to one of the questions I had an answer to. It stated:

“While the FCDO works closely with other departments across government on sanctions, under sanctions regulations, the FCDO has no formal role in the issue of licences by the UK Government for (A) Russia and (B) Belarus. The FCDO does not maintain a central record of contacts from other departments on those issues.”

That is quite extraordinary. This is a serious issue that the Government need to look at urgently. Where is the oversight? Where is the enforcement? We would introduce proper ministerial oversight of issuing these licences and a joined-up approach across Government to ensure that every Department was working in lockstep on these issues to prevent those who seek to skirt our sanctions regime from doing so.

The question of enforcement has been raised a number of times. Across the UK’s full sanctions regime, which covers thousands of individuals and relates to countries including Iran, Belarus and Syria, only eight fines have been issued in the last four years, according to the publicly available figures from the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation. Despite the fact that 1,471 Russian individuals and 169 entities are subject to UK sanctions under the Russia regime, no monetary penalties have been issued against any individual or company for sanctions breaches under that regime since the start of the war in Ukraine. Indeed, since 24 February 2022, only two monetary penalties have been issued for breaches, neither of which was under the Russia regime.

We must contrast that with the United States, which has issued 17 penalties since the start of the war, with a value exceeding $43 million. Four of those penalties were specifically linked to the regime relating to Ukraine, with a value of over $25 million. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda said, people will clearly be abusing the regimes. How is it that the United States is finding people and we are not?

There are clearly areas on which we agree with the Government—we all want to see the most robust regime, and we stand united with them in support of Ukraine—but we must seize, not just freeze, these assets, we must close the loopholes in our regime, and we must ensure the tightest enforcement against all those who would seek to aid and abet Putin’s illegal and barbarous war in Ukraine.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I thank my hon. Friend for setting out one of the important issues that we are making sure we work on as effectively as possible. We are working very closely with our allies on the handling of seized Russian assets, and we will continue to do so. Let us be clear: our international partners face the same challenge. No country has yet found a legally tested solution. The right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) highlighted that Canada is testing the first seizure proposals and we are watching closely. I reassure the House that as progress is made by individual international partners, we will be right alongside them in considering how the UK can find solutions here too. Of course, as has been set out by colleagues, many proposals need UN leadership, and we will keep on driving that coalition.

In the meantime, we have made it clear that, consistent with our legal systems, Russia will have no access to the assets we have frozen or immobilised until it ends, once and for all, its violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Russia will not get a single euro, dollar or pound back until that is realised.

Colleagues have raised questions about the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill. It will sit alongside the National Security Bill, the Online Safety Bill and the forthcoming economic crime and fraud strategy. It will bear down on criminals who abuse our open economy by reforming Companies House to prevent abuses of limited partnerships; there will also be reforms to target more effectively information sharing to tackle money laundering. The right hon. Member for Barking is right about the effectiveness of section 11 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, and it is used regularly.

I know that right hon. and hon. Members will be disappointed that I cannot speak more fully about sanctions enforcement and OFSI, as these are matters for His Majesty’s Treasury, but I know they will continue to raise their concerns directly and I have heard them today.

[Stephen Doughty]

I have to press the Minister on this point. Will she and the Treasury together publish a list of the people who have been granted licences and exemptions under the sanctions regime, how many enforcement actions have been taken, and what those actions have delivered in terms of monetary value?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I will take note of that request and make sure that Treasury officials get back to the hon. Gentleman.

I draw the House’s attention to the economic deterrence initiative, which was set out yesterday in the integrated review refresh. Funded with £50 million over two years, it will improve our sanctions implementation and enforcement. That will ensure that we can maximise the impact of all our sanctions, including by cracking down on sanctions evasion.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) highlighted the oil price cap, which was brought in at the start of the year at $60. We know it is already having an effect, but the Price Cap Coalition is committed to reviewing shortly whether it is both diminishing Russian revenues and supporting energy market stability as effectively as it can.

The package of sanctions we have co-ordinated with our allies has inflicted a severe cost on Putin for his aggressive ambition and serves as a warning to all would-be aggressors. During President Zelensky’s recent visit to the UK, he and the Prime Minister made it clear that Ukraine and the UK remain the closest of friends. They committed to uphold Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, to defeat Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion, and to pursue all lawful routes to ensure that Russian assets are made available to support Ukraine’s reconstruction, and that is what we will do.

Ukrainian Holodomor and the War in Ukraine

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a particular pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Pritchard, and I thank the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) for bringing this issue to the House. I thank all colleagues who have participated for their insightful, powerful and considered remarks on this truly appalling moment in Ukraine’s history, and for linking it to the terrible events that we see today. I hope that the Minister can respond to the sincere questions that have been raised by all Members present.

I am not allowed to refer to the Gallery, but we have been joined in Parliament today by Lesia Zaburanna, who is a Member of the Rada. She has been speaking to many of us—

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. Under a recent ruling, you can refer to somebody in the Gallery, and I am sure the hon. Member would not wish to miss that opportunity.

[Stephen Doughty]

I will not miss that opportunity. I am delighted that Ms Zaburanna joins us in the Gallery for this debate. She is a Member of Parliament for Kyiv and has been here speaking to Members across the House. I am sure that today’s proceedings and the meetings that we have had with colleagues have shown her that the UK’s resolve and commitment to Ukraine has never been stronger; indeed, it exists on a cross-party basis across the House.

As we passed a tragic milestone last month, we must all continue to reflect on the immense suffering that Ukraine has endured, as well as the remarkable courage and resilience of its people and the progress that they have made in driving Russia back. It is clearer than ever that Putin must be defeated in Ukraine, and we must continue to stand full square behind Ukraine, to strengthen Ukraine’s hand on the battlefield, to support relief and reconstruction, to deliver justice, to maintain western unity, to isolate Putin and to undermine Russia’s barbaric war effort.

We were all incredibly moved by President Zelensky’s speech to us in Westminster Hall just a few weeks ago. As I say regularly in these debates, the Government will continue to have Labour’s full support in confronting the threat that Russia poses to the whole of Europe and the whole world, and in holding it to account for the terrible things it has done in Ukraine.

This debate has brought home the fact that today’s illegal, unconscionable war comes after a history of Ukraine being subjected to immense brutality, especially in the terrible events of the Holodomor, one of the most atrocious instances of man-made famine in European history, which culminated in the deaths of millions of people. I have also visited the museum and memorial in Kyiv just a few months ago—many Members have referred to it. It is incredibly moving. Everybody should see it to recognise the reality of what happened to the Ukrainian people.

Stalin’s role in catalysing enforced, man-made, widespread starvation in 1932 and 1933 understandably, and rightly, lives on in the Ukrainian national psyche. The barbarism we saw 90 years ago carries as much salience today as it ever has, particularly given what we have seen since.

The personal stories are the most harrowing. A congressional commission that took evidence in the late 1980s heard from an individual who grew up in the village of Stavyshche, who spoke of watching people dig into empty gardens with bare hands, in a desperate bid to find anything to eat; of witnessing people bloated from extreme malnutrition collapse on the road one by one; and, of course, of the mass graves. It is a tragedy that we again see mass graves in Ukraine. We have witnessed and heard the terrible stories of atrocities being committed.

As with the war today, there was a clear perpetrator behind the famine. Stalin’s motivation to transform and mould the Ukrainian nation in his own image, at any cost, is mirrored in Putin’s warped, imperialist world view today, the consequences of which continue to devastate the lives of Ukrainians. Putin’s misguided and perverse attempts to wipe Ukrainian identity are the most recent manifestation of Russia’s penchant for interference, subjugation, war and atrocities.

This debate carries particular weight for me as a Welsh MP. The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) mentioned Gareth Jones. Much of what we know about the Holodomor is because of the bravery of that one Welshman. He was born a few miles away from my constituency, in Barry in the Vale of Glamorgan, in 1905. After witnessing the horrible consequences of Stalin’s tyranny first hand, he detailed those consequences. He wrote:

“I walked along through villages and 12 collective farms. Everywhere was the cry, “There is no bread. We are dying.”…In the train a Communist denied to me that there was a famine. I flung a crust of bread which I had been eating from my own supply into a spittoon. A peasant fellow-passenger fished it out and ravenously ate it. I threw an orange peel into the same spittoon and the peasant again grabbed and devoured it. The Communist subsided.”

Jones defied Soviet attempts to censor him and reported the truth of the Holodomor to millions. Yet the Kremlin of course continued to deny the existence of the famine. The mendacious campaign that tried to silence Gareth could not.

The parallels with today are striking. Journalists, correspondents and reporters from many countries, not least Ukraine itself, are putting themselves in danger to expose the true extent of Russia’s barbarism. They are absolutely integral to thwarting Putin’s concerted information war and to bringing justice in terms of investigating war crimes and atrocities.

I have a few questions for the Minister. Today in Parliament, we have been talking about the crime of aggression and war crimes. I understand that the Government have now opted to join a working group on holding Putin to account for the crime of aggression. Could the Minister say a little more on the progress of that group?

We have seen concerted attempts by Russia to lie about food supplies to the rest of the world. In a dreadful parallel to the way it used food as a weapon of war in the Holodomor, it is now doing so with the rest of the world. Despite the grain deal, it continues to frustrate. What can the Minister say about what we are doing to tell the world the truth about Russia’s continued interference with world food supplies from Ukraine, including on the mining of Ukrainian agricultural land?

Finally, what can the Minister say about the crucial attempts that are going to be needed to rebuild Ukraine, its agricultural capacity, its ability to thrive, and its economy in the future? What are we doing to seize assets, not just freeze them? What steps are the Government further taking, given the cross-party consensus on the issue and the need to generate more resources for reconstruction?

Historically and today, the price that Ukrainians have had to pay for their freedom is immense. The events of 90 years ago are an anguishing reminder of the consequences when tyranny runs without constraint and imperialism without restriction. We must stand united in this House against it.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) and to all colleagues for their contributions; my hon. Friend’s contribution was moving and thoughtful. I also appreciated the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster); he spoke of the echoes of history, which was particularly relevant. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) also spoke of his experiences on the delegation. I am very grateful to them for bringing their collective experience to the attention of colleagues today.

I was also grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) for his contribution. He referred to the work of Gareth Jones—I am sure many people will be pleased to know that they can watch that film, which will no doubt be of interest—and the terrific scholarship of Anne Applebaum. I was touched that he quoted the national poet, which I thought was particularly apposite. As ever, I was very grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for his continued support for our collective resolve to support our Ukrainian friends in their efforts to liberate their territory and maintain their sovereignty. I join him in warmly welcoming our colleague from Ukraine—it is very good to see her in the Gallery, and I hope she has found this debate of interest.

Turning to the specific questions asked by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, which I welcome, I can confirm that we are indeed in the G7’s core group of nations looking at what additional mechanism might be required to work alongside the International Criminal Court when it comes to countering crimes in Ukraine. That work is in progress, but we will keep the House updated and informed; it is something we are leaning into, because we need to acknowledge that not everything will be able to be covered off by the ICC. When it comes to the appalling disinformation spread by Putin’s regime, particularly with regard to the global south, we are doing a lot of work to counter that disinformation and promote the Black sea grain initiative, ensuring that there is an ongoing flow and that people know that the vast majority of it is ending up in the global south—it is not just for western European nations.

Quite rightly, the hon. Gentleman talked about our collective efforts to help Ukraine rebuild itself. As he will know, we are very pleased to be hosting the next reconstruction conference in London in June, at the invitation of our Ukrainian friends and alongside them. That is the successor to the Lugano conference held by the Swiss last year, and it will be a very important moment to map out how private capital, particularly, will be able to find itself in Ukraine, helping the reconstruction effort. The hon. Gentleman asked a pertinent question about seizing frozen assets. That is something that we continue to look at; clearly, there are very significant frozen assets in the UK—some £19 billion, £2 billion of which are Russian state assets. We continue to look at that issue, because we know it is of urgent pertinence and relevance to the justified efforts of the Ukrainians to rebuild their society.

Turning to the subject of the Holodomor, we have heard today in moving terms how 90 years ago, millions of men, women and children lost their lives in that forced, deliberate famine, victims of Stalin’s brutal regime. Of course, it is an echo from history today, because Ukrainians are again suffering from terror fomented in Moscow at the hands of Putin’s brutal regime, so I pay tribute to those who keep alive the memory of the Holodomor and its victims—we must never forget them. Of course, the Prime Minister visited Kyiv in November and lit a candle at the memorial for those victims. I was pleased that colleagues recounted their own experience of doing a similar thing, because today we stand firm in our support of the Ukrainians amid growing evidence of appalling atrocities committed during this outrageous and illegal war. As I have indicated, we are actively supporting Ukraine to investigate and prosecute those responsible, as well as the investigation by the ICC. We will continue to exert institutional effort and resource, empowering Ukrainians to ensure that there is a very clear line and operational strand of accountability.

Turning directly to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire, of course, I entirely understand why colleagues have today called for the Government to recognise the Holodomor as a genocide. In response to her first question, I say gently that it is a long-standing policy of the Government that any judgment on whether genocide has occurred is a matter for a competent court, rather than Governments or non-judicial bodies. Our long-standing approach provides a clear, impartial and independent measure for the determination of whether genocide has occurred. Of course, I know that is not what she wants to hear, but let me be clear that in no way does that detract from our recognition of the Holodomor as an appalling tragedy, its importance in the history of Ukraine and Europe, and the contemporary pertinence. My hon. Friend asked whether there might be a debate on the Floor of the House and a meaningful vote. That is a matter for the Leader of the House, but I know my hon. Friend will not be backwards in coming forward to seek out that opportunity. I thank her sincerely for raising these issues in this forum, not least because it affords us an opportunity to reflect on recent events.

We should remember that, since 2014, thousands have been killed by Putin’s forces. Since the full-scale invasion, over 50% of Ukraine’s pre-war population—21 million—have needed humanitarian assistance either inside or outside Ukraine. We should remember the scale of the impact and, of course, it draws parallels with the 1930s. Russian forces have attacked Ukrainian hospitals, schools and energy supplies, leaving cities in ruins. In areas of Ukraine liberated from Russian forces, the Russians leave behind mass graves, as well as evidence of rape and torture on an unimaginable scale.

Ultimately, one man is responsible for the devastation left in the wake of Russia’s forces. Putin’s invasion was unprovoked and illegal. He has started a war he cannot win. It is our judgment that his army is on the defensive. Ukraine’s heroic armed forces have recaptured thousands of square miles. We are proud to continue to work with our allies to ensure that Ukraine gets the support it needs to win this war, secure a lasting peaceand bring to justice those responsible for war crimes and atrocities in accordance with international law.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) raised an important point about the terrible reports we have all heard of the forced deportation of children and the separation of families in an attempt to Russify them to deny them their Ukrainian heritage. Again, there are all sorts of awful parallels with the impact on children during the Holodomor. Will the Minister say a little about our current assessment and what we are doing to bring those responsible to account?

[Leo Docherty]

I will, gladly. We are working with the Ukrainians to invest energy and resource to build capacity for them to record these crimes, so that there is a trail of accountability; so Karim Khan and the International Criminal Court can hold these people to account. That is not least for its deterrent effect, so I welcome the hon. Member’s question.

I will not recount at length the suite of military, humanitarian and economic support we are giving, but it totals nearly £4 billion. We continue to be the largest supplier of military aid to Ukraine after the United States. Importantly, we will keep this going. We expect to spend £2.4 billion on military support for Ukraine this financial year and have committed to £2.3 billion or more of support next financial year. That is important to note because this will be a matter of resolve, and we must send a clear signal that our resolve is not failing. In terms of economic and humanitarian support, we are proud that we are providing more than £1.6 billion in non-military assistance. Clearly, Putin is now completely diplomatically isolated. Sanctions are beginning to bite. We have co-ordinated sanctions with our international allies to impose a huge cost, freezing a combined £275 billion of Russian assets. So our response is having effect.

When it comes to war crimes, there are some important next steps. We are supporting the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine to help it investigate, as I have referred to, and set itself up to prosecute alleged war crimes. Colleagues should know that the Justice Secretary will host a major international meeting later this month to support war crime investigations by the ICC. So that important strand of work will progress. I have already mentioned our support and hosting of the recovery conference, which is hugely important.

To conclude, we have heard a moving evocation of the fact that the Holodomor and its modern parallel are two of the darkest chapters in Ukraine’s history. Our stance is that any determination on genocide must be made by the courts. That does not distract from our recognition of the Holodomor as the most appalling tragedy—one that resonates today in the face of renewed Russian aggression. The UK is supporting our heroic Ukrainian friends to fight back, and it is our honour to do so. That includes supporting Ukraine’s judicial system and the ICC to investigate and prosecute alleged war crimes.

When President Zelensky addressed both Houses, a short distance from where we are today, he said “Freedom will win.” We know that that desire, and the desire for justice to prevail, unites the entire House.

Turkey and Syria Earthquake

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Graham. I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing today’s debate, to which all colleagues have made considered and moving contributions.

I am afraid that when I saw the news breaking about the earthquake, I had a feeling of dread about what was to come. I worked on the Haiti earthquake response back in 2010 when I was an adviser at the Department for International Development, and I was previously in NGOs, including during the Boxing day earthquake and tsunami. When we see a report about an earthquake of this size, it can only lead to an unimaginable loss of human life and to devastation.

Hon. Members have made some incredibly powerful speeches. The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills gave a powerful summary and drew on her own experiences. We used to serve together on the International Development Committee, and of course she spent time as a Minister.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) related powerful stories and spoke about the links in her constituency and the families affected—not only those affected by the earthquake, but those in Syria who had already been affected by the brutality of Assad’s and Russia’s attacks. She rightly asked an important question, which I hope the Minister will answer, about visas for those who have lost family members and who want to reunite with family in the UK. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) raised the same issue, rightly mentioning our track record of supporting those who have fled disasters and of providing support for disaster responses in the region.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark) has played an absolutely crucial role in responding, not only in her own community but here in Parliament. We spoke just hours after the news broke. She gave very powerful testimony, not just about her constituents but about the impact on her own family and friends. She rightly raised an important and worrying concern about reports of the potential confiscation of aid. Will the Minister comment on those claims?

My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) spoke about the cuts to the aid budget, which I will come on to. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) spoke about the personal losses in his constituency and talked about a visit to the British Alevi Federation. He said that we need to ensure that aid gets to those who need it. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) rightly praised the firefighters, nurses and others who assisted, and she mentioned the visit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) to the Enfield Alevi Cultural Centre.

There were many other important contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar) raised a very important point about the disproportionate impact of disasters on women and girls. I would certainly be interested to hear the Minister’s response.

The earthquake has resulted in more than 46,000 deaths —a number that will undoubtedly rise—and 100,000 people injured. We must remember those who have been critically injured by this disaster, and of course a disaster of this scale has mental health impacts, particularly for young people and children. As has been pointed out, a significant proportion of those who have died or been affected are from the Alevi Kurdish population. That community has a strong presence here in the UK; many constituents of hon. Members who have spoken today have been left in a state of unimaginable grief.

In recent days, we have seen aftershocks, and further people have been killed and wounded. Will the Minister clarify whether any other British nationals have been affected? On behalf of the official Opposition, I send my deepest condolences, thoughts and sympathies to all those who have been affected by this tragedy. I personally conveyed our condolences to the ambassador of Türkiye, and I know many colleagues have done so directly through communities in their own constituencies.

Türkiye is of course a close NATO ally and partner of the United Kingdom, and there are many close ties of family and friendship between us, as with the people of Syria, many of whom have fled from the crisis there to be in the UK. We are therefore duty-bound as a nation to respond to the challenges posed by this disaster, not just in the short term but in the long term, too.

As we know, the people of Syria have experienced 12 years of conflict, with 4.1 million people already relying on life-saving humanitarian assistance. Some 3.7 million Syrians have ended up in the area affected by the earthquake in Türkiye. It is a huge crisis upon crisis upon crisis. There have been cholera outbreaks in Syria. We even saw Assad barrel bombing areas affected—absolutely despicable behaviour from a regime that has already done so much damage. I hope the Minister will be able to comment on the complex situation in Syria, with different areas of control, different challenges and, of course, the influence of Russia, the Assad regime and other extremist organisations in regions that have been affected by the earthquake, which is making it even more complex.

I join others in praising the work of the British people in responding to the crisis. It has just been announced that the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal—I declare an interest as a past chair of DEC in Wales—has raised more than £100 million. That shows the strength of response of the UK people. On top of that, we have heard repeatedly about the community fundraising and relief efforts throughout the country, particularly among communities affected, but also in others who have raised money out of a sense of compassion and a desire to assist. The Boss & Brew Academy in my Cardiff South and Penarth constituency has organised a fundraiser. Many others are doing so, particularly among the faith communities, across the UK.

I welcome the match funding that the UK Government provided, and the fact that the Minister for international development and humanitarian response, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), has been out to the region. Of course, the question is where we go from here. I am concerned. There were discussions about cutting the aid budget to Syria as part of the overall Government aid budget cuts. I hope the Minister can confirm that that is being reconsidered. It seems absurd to consider that at this time.

I hope the Minister will provide some more detail on the £25 million aid package announced last week. How is that going to be split between the countries and communities? What will it actually include? Over what timeframe are we talking, and where is that funding being drawn from? I hope the Minister can also comment on some of the other allegations that have been made about aid—particularly aid raised here in the UK—not getting through to certain areas.

There has been some suggestion that some who lived in the disaster zones and have had to leave them could be prevented from returning. What discussions has the Minister had with authorities, where that is possible—I recognise the complex situation in Syria—to ensure that individuals can return, hopefully when reconstruction and redevelopment has happened?

The border crossing situation has been mentioned. It is good to see that the three border crossings are now open. What steps are we taking to ensure that they stay open, that we look at other potential crossings and that they are secure and are not frustrated? Will the Minister say what the Government’s position is on Russia’s game playing at the Security Council and their constant activities to frustrate and make this situation even worse?

When a disaster like this strikes, there is rightly the immediate outpouring of condolence, and there is the immediate support and relief effort. I praise in particular the international search and rescue effort that the UK sent out. I have personally met many of those brave search and rescue teams before and know what incredible work they do. But as the cameras leave, as the media leave, and as attention turns to other crises, the people will still be suffering the crushed buildings, the lives destroyed, the mental health impacts, and the long-term food, infrastructure, water, health and sanitation impacts.

We have to be in these things for the long haul. I hope the Minister will set out what we will do to galvanise the international community to be in there for the long haul, particularly in those communities that are hard to reach and those communities in Syria that, in some cases, receive no assistance at all. We must be in this for the long haul, which will require money and diplomatic engagement with other countries to ensure that we are playing our crucial role in responding to the crisis. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

That is an important point. I will come on to the support that we are providing for women and young children.

As has been discussed, we have also provided additional funding to the White Helmets, supporting life-saving search and rescue and emergency relief operations in north-west Syria, which has been one of the most difficult areas to provide support to. The UK Government have set up an emergency medical facility in Türkoğlu in Turkey, providing life-saving treatment to more than 3,000 people to date. Medics from the UK’s emergency medical team and more than 80 personnel from 16 Medical Regiment and the Royal Air Force tactical medical wing are working side by side with Turkish medical staff. Royal Air Force aircraft are helping to deliver NATO’s package of emergency support to Turkey and the UK will continue to contribute to the alliance’s response to the earthquakes.

UK-funded NGOs have also provided medical care in the region, and the UN distributed food and other essential supplies, which the UK contributed to. We are grateful for their important work, as always. I hope that highlights to Members—I think we are all pretty aware—that there is a proper exercise in international engagement with all the different agencies to make the best possible impact.

As has been highlighted, the UK Government match funded the first £5 million of public donations to the DEC earthquake appeal. It has been highlighted that the appeal has now reached a staggering £800 million. I have to say that, coming into this debate, I thought it was £93 million. It shows that there is broad traction here. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) raised concerns about which charity people should support. We have published guidance on that, which has a section on how to make donations safely, but I would say that that appeal in particular is a great way to make a donation. It is an effort we should all be proud of. Others have highlighted the amazing work that has gone on—whether it is Rotarians in Aldridge or local schools and rugby clubs in Newport East, it is incredible to see how the community has come together, particularly where there is diaspora in those areas.

The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth asked me to comment on the £25 million package of additional funding that that Government announced on 15 February. It will fund additional emergency relief for Turkey and Syria, such as tents and blankets for families made homeless in what are now freezing conditions. The new humanitarian package will also support the work of the UN and aid agencies in Syria, as well as the ongoing relief efforts in Turkey led by the Government. There is a particular focus on protecting women and girls, which is an issue that has been highlighted, including support with childbirth and efforts to reduce the risk of gender-based violence.

The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar) made an important point about sanitary products. I just wanted to make her aware that the UK is funding the United Nations Population Fund to support immediate need around childbirth, midwifery and reducing the risk of violence against women and girls. That includes providing dignity kits, hygiene kits and other life-saving items.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank the Minister for that additional detail—particularly the last point. I wanted to ask him about the reports of a planned cut to the budget for Syria. Obviously, Syria was in crisis before this disaster. Surely it is the wrong time to cut the longer-term support package to Syria, even though this additional money is welcome.

[David Rutley]

I was going to come back to that. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. We had an interesting debate in this Chamber for an hour or so yesterday about the ODA budget, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will recall. Big and difficult decisions will need to be made in that respect, given the global situation and the economic impact, but his point is important and I am sure that the Minister for Development and the Foreign Secretary will hear it and the other points that have been made. The allocations have not been made yet, so I am not able to report back on exact figures.

In Syria, needs are particularly acute. There is extensive and severe damage to housing, infrastructure, schools, roads and hospitals.

Lachin Corridor and Nagorno-Karabakh

Stephen Doughty Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for securing the debate at such a critical moment for Nagorno-Karabakh and the Caucasus more broadly, and I thank all Members for their contributions.

It is a past interest of mine, but I used to work for the OSCE parliamentary assembly in a past life and was an assistant to the special rapporteur on Nagorno-Karabakh at the time, the Swedish MP Göran Lennmarker. That was some years ago, in a more peaceful time, and it is deeply concerning to see recent events. Indeed, the official Opposition are deeply concerned about the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh and the people who are besieged and cut off because of the blockade of the Lachin corridor, which we think must end. This is a humanitarian crisis and undoubtedly worthy of the House’s time. It is an area on which I hope the Minister and the Government will focus intently if we are to avoid further catastrophe for civilians both in Nagorno-Karabakh and in the region as a whole.

In my role as Labour’s shadow Europe Minister, I have met the Azerbaijani and Armenian ambassadors and members of the communities on a number of occasions. Obviously, I am keen to engage with all sides. It is clear to us that unless a peaceful resolution is found, civilians in the region face further perils. That has to start with the ending of the blockade and the preservation of Armenia’s territorial integrity.

As has been said, 120,000 people are trapped beyond the blockade, without access to medical supplies, food and other supplies. On 13 December, gas supplies were cut off and have been intermittently disrupted since. On 9 January, the only high-voltage power supply in the region with electricity was damaged. On 12 January, access to telecommunications and the internet connection was cut. We have heard repeatedly from Members from across the House that the corridor is the only link between Armenia and the people of Nagorno-Karabakh, and the transport of people and goods through it are critical to the wellbeing of all residents who live there. It is a literal lifeline for them.

As we have heard, territorial changes that took place last summer following the recent outbreak of conflict led to the land around the corridor being transferred to Azerbaijan, making the passage even more vulnerable and critical to the enclave and its residents. We have all heard the reports of more than 1,000 civilians being stranded along the blocked highway, unable to return, and of the 270 children who had to find shelter in Armenia while their relatives remained in Artsakh.

Despite the resumption of gas supplies, fuel, medicine and basic goods are now reported to be running low, and local authorities have had to impose price controls and rationing. There is a real risk of malnutrition and other health consequences for the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. The provision of healthcare and social services has been obstructed. Following the closure of 41 nurseries and 20 schools, children are being denied their elemental right to education.

Patients with cancer are missing vital treatment, and those with diabetes are without medicine. The situation is especially challenging for those with disabilities and those living in residential institutions. The International Disability Alliance and the European Disability Forum have called on all parties to fulfil their obligations to the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and Security Council resolution 2475, and they have called for an immediate unblocking of the Lachin corridor. I am sure they have the full support of Members who have spoken in the debate; they certainly have the support of the official Opposition.

No population should have to live in such conditions. The onus is on international institutions and the international community, with the backing of the United Kingdom and our allies, to do the right thing. It has been said many times in this debate that the blockade contravenes what was agreed in the 2020 trilateral ceasefire. It was agreed that all transport and communication links would be restored and unblocked.

I have raised concerns directly with Ministers over recent weeks, including in parliamentary questions. On 12 December, the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Azerbaijani ambassador, and I understand that a range of issues were covered. Will the Minister confirm what conversations have been had since then, and with which parties? Do the UK Government propose to play a positive role in unblocking the blockade and brokering a lasting peace? We simply cannot return to the violence of 2020, when more than 6,500 people lost their lives and civilian lives were shattered. Nor should civilians in the region have to continue living under the shadow of perpetual instability and conflict. We favour fully working with our European and regional partners to secure a return to dialogue more broadly and a peaceful settlement facilitated by, for example, the OSCE Minsk Group. Of course, that has to start with removing this blockade, which is a complete impediment to progress.

From responses to parliamentary questions and the contributions that have been made today, it appears that the Government’s strategy is to watch and wait. It is apparent that, without the UK and others providing a diplomatic impetus to seek peace, violence, discord, instability and humanitarian catastrophe will remain. The Government do not seem to be operating with the same urgency as other Governments around Europe, the United States and others. I have been looking through the list of Governments who have spoken out on this issue in recent weeks. I hope the Minister will assure us that this is a very important issue for his colleague the Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), and others across Government, including the Foreign Secretary.

We all know who will benefit if peace eludes the Caucasus—President Putin and Russia. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) asked what assessment had been made of so-called peacekeeping efforts in Nagorno-Karabakh and along the corridor. I understand from a response to a parliamentary question that the Government have not assessed the adequacy or effectiveness of Russia’s so-called peacekeeping forces. Frankly, I hope the Minister can explain what our strategy in the region is and what is our assessment. We need to understand Russia’s intentions and role across the region—in Armenia and Azerbaijan, and of course in relation to this situation.

Hon. Members have made a number of comments. We have heard about the Russian base in Armenia, and we heard the allegations made by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s comments on them. There have also been serious allegations about matters in Azerbaijan. I have had serious concerns raised with me—I hope the Minister can comment on them—about Azerbaijan bringing in gas from Russia in recent weeks. Of course, it exports gas to the rest of Europe. Given the key role that our own oil and gas industry plays in Azerbaijan, I would like the Minister to give us some more detail on that.

[Bob Blackman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Doughty]

No, but I say for the hon. Gentleman’s benefit that I have raised the issue directly with the Azerbaijani ambassador. I understand that the Azerbaijani Government engage in a so-called gas swap with Russia every year. That is deeply concerning given the matters in Ukraine at the moment and the need to wean Europe off oil and gas. If Azerbaijan is taking in gas and exporting it, I hope the Government are looking at that.

Nagorno-Karabakh, although it may seem remote to many, contains women, men and children who will be at risk if efforts to find peace and end the blockade fail. We have heard from many human rights groups—they have been referred to during the debate—about extra-judicial killings, torture and abuse of prisoners of war. I hope the Minister will give his assessment and tell us what steps are being taken to ensure that such crimes are not committed with impunity.

I understand that the EU is planning to establish an observer mission with the goal of permanently ending the conflict. Those plans were formally adopted by a meeting of EU Foreign Ministers. Obviously, we are outside the EU, but I hope that the Foreign Office and Ministers are working closely with our allies there and, indeed, in the United States to play a role in any measures of that sort. I understand that the United States Secretary of State had meetings with the Armenian Foreign Minister last week. Will the Minister say a little about what discussions we have had with the United States and other allies? Will he also say what conversations there have been with Turkey, which is a key NATO ally and a key partner of the United Kingdom, and comment on our assessment of its role in this situation and in the region more broadly?

It has been reported that the ICRC has been given access to the enclave and has transferred people who were seriously unwell to Yerevan, but can the Minister give us an up-to-date assessment of how much humanitarian relief and how many emergency medical evacuations are passing through the corridor? Is the UK contributing to any humanitarian operations there?

Can the Minister say when the Government will set out a wider regional strategy for the Caucasus that spans diplomacy, aid and trade but also, crucially, atrocity prevention and human rights? It has been mentioned a number of times during the debate that language matters. It is important that the Minister listens to the comments by the hon. Members for Dundee West (Chris Law) and for East Worthing and Shoreham, particularly as we are in a week when we recognise the terrible impact of the holocaust, with all of us committing to preventing atrocities and ensuring that they never happen again. Will the Minister also say what is being done through not only the OSCE but the Council of Europe and forums such as the European Political Community—a new forum that the UK is taking part in—to find solutions to end the conflict and ensure that civilians are protected? What role does he see the UK playing in that?

In conclusion, Russia has shown clearly that it is no guarantor of regional security. The people of Nagorno-Karabakh deserve far better. The blockade must be ended. The UK must play a key role, and we will continue to work with Ministers on the issue. I thank all colleagues for their insights and contributions.