UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Attack on Ukraine

  • Alyn Smith – 2022 Speech on Russian Armed Forces Raping Woman in Ukraine

    Alyn Smith – 2022 Speech on Russian Armed Forces Raping Woman in Ukraine

    The speech made by Alyn Smith, the SNP MP for Stirling, in the House of Commons on 31 March 2022.

    I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) on securing this urgent question on a very difficult but very important subject. It is vital that we take due note of what is going on in Ukraine. We can all agree that rape as a weapon of war is beyond despicable. I will focus my remarks on urging the Government to take action on only three points, because much has been said that I agree with.

    SNP Members have called for a specific atrocity prevention strategy. Work is under way across the FCDO on these issues, but we think that bringing that into a coherent atrocity prevention strategy would be helpful in not only holding the Government to account on what is being done, but urging more action on that.

    On accountability, I agree with the Government’s approach of supporting the ICC, rather than creating new structures. That is proportionate and the best way to do it. I was glad to hear about the funding, but as we have seen from Syria, we can have all the evidence that we like, but if there is not the political will to carry it through, we will not see the necessary accountability on the ground and the fear of justice to end the culture of impunity that we are hearing reports of from Ukraine. I urge the Government to do more on that and to publish as one document the efforts that are being made to help accountability mechanisms in Ukraine, because that would again help the coherence and strategy to be clear to us all.

    I echo the points about people trafficking and safeguarding, on which I know the Minister has been very active. However, perhaps we can have a specific statement on the risk of trafficking of vulnerable refugees and what the UK and other partners have done to help and assist. I am aware that the German police have been doing very useful work on that, but, sadly, a lot more work needs to be done.

  • Stephen Doughty – 2022 Speech on Russian Armed Forces Raping Woman in Ukraine

    Stephen Doughty – 2022 Speech on Russian Armed Forces Raping Woman in Ukraine

    The speech made by Stephen Doughty, the Labour MP for Cardiff South and Penarth, in the House of Commons on 31 March 2022.

    I thank the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) for this hugely important urgent question and you, Mr Speaker, for granting it. As ever, Labour Members stand absolutely with the people of Ukraine, including all the women and girls of Ukraine who are suffering horrendously in this conflict started by Putin. This war of aggression has had a terrible toll on civilians across the country.

    We know that, throughout history, rape and sexual violence have been used by aggressors to punish, terrorise and destroy populations, from the rape of women during the 1937 Nanking occupation to the estimated 200,000 women subjected to rape during the fight for independence in Bangladesh. We have also seen victims of sexual violence in Bosnia and, more recently, as I have raised with the Minister, in Tigray and Myanmar. It is because of those heinous examples, and countless others, that rape and sexual violence have had to be explicitly prohibited under international humanitarian law and the Geneva conventions. As war ravages Europe once again, the grim reality is that we hear horrific reports of rape and sexual violence being used as weapons of war once more.

    This week, one Ukrainian woman told The Times that she was raped on multiple occasions by Russian soldiers in her family home after they murdered her husband and while her four-year-old son was in tears nearby. That is utterly horrific and heinous. As the hon. Member said, we have also heard direct testimonies in the House. We were told:

    “We have reports of women gang-raped. These women are usually the ones who are unable to get out. We are talking about senior citizens. Most of these women have either been executed after the crime of rape or they have taken their own lives.”

    Every part of the House will condemn those appalling crimes, but condemnation is not enough. We need accountability and justice must be done. Putin and his cronies, and all those breaking international laws of war in his name, must face the full force of the law for the crimes and atrocities that they are, no doubt, committing.

    The Minister made a number of important points, but will she set out clearly the steps that the Government are taking, crucially to gain the evidence to document these incidents? She mentioned the role of the Metropolitan police and other initiatives. What are we learning from past examples, particularly in the Balkans and elsewhere, about what we can do to ensure that evidence is collected and collated so that people can be brought to justice? How are we working with human rights organisations and others? What is her assessment of access for such organisations? Will she back Labour’s call for a special tribunal so that all war crimes, including the crime of aggression, can be prosecuted? Will she explain the detail of how humanitarian aid is being used in particular to support women in crossing the borders?

    We have heard concerning reports about cuts to health and conflict in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which are crucial areas that affect the situation for women and girls. Will she assure us that they will not take place? Labour will always support what it takes to protect victims of sexual violence in Britain and Ukraine and across the world.

  • Vicky Ford – 2022 Statement on Russian Armed Forces Raping Woman in Ukraine

    Vicky Ford – 2022 Statement on Russian Armed Forces Raping Woman in Ukraine

    The statement made by Vicky Ford, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, in the House of Commons on 31 March 2022.

    On 24 February, Russia launched a premeditated and wholly unprovoked invasion into Ukraine. Since then, we have been horrified by reports of rape and sexual violence committed by Russian armed forces in Ukraine. We have been clear that Russia’s barbaric acts must be investigated and those responsible held to account. Let us be clear: indiscriminate attacks against innocent civilians amount to war crimes for which the Putin regime must be held accountable.

    That is why the Government worked with partners to refer the situation in Ukraine to the International Criminal Court, to establish a commission of inquiry through the UN Human Rights Council with the support of Ukraine, and to establish an Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe mission of experts. We brought allies together to expedite an ICC investigation into the situation in Ukraine through state party referral. With 37 countries joining the UK, it was the largest referral in the ICC’s history. The international community is isolating Putin on the world stage.

    It is vital that the ICC is able to carry out that investigation, which is why the UK will provide military, policing and financial support to help to uncover evidence of such crimes and ultimately seek justice. On 24 March, we announced an additional £1 million of funding for the ICC to help to uncover evidence of war crimes and we are providing UK experts to support the investigation.

    Sadly, rape in war is not new. Before the war started in Ukraine, the Foreign Secretary committed the UK to do more to tackle sexual violence in conflict, including, but not limited to, its use as a method of warfare. We are working with countries and international partners to strengthen the international response. All options are on the table, including a new international convention that would help to hold perpetrators to account.

    The UK continues to act decisively with its allies to punish the Putin regime for its unprovoked aggression against Ukraine, and we will do all we can to bring the perpetrators of war crimes, including sexual violence, to justice.

  • Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (30/03/2022)

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (30/03/2022)

    The statement made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 30 March 2022.

    Dear Ukrainians!

    Today I have few words, not much time, a lot of emotions and even more tasks. It is that kind of moment. A turning point, when we can and should talk only about the most important thing.

    Yes, there is an ongoing negotiation process. But these are still words. So far no specifics.

    There are also other words about the alleged withdrawal of Russian troops from Kyiv and Chernihiv. About the alleged reduction of activity of occupiers in these directions. We know that this is not a withdrawal, but the consequences of exile. Consequences of the work of our defenders. But we also see that at the same time there is an accumulation of Russian troops for new strikes in Donbas. And we are preparing for this.

    We do not believe anyone – we do not trust any beautiful verbal constructions. There is a real situation on the battlefield. And now – this is the most important thing. We will not give up anything. And we will fight for every meter of our land, for every our person.

    In the current situation of our state, there should be no such discussions to which society and our politicians are accustomed in peacetime.

    If someone pretends to be able to teach our Armed Forces how to fight, how to resist the enemy, the best way to do it is to go to the battlefield directly.

    Not from a chair at home or from the place where you left for safety. But from the area of real hostilities. If you are not ready for this, you should not even start teaching our defenders.

    Today was a very active diplomatic day for me. A difficult one. Priorities are known. There are three of them: weapons for Ukraine, new sanctions against Russia and financial support for our state.

    A conversation took place with US President Biden. Very detailed, lasted an hour.

    Of course, I thanked the United States for a new $ 1 billion humanitarian aid package and additional $ 500 million in direct budget support. And I stressed that right now is a turning point.

    I told President Biden what Ukraine needs. And I was as sincere as possible with him. The support of the United States is vital for us. And now it is especially important to lend a hand to Ukraine, to show all the power of the democratic world.

    And if we want to fight for freedom together, then we ask our partners … And if we really fight for freedom and protection for democracies together, then we have the right to demand help in this crucial difficult moment. Tanks, planes, artillery systems… Freedom must be armed no worse than tyranny.

    I also spoke about this today in an address to the Norwegian parliament and people. To one of the states that supported us significantly. I called for more help to Ukraine. With weapons and sanctions against Russia as well.

    I spoke today with the President of Egypt and the Crown Prince of the United Arab Emirates. I have done, am doing and will do my best so that our people can defend themselves until justice is restored.

    On Ukrainian soil and in the Black Sea region. This is our fundamental interest. This is our survival. It is for the survival of the Ukrainian people that we are now fighting. In this war, without exaggeration, the Patriotic War against Russia.

    And now I want to mention a few more important things.

    First. There are those who work together with everyone to defend the state. So that Ukraine can gain its future. We appreciate the work of each such person. And there are those who waste time and work only to stay in office. Today I signed the first decree to recall such a person. Such an Ambassador of Ukraine. From Morocco. The Ambassador from Georgia was also recalled.

    With all due respect: if there are no weapons, no sanctions, no restrictions for Russian business – please look for another job.

    I look forward to concrete results in the coming days from our representatives in Latin America, the Middle East, Southeast Asia and Africa.

    I expect the same results from military attaches in the coming days. The diplomatic frontline is one of the key frontlines. And everyone there must work as efficiently as possible to win and help the army. Each on the diplomatic frontline must work just as each of our defenders on the battlefield.

    And the second point. Traditionally, today, before delivering this address, at the request of the Commander-in-Chief, I signed a decree on state awards to our military. 122 defenders, 23 of them posthumously.

    Eternal memory to all who died for Ukraine!

    Eternal glory to all our heroes!

    Glory to Ukraine!

  • Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (29/03/2022)

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (29/03/2022)

    The statement made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 29 March 2022.

    Wise people of a strong country!

    The 34th day of the full-scale invasion of Russia and our full-scale defense is coming to an end. Successful defense.

    I’m sure you saw the news today that the Russian military command allegedly decided to “reduce hostilities in the directions of Kyiv and Chernihiv.”

    Well, the same can be said about Chornobaivka – as if the Russian aviation simply decided to fly less, and the Russian military vehicles – to drive less. I am grateful to all our defenders, to all those who ensure the defense of Kyiv. It is their brave and effective actions that force the enemy to retreat in this direction.

    However, we should not lose vigilance. The situation has not become easier. The scale of the challenges has not diminished. The Russian army still has significant potential to continue attacks against our state. They still have a lot of equipment and enough people completely deprived of rights whom they can send to the cauldron of war.

    Therefore, we stay alert and do not reduce our defense efforts. Both in the north of our state and in all other regions of Ukraine, where Russian troops have temporarily entered. The defense of Ukraine is the number one task now, and everything else is derived from it.

    It is on this basis that I consider the messages on the negotiation process, which is underway at various levels with representatives of the Russian Federation.

    The enemy is still in our territory. The shelling of our cities continues. Mariupol is blocked. Missile and air strikes do not stop. This is the reality. These are the facts.

    That is why the Armed Forces of Ukraine, our intelligence and all those who have joined the defense of the state are the only guarantee of our survival today. As a nation. As a state.

    The guarantee that works.

    Yes, we can call positive the signals we hear from the negotiating platform. But these signals do not silence the explosion of Russian shells.

    Of course, we see all the risks. Of course, we see no reason to trust the words of certain representatives of a state that continues to fight for our destruction. Ukrainians are not naive people. Ukrainians have already learned during these 34 days of invasion and over the past eight years of the war in Donbas that only a concrete result can be trusted. The facts – if they change on our land.

    Of course, Ukraine is willing to negotiate and will continue the negotiation process. To the extent that really depends on us. We expect to get the result. There must be real security for us, for our state, for sovereignty, for our people. Russian troops must leave the occupied territories. Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity must be guaranteed. There can be no compromise on sovereignty and our territorial integrity. And there will not be any.

    These are clear principles. This is a clear vision of the possible outcome. And to those on social networks who perceive words as if they are facts already, I want to remind one thing: we live in a democratic state and fight for our freedom. For freedom for our people.

    Therefore, any decisions that are important for all our people must be made not by one person or a group of people with any political views, but by all our people. The wise people of Ukraine.

    And certain countries should not even expect that certain negotiations will facilitate the lifting of sanctions against the Russian Federation. The question of sanctions cannot even be raised until the war is over, until we get back what’s ours and until we restore justice.

    On the contrary, sanctions must be strengthened. Intensified weekly. And they must be effective. Not just for headlines in the media that sanctions have been imposed, but for real peace. Real.

    And to ensure this, a team of Ukrainian and international experts has already begun work to assess the effectiveness of the sanctions imposed on Russia. On the Ukrainian side, this area is coordinated by Head of the President’s Office Andriy Yermak, and on the international side by Michael McFaul.

    During the day the rescue operation was ongoing in Mykolaiv. The debris of the building of the regional administration destroyed by Russian missile strikes was dismantled. As of now, 8 people have been reported killed and 30 wounded. It is likely that these are not final figures.

    The Russian troops hit Mykolaiv very insidiously. At a time when people came to their workplaces in the morning. Thank God, most of those in the building managed to evacuate when they heard an air alarm.

    This one more act of the Russian so-called denazification of Mykolaiv took place in the morning after the anniversary of liberation of the city from Nazi invaders. Mykolaiv residents remember the day of March 28, 1944. And they see who the Russian troops trying to capture their city now look like.

    I spoke about Mykolaiv today in my address to the Danish Parliament and the Danish people. I invited the society of this country to take part in the reconstruction of the city and the region after the war. In the framework of our program of Ukraine’s reconstruction, we involve partner states, leading companies and the best specialists in order to guarantee the speed and quality of the reconstruction of our state.

    As I was told, this proposal was very positively received in Denmark.

    There is also important news from our government officials. As of today, the new functionality of our “Diia” state service will be available. As I promised, the state will compensate for the loss of a house or apartment as a result of hostilities. Every citizen of ours can already submit an application in “Diia”.

    Applications are already available in the mobile application. You need to update the app to see this new service. And in a week it will be available offline – in the centers of administrative services. In itself, the functionality in “Diia” is quite convenient. But all the necessary details will still be clarified by our government.

    The main thing is that the state will compensate for every meter of lost real estate.

    In addition, government officials today expanded the program to help those institutions that support IDPs from the areas of hostilities.

    Another important decision was to allocate 426 million hryvnias to pay the miners’ salaries.

    Traditionally, I signed several important decrees before delivering this evening address. The first is about awarding communications service employees. I am sincerely grateful to everyone who provides the fundamental basis of our lives. Who gives us connection.

    By the way, on the day of the beginning of the Russian invasion, the first missile strike in the JFO area was made against them.

    12 people were awarded state awards, 4 – posthumously.

    The second signed decree is on awarding 126 servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, 34 of them – posthumously.

    We will always be grateful to each of our defenders for the defense of our state in the Ukrainian Patriotic War against Russia.

    May the memory of everyone who gave life for Ukraine live forever!

    Glory to each of our heroes!

    Glory to Ukraine!

  • Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (28/03/2022)

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (28/03/2022)

    The statement made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 28 March 2022.

    Wise people of a strong country!

    Today we have good news. Our defenders are advancing in the Kyiv region, regaining control over Ukrainian territory.

    Irpin was liberated. Well done! I am grateful to everyone who worked for this result. The occupiers are pushed away from Irpin. Pushed away from Kyiv.

    However, it is too early to talk about security in this part of our region. The fighting continues.

    Russian troops control the north of Kyiv region, have the resources and manpower. They are trying to restore the destroyed units. The level of their losses, even at 90%, is not an argument for them to stop. Hundreds and hundreds of units of burned and abandoned enemy equipment do not convince them that this will happen to everyone.

    Chernihiv, Sumy, Kharkiv regions, Donbas, southern Ukraine – the situation everywhere remains tense, very difficult.

    This is a ruthless war against our nation, against our people, against our children.

    As of today, 143 children are known to have died. Mariupol remains blocked. Russian troops did not allow any humanitarian corridor to be organized today, they did not allow “silence”. Therefore, the situation must now be perceived in a balanced, wise way. As much as possible. Without excessive euphoria from success. But also without getting yourself worked up. We still need time. We still need weapons. We still have to fight, we have to be patient. We can’t burn emotions right now. We can’t set expectations too high. Just so as not to burn out.

    I spoke with the leaders of the partner countries. It was a very active diplomatic day.

    Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Johnson, Prime Minister of Canada Trudeau, Chancellor of Germany Scholz, Prime Minister of Italy Draghi and President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev.

    We agreed with Britain to further support our defense and strengthen sanctions against the Russian Federation. Canada also supports a tougher response from the world to the catastrophe created by Russian troops in Ukrainian cities.

    In a conversation with German Chancellor Scholz, I also paid considerable attention to the need to increase sanction pressure on Russia.

    I thanked the President of Azerbaijan for the humanitarian support provided to Ukraine, informed about the state of affairs in the territories where Russian troops entered.

    Italy has agreed to become one of the guarantors of Ukraine’s security in the relevant new system of guarantees that we are elaborating.

    I will continue this activity tomorrow. I will talk to other world leaders. I will work with international organizations, with the nations of Europe and the world.

    Ukraine cannot and will not agree with the passive sanctions position of some entities towards Russia. There should be no “suspended” sanctions packages – that if the Russian troops do something, then there will be some answer…

    We went through this story last year when we said that strong preventive sanctions against Russia were needed to prevent an invasion. The preventive package was not made. A full-scale war has begun. There are now many hints and warnings that sanctions will be tightened, such as an embargo on Russian oil supplies to Europe, if Russia uses chemical weapons. There are simply no words.

    Just think about what it all came down to. Waiting for chemical weapons… We, living people, have to wait… Doesn’t everything that the Russian military is doing and has already done deserve an oil embargo? Don’t phosphorus bombs deserve that? Don’t the shelled chemical production or nuclear power plant deserve that?

    It is important for us that the sanctions packages are effective and substantial enough, given what is already being done against Ukraine by the Russian Federation.

    If the sanctions packages are weak or do not work enough, if they can be circumvented, it creates a dangerous illusion for the Russian leadership that they can continue to afford what they are doing now. And Ukrainians pay for it with their lives. Thousands of lives.

    Therefore, starting this week, we are creating a group of experts at the President’s Office – Ukrainian and international, who will constantly analyze the sanctions against Russia – what they really influence.

    Our goal is for the sanctions to work as intended. And so that there is no possibility to circumvent them. This must be a goal for the whole democratic world, without exception. No exception.

    During the week I will speak in the parliaments of the partner countries: Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Greece, Australia. It is important that these are speeches not only in front of politicians, but also in front of societies.

    In front of millions of people who want to hear Ukraine and are ready to hear it to help and support. Who feel that we are fighting for our common freedom. One for all people on our earth.

    I will emphasize everywhere that no one has the right to use the lives of Ukrainians to save any income in Russia or income common with Russia. And Ukrainians should not die just because someone cannot find enough courage to hand over the necessary weapons to Ukraine.

    Fear always makes you an accomplice. If someone is afraid of Russia, if he or she is afraid to make the necessary decisions that are important to us, in particular for us to get planes, tanks, necessary artillery, shells, it makes these people responsible for the catastrophe created by Russian troops in our cities, too.

    Because if you could save, you had to save.

    The peoples of Europe, the peoples of the world will definitely hear and support me. And all politicians should think now what they will have left if they do not correspond to the position of their people.

    And finally. Already traditional.

    Just before delivering this address to you, dear Ukrainians, I signed two important decrees on awarding servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with state awards. At the request of our Commander-in-Chief, 302 of our defenders are awarded.

    I am grateful to all of you for your service!

    Glory to all our heroes!

    Glory to Ukraine!

  • Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (28/03/2022)

    Volodymyr Zelenskyy – 2022 Statement on the Situation in Ukraine (28/03/2022)

    The statement made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the President of Ukraine, on 28 March 2022.

    Strong people of our strong country!

    Today is the day when we see again and again how far we are from the Russian Federation. Imagine, they were frightened there in Moscow because of my interview to Russian journalists. To those of them who can afford to tell the truth. When journalists were preparing to publish our interview – and we spoke with them this afternoon – the Russian censorship agency came out with a threat. That’s what they wrote – they demand not to publish the conversation. It would be ridiculous if it wasn’t so tragic.

    They destroyed freedom of speech in their state, they are trying to destroy the neighboring state. They portray themselves as global players. And they themselves are afraid of a relatively short conversation with several journalists.

    Well, if there is such a reaction, then we are doing everything right, then they are nervous. Apparently, they have seen that their citizens have more and more questions about the state of affairs in their country.

    The maximum contrast is my conversation with our favorite Ukrainian TV media representatives. I held a zoom conference with almost five hundred of our media representatives who are creating a telethon “United News”. I am grateful to them.

    Although we were limited in time, we talked quite thoroughly. I felt that everyone cares about Ukraine, cares about us and you, cares about our future. I wrote down a lot of questions and suggestions – we will work them out.

    Today I supported the global marathon for peace in Ukraine. Not just a television one. In dozens of cities around the world, people gathered in support of our state, in support of freedom. That’s a pleasure!

    An impressive number of people in the squares of Europe, on other continents. And this is extremely important. Because when people are in the square, politicians will no longer pretend not to hear us and you, not to hear Ukraine.

    I will continue to appeal to the parliaments of other countries. The week is planned to be very busy from a diplomatic point of view. Therefore, no one will be able to hide the Ukrainian interest somewhere in political offices or in bureaucratic loopholes.

    We will not let anyone forget about our cities, about Mariupol and other Ukrainian cities that the Russian militaries are destroying. More and more people in the world are on the side of Ukraine, on the side of good in this battle with evil. And if politicians don’t know how to follow people, we will teach them. This is the basis of democracy and our national character.

    Once again I want to thank our people in Kherson, Kakhovka, Slavutych and other cities who do not stop resisting the occupiers. If the occupiers had temporarily entered Ukrainian cities, it only means that they would have to leave.

    And I want to remind those phenomenal fools who are trying to cooperate with Russian troops that they are leaving their own people behind. What will they do to other people’s traitors? I would tell them: think about it. But I know that these people don’t have anything to think with. Otherwise they would not have become traitors.

    Of course, this week we will work for new sanctions against the Russian Federation, against the aggression, sanctions that are needed as long as Russian troops remain on the territory of Ukraine.

    A new round of negotiations is ahead, because we are looking for peace. Really. Without delay. As I was informed, there is an opportunity and a need for a face-to-face meeting already in Turkey. This is not bad. Let’s look at the result.

    Our priorities in the negotiations are known. Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are beyond doubt. Effective security guarantees for our state are mandatory. Our goal is obvious – peace and the restoration of normal life in our native state as soon as possible.

    The Armed Forces of our state are holding back the occupiers, and in some areas they are even taking steps forward. Well done. The courage of our defenders, how wisely they behave on the battlefield… This is so important that no words of gratitude will be enough. But again and again I never tire of thanking. To each of our defenders… To all who fight for our future, for our children, for our people.

    I signed decrees conferring the title of Hero of Ukraine upon 15 servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, 3 of them posthumously.

    As well as a decree on state awards to 142 servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and 5 servicemen of the Department of State Protection of Ukraine.

    It is a great honor for me to sign such decrees.

    May the memory of all our heroes live forever. May the memory of everyone who gave life for Ukraine, for us, live forever.

    Glory to you all!

    Glory to all our heroes!

    Glory to Ukraine!

  • Brendan O’Hara – 2022 Speech on Lord Lebedev Joining the House of Lords

    Brendan O’Hara – 2022 Speech on Lord Lebedev Joining the House of Lords

    The speech made by Brendan O’Hara, the SNP MP for Argyll and Bute, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2022.

    I shall heed the warning about moderation and good temper, which I am sure my SNP colleagues would say is in my DNA and runs through me like the writing in a stock of rock. Should I stray, I am sure that you would bring me back into line, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    I was fascinated by the start of the Minister’s speech and I tried to intervene, but he would not take my multiple attempts to do so. When he got to his feet, he began by questioning the appropriateness of the Opposition holding such a debate on this topic. Literally minutes before he questioned how appropriate it was, Lord Lebedev said:

    “There’s a war in Europe”—

    hon. Members will recognise the phrase—

    “Britain is facing the highest cost of living since the 1950s. And you choose to debate me based on no facts and pure innuendo.”

    That was precisely the Minister’s opening gambit, which prompts the question: did he write the Minister’s speech or did the Minister write his tweet?

    That assertion was absurd, because we have come to learn, often through painful experience in this place, that when this Government and this Prime Minister assure us that there is nothing to see, it is wise to keep looking. That is why we fully support the motion and why, when the House divides, we will vote for the Government to hand over all documents, all minutes of meetings and all electronic communications containing or relating to the advice that they received about the appointment of Evgeny Lebedev to the House of Lords.

    I reiterate in the strongest possible terms that today’s debate is absolutely not about being Russophobic, as the Minister would shamefully have us believe. He said that to try to throw up a smokescreen cover for his beleaguered Prime Minister, and it does the Prime Minister and this House no service whatever to try to suggest otherwise. As has been said many, many times in this Chamber, our fight is not with the ordinary Russian citizen, but with Putin, his political leadership in the Kremlin and his friends, including the oligarch billionaires who have plundered Russia’s wealth and resources and shipped them overseas, all too often to the UK and the City of London. Once they were in the UK, those billionaire oligarchs found many people in business and politics who, in return for their slice of the cake, were only too willing to facilitate the kleptocracy by hiding the oligarchs’ plunder for them while providing them with what they desired most: a cloak of respectability.

    The UK’s willingness to welcome vast amounts of Russian money with very few questions asked about the source of that wealth means that there are now many Russians with close links to Putin who are very well integrated into the UK and who simply, because of that enormous wealth, have attained significant influence among the UK’s business, social and political elites.

    Since this Prime Minister came into office in 2019, £2.3 million of Russian-linked cash has been funnelled directly into the Conservative party. That has happened to such an extent that even the Intelligence and Security Committee raised serious concerns about undue influence being sought and, indeed, gained by friends of President Putin with the UK governing party.

    That influence of dirty Russian money has not gone unnoticed abroad. Professor Sadiq Isah Radda, the most senior adviser to Nigeria’s President on all matters of anti-corruption, described London as

    “the most notorious safe haven for looted funds in the world today”.

    That is where we currently are in the world standings.

    In January this year, as Putin prepared to invade Ukraine, the Centre for American Progress warned the City of London that

    “uprooting Kremlin-linked oligarchs will be a challenge given the close ties between Russian money and the United Kingdom’s ruling Conservative party, the press, and its real estate and financial industry”.

    It was always going to be the case that when Putin finally did unleash his illegal war in Ukraine, the UK would be forced to look at our role and how we have facilitated his gangster regime.

    Stewart Hosie

    My hon. Friend will have noticed that the Minister described the motion as a misuse of powers, implied that it would impede the Prime Minister in his constitutional role and argued that it is about a witch hunt against a single person. Is the truth not that the motion is about allowing us to understand whether or not the process of appointment has been corrupted? As my hon. Friend has mentioned Russian money, can he throw some light on why the Minister has doubled down on those ridiculous arguments?

    Brendan O’Hara

    Perhaps the Minister could reply for himself. I have no idea why he would double down on those ridiculous arguments.

    My right hon. Friend is right that this is not about an individual. It is about a corruption of process, and that was always going to lead us to a re-examination of the Prime Minister’s decision to send Evgeny Lebedev to the House of Lords for philanthropy and services to the media, as he put it. As we have heard, Mr Lebedev is a Russian businessman who derives his enormous wealth from his father, Alexander Lebedev, a former London-based KGB spy turned oligarch who still has investments in illegally occupied Crimea. At the start of this month, The New York Times said of Evgeny:

    “Nobody is a better example of the cozy ties between Russians and the establishment than Mr. Lebedev.”

    Just how cosy that relationship is can be seen from the fact that the British Prime Minister personally campaigned for a peerage to turn plain old Evgeny into Baron Lebedev, of Hampton in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames and of Siberia in the Russian Federation, for the rest of his life.

    I could go on about the absurdity of the House of Lords—the absurdity of a so-called democratic Parliament having an unelected upper Chamber into which family chieftains, high-ranking clerics of one denomination, failed and retired politicians and those with deep pockets who are prepared to bankroll a political party are thrust—but I will resist.

    Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)

    I make it clear that I have never met Lord Lebedev; I do not think I have ever been in the same room as him—but Dmitry Muratov has. He is editor-in-chief of Novaya Gazeta, an independent newspaper in Russia. The House will remember that he is also a Nobel peace laureate. He has said:

    “The narrative being peddled in parts of the British media about him and his family is not only misjudged but actively dangerous. I urge you to consider who benefits from such untruths being told about a family that is known to be vocally critical of the Kremlin.”

    Is the Scottish National party doing the same thing?

    Brendan O’Hara

    With the greatest respect, we most certainly are not. If this Government are so scared of shining a light that has to be shone, at this of all times, there will be accusations of a cover-up and a belief that there is something to be hidden—something that this Government do not want seen. The debate today is all about allowing transparency. That is what this House should be all about, but unfortunately the Government and Conservative Members seem to be terrified of it.

    Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)

    The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. Is not the real concern that the Prime Minister seemingly ignored Security Service advice? That is the issue. We do not make criticism of appointing the person as a peer; the concern is that the Prime Minister ignored security advice and appointed him despite that advice.

    Brendan O’Hara

    The hon. Member is absolutely right. This is about why the Prime Minister chose to ignore the advice of the security services, but there is also a hugely important back story about what got us into the position where he did so, and the implications of that.

    Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)

    My point is a rather similar one: if there was no problem with Lebedev being appointed as a peer and if the guidance from the security services was benign, what is the problem with scrutiny of that advice, which would put to rest all the concerns that people have?

    Brendan O’Hara

    That is right. A theme appears to be emerging on this side of the House. All we want to do is see what was there. All we want is to be reassured that the advice of the security services was not ignored, and that the appointment of Lord Lebedev was above board and beyond reproach. I do not think that, in a democratic system, that is too much for the House to ask.

    As Putin’s army continues to commit its war crimes in Ukraine, we have to get to the bottom of how a man with such close connections to the Kremlin was parachuted into this Parliament. We have to establish exactly what advice was given to the Prime Minister by the security and intelligence services in the summer of 2020, and whether or not he chose to overrule that advice, or sought to alter it in any way, in order to get the outcome that he required.

    We know that this was not a straightforward appointment. It could not possibly have been, particularly since, almost a decade ago, the head of MI6, Sir John Sawers, made it clear that he did not consider it at all appropriate for Mr Lebedev, then the owner of the Evening Standard and The Independent, to join him at MI6 headquarters for lunch. Advisers to the Prime Minister would have known for years of those security service concerns, and one would have hoped that an aspiring politician—or an aspiring Prime Minister—might be wary of becoming too close to Mr Lebedev, but that was not the case. It would appear that in return for favourable headlines in the Evening Standard, Mr Lebedev gained access to the centre of power in the Conservative party, and, particularly after 2019, the centre of the UK Government itself.

    Surely Mr Lebedev’s very public utterings about the illegal annexation of Crimea should have set alarm bells ringing in the Conservative party. Did no one in the Conservative party hear or take notice of him calling on western Governments to “stop cold war rhetoric” when they condemned Russia for its aggression in Crimea? Did no one notice his justification that because Crimea had been Russian “for many years”, this was not something to get overly upset about? Did his claim in 2014 that Russia would not be making

    “any further incursions into any land”

    fall on deaf ears?

    The clues were all there, if people chose to look for them. On Syria, Mr Lebedev said that Putin had “shown leadership” in the conflict, and urged the west to accept his offer of a coalition. He followed that up by saying, “Let us keep Assad in power”, because it would be the least worst option, and he doubled down on that by saying:

    “On this point I am emphatically with Putin.”

    The list is endless. Where was the condemnation of the events surrounding the poisoning of Sergei Skripal, and how in the name of the wee man did our Prime Minister end up having an off-the-record talk with Lord Lebedev—or Evgeny Lebedev, as he was then—48 hours after the Skripal poisonings?

    Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)

    Will the hon. Gentleman at least concede that it was the Conservative Government who led a very robust international effort to respond to the Skripal poisonings, and that the Labour party was, at that time, led by someone who refused to condemn them?

    Brendan O’Hara

    The Skripal poisonings fit into this debate beautifully, because the fact is that an off-the-record meeting was held between the Prime Minister and Mr Lebedev within 48 hours, at the time of an international crisis, and we do not know why. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I thought that Members wished to intervene, but they are just chuntering.

    Mr Lebedev and the Prime Minister socialised. They are widely known to have socialised in Mr Lebedev’s castles in Italy and elsewhere, and in London regularly. Mr Lebedev was present in 2016 at the private dinner when the now Prime Minister decided he was going to back the Brexit campaign. I have no idea what Mr Lebedev’s view on Brexit is, but I do know that, in the year before, he wrote this in his newspaper:

    “I have no doubt, based on conversations with senior figures in Moscow, that the Kremlin wants to make an ally rather than an enemy of Britain. And I also believe that it is in Britain’s best interest not only to work constructively with Moscow, but to be an active, engaged player on the world stage.”

    I opened this speech by saying that when the Government tell us there is “nothing to see here”, we should keep looking. The danger here, however, is that there is almost too much to see to make sense of. We know that the Prime Minister has been absolutely compromised by his relationship with Lord Lebedev. The public have a right to know if the Prime Minister gave an individual a seat for life in this Parliament against the advice of the security services. Desperately not wanting that to be the case is no reason for Conservative Members to block the release of this material. If there is nothing untoward, the Government should publish the material and put the matter to bed for once and for all. Then we could let Baron Lebedev return to doing hee-haw in the other place, as he has done with aplomb since he arrived there 18 months ago.

  • Michael Ellis – 2022 Speech on Lord Lebedev Joining the House of Lords

    Michael Ellis – 2022 Speech on Lord Lebedev Joining the House of Lords

    The speech made by Michael Ellis, the Paymaster General, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2022.

    Let me first address the situation in Ukraine. President Volodymyr Zelensky has spoken of the Prime Minister and people of the United Kingdom as being among his greatest allies, and the Kremlin has spoken of the United Kingdom as a leading opponent. I am proud of that position, and we will continue to support Ukraine—as I know will the whole House—and the courageous people of that sovereign and independent country.

    The motion before the House calls on the Government to release advice provided by or to the House of Lords Appointments Commission, and relevant communications thereto. The Government regret today’s motion for any number of reasons—I will come on to those—but particularly because, for the first time in many decades there is a war in Europe, and there are many pressing domestic concerns and issues. It is somewhat surprising that the Opposition have brought forward for discussion this afternoon an ad hominem attack on a single individual.

    Although Parliament has unlimited power to call for papers, persons and records, historically the House has exercised restraint in the use of that power, and for good reason. That the motion seeks not to show restraint is, in my submission, unfortunate. I accept that Parliament has a vital scrutiny role and should use its power to facilitate it, but that does not extend to making use of the procedures of this place to single out an individual by making unsavoury and ad hominem attacks of the kind we have heard and will be hearing this afternoon.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Michael Ellis

    Before I give way, which I will be happy to do, may I gently point out to the Opposition that—and I say this in all candour—they ought to be careful of intolerant messaging? Not all Russians are our enemy. Many British citizens of Russian extraction came to this country with a view to an opposition to President Putin. People cancelling Tchaikovsky concerts is not appropriate, and Labour seeking to whip up anti-Russian feeling or casting all persons of Russian extraction in a negative light is wrong.

    Furthermore, the disclosure of the information sought here today would undermine the very role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. Labour is asking for something that would break the appointments process in the House of Lords. It would chip away at the careful vetting procedures and the exchange of information that necessarily has to be discreet.

    Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)

    Will the Minister give way?

    Michael Ellis

    If I may, I will just finish this thought.

    Let us not forget that the commission of which we are speaking is independent, expert, advisory, and cross-party, with Labour, Liberal and Conservative members, and it was set up by Tony Blair and the Labour party in the year 2000—more than 20 years ago.

    Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)

    On the Minister’s point about Labour being Russophobic, I lived and worked in Russia for three years as director of the British Council in St Petersburg, and we worked every day with ordinary Russians—good people—who want that country to be a normal country connected to the rest of the world. The people we are talking about today are not ordinary Russians. We are talking about a former KGB spy and the woman who was married to a former deputy Finance Minister who has given millions of pounds to the Conservative party. I humbly ask the Minister to withdraw the comment about Russophobia. We have no problem with the Russian people; we have a big problem with what he is talking about today.

    Michael Ellis

    No, I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. In fact, the noble Lord who is the subject of this debate is not a Conservative party donor and never has been, so the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong on all those fronts. The motion before the House today is what I have said it is.

    Shaun Bailey

    Further to the point of the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), I wonder whether my right hon. Friend and learned Friend could give me his thoughts on this tweet that has just come through, which contains this from the Leader of the Opposition:

    “Congratulations on your elevation to the House of Lords. All best wishes, Keir”?

    Is what is good for the goose good for the gander? What does the Minister think about that?

    Michael Ellis

    It has been mentioned that Lord Lebedev has been tweeting this afternoon, and I understand that he has tweeted in the past few minutes that the Leader of the Opposition congratulated him on his appointment as a peer. That must be rather embarrassing for the Labour party.

    Matt Western

    I sometimes think that the Minister must be the Derek Underwood of the Front Bench in that he is the nightwatchman defending the indefensible.

    As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) just said, we are clearly talking about someone with huge influence who has worked closely with the Prime Minister and collaborated in delivering certain election victories for him as the Mayor of London.

    Michael Ellis

    Lord Lebedev is a British citizen of Russian extraction who, I understand, had his primary and secondary education in this country. I see no logic in the Labour party’s assessment.

    In order to put this issue in its true context, it is necessary to remind hon. Members of the process for nominations for peerages. The power to confer a peerage, with the entitlement to sit in the House of Lords, is vested in Her Majesty the Queen and is exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister. It is a long-established feature of our constitutional arrangements. The Prime Minister is ultimately responsible to Parliament, as he is in all matters, and to the people of the country for any nominations he makes.

    Two events have served to shape that process. First, the House of Lords Act 1999 ended the right of hereditary peers to pass membership of the other place down through their families. Secondly, the House of Lords Appointments Commission was created in May 2000—under Labour, which now wishes to break it—and it recommends individuals for appointment as non-party political life peers, such as those on the Cross Benches, and has political representation from the three parties within its members. The vetting process is at the heart of its work. The commission seeks to ensure the highest standards of propriety, and I include party political nominees within that.

    It does not apply in the instant case, but it should not be a matter of opprobrium that somebody be a party political supporter. Labour has hundreds of peers in the House of Lords. The Liberal Democrats have some 83 peers despite them having barely enough Members of Parliament to fill a minicab. There is nothing wrong with having a political affiliation.

    The House of Lords Appointments Commission seeks advice from a number of sources during its deliberations. Any time we ask any independent advisory body to obtain advice, and it does so discreetly and in confidence, if we seek to break that process, said body will not be able to function. Once all the evidence has been considered, the commission will either advise the Prime Minister that it has no concerns about an appointment or will draw its concerns to the Prime Minister’s attention. It is a long-standing position that it is for the Prime Minister of the day to recommend appointments to the House of Lords. For that reason, the Prime Minister continues to place great weight on the commission’s careful and considered advice before making any recommendations. That arrangement has served successive Prime Ministers of both parties but, as in other areas, they must carefully balance a range of evidence.

    Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)

    I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to a Liberal Democrat, few as we are. Nevertheless, I draw his attention to another tweet from Lord Lebedev:

    “Openness and transparency are pillars of our democratic system, so I welcome the call for security advice about me…to be released. I have nothing to hide.”

    The Minister is highlighting the fact that the appointment was questioned by that commission, so I do not see his argument, because it sounds like there were concerns. If Lord Lebedev has nothing to hide and the commission made its recommendation, that prompts the question: what do the Government have to hide?

    Michael Ellis

    I thank the hon. Lady for asking that question. This is not about any one individual. The Opposition are seeking it to be about one individual who cannot answer for himself in this House, which is wrong. The Government are seeking to protect the system, so even if Lord Lebedev has said that he does not mind, it is not, with the greatest respect, only about him; this is about protecting the system, because the House of Lords Appointments Commission would not be able to function.

    The Leader of the Opposition wrote to the commission earlier this month and received a reply a week or two ago, which I believe is in the public domain, in which it outlined the process and did not highlight any problems. The reality is that the Government are seeking to protect a system that has worked well for 22 years, so I ask the House to bear that in mind.

    Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)

    The Minister has said that the House of Lords Appointments Commission takes a variety of information from a variety of sources and organisations. That is perfectly reasonable. Is he suggesting, however, that the opinions or information of the intelligence services should somehow be of less importance than information from another body?

    Michael Ellis

    No, I am not suggesting anything of the sort. In fact, I have no personal knowledge of those from whom the commission obtains its information. It is for the commission, which has Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat and independent members, to make its own judgments, and we heard from the commission in the letter I mentioned, which I think was from Lord Bew.

    Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)

    Quite rightly, we should be concerned about Russian money coming into our political system, but my right hon. and learned Friend at the Dispatch Box is right in what he says. We really should point out who the Prime Minister was who let the fox into the chicken coup. Who was it, for instance, in 2003 when Roman Abramovich bought Chelsea football club? It was none other than the new Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

    Michael Ellis

    Yes, well, I will leave the House to draw its own conclusions about that.

    I have to say that the individual who is the subject of this debate is a British citizen. He happens to be of Russian extraction. I understand that he has been in this country since primary school age. It is important to emphasise that this is about British people whose ancestry and heritage should not be relevant. As the owner of a regional newspaper, I understand that the London Evening Standard has raised £300,000 for its Ukraine appeal, £3 million for its AIDSfree campaign, and £13 million for its Dispossessed fund for persons in poverty in London and the Grenfell tragedy. I think that is something to be applauded.

    Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)

    Let us just get this right: this Lord Lebedev is educated here at primary school and senior school, he does not donate to political parties, he donates to charities and he is a good citizen. That lot over there on the Opposition Benches do not want to be involved in democracy. Is it the case that they just do not like foreign names? [Interruption.]

    Michael Ellis

    Well, I will invite the House to draw its own conclusion. [Interruption.]

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    Order. I did say at the beginning that we must have good temper in this debate. Shouting at the Minister or anyone else does not help.

    Shaun Bailey

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In a bit of chuntering from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), she referred to this as the most xenophobic Conservative party. Can I just say to the hon. Lady that I am certainly not a xenophobe and I take real exception to that? I invite her to withdraw those comments. [Interruption.]

    Madam Deputy Speaker

    Let me make this absolutely clear: nobody in this Chamber is calling anybody xenophobic. If anybody has used phrases like that, stop it now. I am not having it repeated. I am taking it that these things have not been said, because it would be better if they have not. Now, let us keep this at the right level. There is no need for superlative insults to go from one side to the other.

    Michael Ellis

    To return to where I started, there are so many issues that affect people’s lives that we could be debating today, for example: my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s income tax cuts, the first in 16 years; the 5p cut in fuel duty; or my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary’s plans to make sure that any child who falls behind in English or maths gets the support they need to get back on track. I find it surprising, at the very least, that the Opposition have chosen this particular motion, one that, at best, would compromise the ability of an independent body, which is respected for its independence, to fulfil its mandate simply to make a short-term political point. At worst, it would be negligent of the long-term consequences to the key role of the House of Lords in scrutinising the Executive and being a revising Chamber, and the valued expertise and specialist knowledge and experience of its Members.

    Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)

    I think lots of my colleagues would say that we have tabled the motion because it gets to the heart of who we are as a country and a democracy. Given the Prime Minister’s long-term relationship with the Lebedev family, what does the Minister think it looks like not to have published the Intelligence and Security Committee report before the 2019 general election?

    Michael Ellis

    That is not relevant to this debate. I will tell the hon. Lady what this debate looks like: it looks like the Labour party is focusing on an individual because of who he is. It is doing so unfairly and improperly, and it is seeking to break a process. The reality, as we have heard, is that Labour Members have also supported this individual, socialised with him and sent him messages of support. There is nothing wrong with that. I do not criticise Labour Members if they have sent supportive text messages to Lord Lebedev. I do not criticise anyone in this House for doing so. As the owner of newspapers, no doubt he interacts with a large number of individuals, even though he is a Cross Bencher. What I criticise, and what I urge the House to exercise with considerable caution, is how it looks to attack an individual because of his heritage or because of his extraction. That is the key point.

    The other key point to make here is that confidentiality in respect of the process ensures that it operates in the interests of the Labour party and the Conservative party, and that the process of appointing peers of this realm is a fair and dutiful one. The probity and the confidence of the system would be compromised if we broke it. If we said that henceforth we cannot ask people to send in confidence their opinions of individuals whom the Leader of the Opposition or the Conservative party have put forward for a peerage, anyone would know in future that if they wrote to the commission in confidence it could then be out in the public domain. They would not do it and that would damage the process. I would have thought that is rather obvious.

    The Government believe that to ensure the ability of the commission to conduct robust vetting and to provide advice that is not compromised, the process should continue to be conducted confidentially, with disclosure at the discretion of the Prime Minister, who is ultimately responsible for making recommendations to Her Majesty on appointments to the Lords, or of the commission, as a body independent of Government and responsible for the vetting of nominations.

    Before I sit, I would like to address, if I may, the use today of the Humble Address procedure. The House itself has recognised the need for this process to be used responsibly. The Government response to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s 15th report said:

    “The Government therefore agrees with PACAC that this device should not be used irresponsibly or over-used.”

    The Procedure Committee observed in its May 2019 report:

    “The House, by its practice, has observed limitations on the power: it does not use the power to call for papers which Ministers do not have the authority to obtain, nor does it use it to obtain papers of a personal nature.”

    That is a fundamental point. Today’s motion is a breach of that process. It demonstrates why the motion is unwise and irresponsible. Motions such as the one before us today crystallise the potential tension between the use of the Humble Address procedure and the responsibility of Ministers not to release information where disclosure would not be in the public interest. We have heard it said that the particular peer himself does not mind whether that information is released, but I submit that that is irrelevant. What we seek to do is protect the process, more than the individual, and that verifies that. The responsibility of Ministers, which I take very seriously, is carefully to balance and weigh up the need for the transparency and openness that we all try to achieve against the equally important, long-standing and competing principle in respect of data protection legislation, which the motion challenges. The Government reiterated, in our response to the Procedure Committee report, the principle of restraint and caution in recognition of the importance of ensuring that the wider public interest is protected.

    Matt Western

    I thank the Minister for giving way a second time; he is being generous. I am sure we all agree how critical transparency is to our democracy. Would that in part of the process there had been any transparency in the origin or source of Lord Lebedev’s wealth, which is particularly pertinent today and has been for the past five weeks since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The Minister may refer to a message texted to Lord Lebedev 18 months ago, but that was before the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

    Michael Ellis

    Were the hon. Gentleman to look into the matter, he would find that Lord Lebedev has, through his newspapers, publicly criticised the Putin invasion of Ukraine, as one would expect him to do. He has done so on the record.

    The motion provides a saving in respect of national security considerations, in that it would allow for the redaction of material

    “for the purposes of national security.”

    For that reason, I shall not dwell on the national security considerations in depth. I remind the House that Ministers do not comment on national security issues; nevertheless, I stress that weighty public issues are in play that should not be treated lightly.

    As I say, when we balance a commitment to transparency against the protection of information when disclosure is not in the public interest, national security is one consideration that the Government must weigh up. Rather than engage in insinuation and speculation—I am afraid that is what has been happening—in respect of matters of national security that must be handled with care and caution, I emphasise that it is and always will be Her Majesty’s Government’s absolute priority to protect the United Kingdom against foreign interference.

    It is easy for those in the media or on the Opposition Benches to cast aspersions and invite people to draw assumptions. We cannot answer points about national security in detail, but I emphasise that we in the Government will always give absolute priority to the protection of the United Kingdom from foreign interference. As proof of that, I remind the House that, as announced in the Queen’s Speech, we will introduce new legislation to provide the security services and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to disrupt state threats.

    In conclusion, the passing of the motion would have long-term and damaging consequences for the system of appointments to the peerage. It would breach the principles of confidentiality that underpin the process; impugn the reputation of an independent body and damage its ability to undertake its role; and impact on the right of individuals not to have their private lives splashed across the media at the whim of the Opposition Front-Bench team.

    Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)

    If the motion is as potentially damaging as the Minister says it is, why will Government Members not vote against it this afternoon?

    Michael Ellis

    It is quite normal practice to ignore Opposition motions; they are given the careful attention they deserve. That is common practice.

    The Government regret the fact that the official Opposition have sought to use the procedures of the House to call for the release of information which, if released, would have lasting consequences and undermine the established system of appointments to the peerage. That system has served successive Governments and it is vital to preserving the commission’s ability to undertake its role.

    Shaun Bailey

    In her speech, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) articulated quite an interesting point. I tried to prise an answer out of her in my intervention, when I asked about the idea of the commission perhaps having a veto. Whether or not we disagree with that idea, does my right hon. and learned Friend not find it interesting that the Labour party will not state its definitive position on that? What is his opinion of that? Perhaps it is because Labour wants to use the existing system at some future point to benefit itself.

    Michael Ellis

    I have the feeling it will be a very long time before the Labour party is in a position to do that from the Government Benches.

    The broader point is that the privacy rights of individuals need to be protected. The information shared to facilitate the vetting process is and must be handled carefully. It would be unwelcome for this House to set a precedent that such information is released, because, as I have said, to do so could deter individuals from putting themselves forward for such positions. I urge the House to reflect on whether the motion before us accords with the principle of restraint that Parliament has characteristically applied to the use of its powers. The passing of the motion would risk compromising the ability of an independent body to perform its role and, constitutionally, would impede the role of the Prime Minister in advising the sovereign on appointments. The process is necessarily confidential and the Government think it is unwise for the House to call for such information.

  • Liz Truss – 2022 Statement on Ukraine

    Liz Truss – 2022 Statement on Ukraine

    The statement made by Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 28 March 2022.

    With permission, I want to update the House, on behalf of my Rt Hon Friend the Prime Minister, on the NATO and G7 Leaders meetings in Brussels last week.

    Together with our allies, we agreed to keep the pressure up on Putin to end his appalling war in Ukraine: through tougher sanctions to debilitate the Russian economy; supplying weapons to Ukraine and boosting NATO’s Eastern Flank; providing humanitarian aid and dealing with the wider consequences of this crisis; and supporting Ukraine in any negotiations they undertake.

    Strength is the only thing Putin understands.

    Our sanctions are pushing back the Russian economy by years.

    We owe it to the brave Ukrainians to keep up our tough approach to get peace. We owe it to ourselves to stand with them for the cause of freedom and democracy in Europe and across the world.

    It is vital we step up this pressure.

    We cannot wait for more appalling atrocities to be committed in Ukraine. We know that the impact of sanctions degrades over time.

    That is why we need to act now.

    Next week, NATO Foreign Ministers will meet to follow up on the statements of Leaders, and I will be pressing allies over the next week for all of us to do more.

    On oil and gas, the UK has already committed to end imports of Russian oil by the end of this year.

    We must agree a clear timetable with our partners across the G7 to end dependence on Russian oil and gas permanently.

    On banks, we’ve already sanctioned 16 major Russian banks. We have hit Gazprombank and we have placed a clearing prohibition on Sberbank, Russia’s largest bank. We want to see others adopt these sanctions and go further.

    On individuals, we’ve cracked down on oligarchs like Roman Abramovich. Last week we sanctioned the despicable Wagner Group of mercenaries.

    On ports, Britain has banned entry to all of our ports by Russian vessels. I will be lobbying partners across the G7 to join us in stopping Russian ships.

    We must maximise the flow of weapons that are being supplied to Ukraine under the UN Charter of self-defence.

    The UK was the first European country to start sending lethal aid to Ukraine.

    We are more than doubling our support with a further 6,000 missiles, including NLAWs and Javelin anti-tank weapons.

    And we are now equipping our Ukrainian friends with anti-aircraft Starstreak missiles.

    We are also strengthening NATO’s Eastern Flank, deploying troops to Bulgaria, and doubling the numbers in Poland and Estonia.

    We are coordinating deliveries with our allies and we want others to join us in getting Ukraine what it needs.

    The UK is providing £220 million in humanitarian support to help the people of Ukraine, from shelters to heaters to medicine.

    Today we announced our partnership with Australia to fly out more relief, including blankets, cooking equipment and power generators.

    And we are getting supplies directly into Ukraine’s encircled cities with £2 million of canned food, water and dried food.

    As refugees come into countries like Poland, we are working with the UNHCR so they are informed about the UK’s Homes for Ukraine scheme.

    This scheme has already got over 150,000 applications, thanks to the generosity of the British public.

    We know Putin is not serious about talks. He is still wantonly bombing innocent citizens across Ukraine. And that is why we need to do more to ensure he loses and we force him to think again.

    We must not just stop Putin in Ukraine, but we must also look to the long-term.

    We need to ensure that any future talks don’t end up selling Ukraine out or repeating the mistakes of the past. We remember the uneasy settlement in 2014, which failed to give Ukraine lasting security. Putin just came back for more.

    That is why we cannot allow him to win from this appalling aggression and why this Government is determined Putin’s regime should be held to account at the International Criminal Court.

    We will work to restore Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

    We have set up a negotiations unit to ensure the strongest possible support is available to the Ukrainians, alongside our international partners.

    We have played a leading role alongside our G7 allies in driving the response to Putin’s war. And I want to ensure that unity continues.

    Sanctions were put on by the G7 in unison and they shouldn’t be removed as long as Putin continues with his war and he still has troops in Ukraine.

    That is not all. We need to ensure that Putin can never act in this aggressive way again.

    Any long-term settlement needs to include a clear sanctions snapback which would be triggered automatically by any Russian aggression.

    In the aftermath of Putin’s war, Ukraine will need our help to build back.

    In these exceptional circumstances, we have a duty to step up with a new reconstruction plan for rebuilding Ukraine. And we will work with the international community to do this.

    At this defining moment, the free world has shown a united response.

    Putin is not making the progress he craves. And he is still not serious about talks.

    President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people know that everybody in the United Kingdom stands firm with them.

    We were the first European country to recognise Ukraine’s independence from the Soviet Union. Thirty years on, we are the first to strengthen their defences against Putin’s invasion, and lead the way in our support.

    Over the next week, I will be working to drive forward progress in unison with our allies.

    Together, we can secure a lasting peace, which restores Ukraine’s sovereignty. Together, we can ensure Putin fails and Ukraine prevails.

    I commend this statement to the House.