Category: Foreign Affairs

  • James Cleverly – 2022 Statement on Chinese Consulate General Staff in Manchester

    James Cleverly – 2022 Statement on Chinese Consulate General Staff in Manchester

    The statement made by James Cleverly, the Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 14 December 2022.

    In October, I summoned China’s acting ambassador to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to demand an explanation for an incident that had occurred outside the Chinese consulate general in Manchester. Soon afterwards, His Majesty’s ambassador in Beijing also sought an explanation from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

    Images carried on social media showed what appeared to be completely unacceptable behaviour by a number of individuals near the entrance to the consular premises. The right of free expression—including the right to protest and to speak one’s mind—is absolutely essential to our democratic life.

    Given the seriousness of this matter, it was correct and appropriate for Greater Manchester police to take the decision to begin an investigation. Earlier this month, the police informed the FCDO that they wished to interview the Chinese consul general and five of his staff. They asked the FCDO to request the Chinese Government to waive the immunity of those individuals to enable the interviews to take place.

    The FCDO made this request and gave the Chinese Government one week to comply. In response, the Chinese embassy, acting on instructions from Beijing, notified His Majesty’s Government that the functions of the consul general in Manchester have come to an end and he has returned to China. The embassy has further notified us that the other staff involved in the incident who the police wish to interview have either left the United Kingdom or will shortly do so.

    Throughout this episode, I have sought to emphasise that we in the UK abide by the rule of law, follow due process and respect the operational independence of our police. It was right to allow their investigation to proceed so that we could respond on the basis of evidence and facts, rather than images on social media. I am grateful for the professionalism shown by the Greater Manchester police, particularly given the complexities involved due to the immunities held by the staff.

    We have been clear with China from the outset that we were prepared to take firm action should the police determine that there was a case to charge officials for their involvement in the incident. We expect a certain standard of behaviour from all foreign diplomats and consular staff in the UK regardless of their privileges and immunities.

    The Vienna convention on consular relations allows states to withdraw members of a consular post at any point, as has happened here. However, I am disappointed that these individuals will not be interviewed or face justice. Nonetheless, it is right that those responsible for the disgraceful scenes in Manchester are no longer—or will shortly cease to be—consular staff accredited to the UK.

  • George Goschen – 1897 Speech on the Benin Expedition

    George Goschen – 1897 Speech on the Benin Expedition

    The speech made by George Goschen, the then First Lord of the Admiralty, in the House of Commons on 22 February 1897.

    SIR JOHN COLOMB (Great Yarmouth) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, in view of the rumours in circulation, if the Government had any information in reference to the expedition to Benin?

    THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY Yes; I am glad to say news has been received of the successful issue of the expedition and with very little loss of life. The following is from Consul General Moore:— Advanced from Ologbo, 14th, in two columns, joining up on 16th. Benin City taken afternoon 18th. Distant 24 miles. Running fight entire route. Great difficulty with carriers getting up water. Considerable resistance taking city; entire force brought up; numbers, 540 men; casualties since my No. 8:—One naval sergeant, one chief petty officer, two Marines, one sergeant Protectorate force, one scout, one carrier killed; one Marine officer, one warrant officer, one petty officer, four Marines, one seaman, six force, eight carriers, three scouts, one interpreter severely wounded; three Marines, two seamen, two force slightly wounded. City now deserted. Neither king nor Juju men captured. A few natives of Phillips’s party have come in from bush. Dreadfully mutilated human sacrifices met en route, and in city crucifixions and mutilations. Juju houses, compounds surrounding them, reek with human blood several deep holes in compounds filled with corpses. Effects of Europeans, Phillips’s party, found in King’s palaver house. Admiral proposes remaining few days assist establish Protectorate force here with necessary supplies. Immediate action taking (sic) capture king and Juju men and pacify country. Inhabitants inclined come in. All survivors well. No fever.” [Cheers.]

  • Joseph Chamberlain – 1899 Speech on the Benin Expedition

    Joseph Chamberlain – 1899 Speech on the Benin Expedition

    The speech made by Joseph Chamberlain, the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, in the House of Commons on 20 April 1899.

    MR. DAVITT (Mayo, S.) I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, by whose orders the Benin Punitive Expedition is being organised and directed, the War Office or the Foreign Office; whether, considering that punitive measures, including the burning of towns and villages and the killing of many people, have already been carried out in retaliation for the killing of Mr. Phillips and his party, there is any necessity to continue action of that character; and, if he can state the number of natives who have been killed and the number of villages that have been burned by British troops since the first march on Benin took place?

    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN) Birmingham, W. As this is a matter which affects the Colonial Office, I may be allowed to answer. The proposed expedition is not in retaliation for the massacre of Mr. Phillips and his party, but consists of a detachment of the Niger Coast Protectorate Force, which is being sent from Benin City by Her Majesty’s Commissioner, with the sanction of the Colonial Office, to capture two chiefs—one of whom was in command of the forces which carried out the massacre—who have established themselves about 70 miles from the city and are collecting around them all the criminals and unruly persons from a large area, and disturbing the peace of the British Protectorate. I have no information which would enable me to answer the last paragraph.

  • Caroline Lucas – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme

    Caroline Lucas – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme

    The parliamentary question asked by Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion in the House of Commons on 13 December 2022.

    Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)

    How many at-risk British Council and GardaWorld contractors and Chevening alumni in Afghanistan his Department has (a) assessed as eligible for and (b) resettled under the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme pathway 3 since 6 January 2022.

    Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)

    What humanitarian support his Department is providing to Afghan people (a) in and (b) fleeing Afghanistan.

    The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)

    The UK has already resettled more than 6,300 people through various resettlement schemes. In the first phase of the Afghan resettlement scheme pathway 3, we will offer up to 1,500 places. We have received 11,400 expressions of interest and we are working through those quickly. We have disbursed £228 million since April 2022, on top of £286 million in aid for Afghanistan last financial year.

    Caroline Lucas

    The Foreign Secretary says that he is working quickly, yet we know that zero Afghans have been resettled under the ACRS. No wonder yesterday the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), admitted that we must do better when confronted with the staggering delay. I am in touch with Chevening alumni, for example, who have been living in fear of their lives for more than 16 months now. By the Government’s own admission, pathway 3 in its first year will help only 400 applicants and their families—a tiny number—out of more than 11,000. Will the Foreign Secretary and the Home Office urgently supercharge the scheme, increase the number of people working on it in the Department and, crucially, allow the 20,000 people Ministers say they want to help over five years to come now? They cannot wait for another four or five years; they are in fear of their lives now.

    James Cleverly

    I have to correct the hon. Lady. She says that we have not made any resettlements under the ACRS. As I said in my answer, we have granted indefinite leave to remain to 6,300 eligible people. I think that she was making specific reference to pathway 3, which we are working on, but the House ought to recognise that we have already given indefinite leave to remain to more than 6,000 eligible people.

    Sam Tarry

    Last year my team and I heard countless harrowing, brutal stories of people and their families being murdered in Afghanistan, often while on the phone to my casework team. My team are still shocked and triggered by that awful experience; by the pictures they saw and the voicemails they heard. The FCDO really has to do a lot more to make sure that more people in Afghanistan do not die at the hands of the Taliban. I do not know whether I am going to correct my friend the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), but my understanding is that only four Afghans have been resettled under the ACRS. Many of my constituents have lost loved ones, so I want to know just two things from the Foreign Secretary: what support is being offered to Afghan refugees currently stuck in Pakistan, and what will he be doing to speak to Home Office colleagues and ensure that this absolute mess of resettling people is sorted out promptly?

    James Cleverly

    Yet again, I have to correct the hon. Gentleman. He said that only four people had been settled under the ACRS. I say again, for the third time, that around 6,300 eligible people have been granted indefinite leave to remain under the referral pathways of the ACRS. We will of course continue to work both across HMG and with our international partners to resettle at-risk Afghans, and will particularly look at the individuals who have been supportive of the UK, and those particularly at risk because they are women, academics or members of the judiciary.

  • Tommy Sheppard – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Israel and Palestine

    Tommy Sheppard – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Israel and Palestine

    The parliamentary question asked by Tommy Sheppard, the SNP MP for Edinburgh East, in the House of Commons on 13 December 2022.

    Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)

    What recent assessment he has made of Israel’s compliance with its obligations under international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

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

    As a friend of Israel, we have a regular dialogue on human rights and all matters relating to the occupation. That includes encouraging the Government of Israel to abide by their obligations under international law. We are concerned by instability on the west bank and call on all sides to work together to urgently de-escalate the situation.

    Tommy Sheppard

    In the past year, we have had three compelling reports, produced by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the Israeli organisation B’Tselem. All of them accuse the Israeli authorities of committing the crime of apartheid. We have had plans published recently to effectively annex the west bank into Israel, and we now have the appointment of violently racist Ministers into the Israeli Government. Is it not time to step up the diplomatic pressure on Israel to ensure that it abides by international law and upholds the rights of Palestinians?

    David Rutley

    First, we do not recognise the terminology about apartheid. Any judgment on serious crimes under international law is a matter for judicial decision, rather than for Governments or non-judicial bodies. We do work closely with the Israeli Government. We condemn any incidents of violence by settlers against the Palestinians.

  • Anna McMorrin – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Iran

    Anna McMorrin – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Iran

    The parliamentary question asked by Anna McMorrin, the Labour MP for Cardiff North, in the House of Commons on 13 December 2022.

    Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)

    What recent assessment he has made of the political situation in Iran.

    John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)

    What steps his Department is taking to help tackle destabilising activities by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

    The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)

    These protests in Iran are a watershed moment. After years of repression, the Iranian people have clearly had enough. They are standing up to the authoritarian regime under which they live. Sadly, the regime has responded in the only way it knows: with violence. The UK is committed to holding Iran to account, including with more than 300 sanctions—including the sanctioning of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in its entirety. We will continue to work with partners to challenge the regime’s aggression at home and its disruptive behaviour in the region.

    Anna McMorrin

    I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Iranians are being hanged from cranes with black bags over their heads and their hands and feet bound while Iranian weapons are being used to perpetrate Putin’s illegal war murdering Ukrainians. Will the Secretary of State join me in condemning those human rights violations and tell me exactly what sanctions he will bring forward against Raisi’s abhorrent regime?

    James Cleverly

    I personally and the UK Government have regularly condemned the abuses in Iran. Of course, I recognise that that tone is reflected right across the House. We have sanctioned the morality police; we have sanctioned the Iranian judges whom we know to be involved in those secret trials. We will continue to work with our international partners, and directly, to sanction the members of the Iranian regime who continue to abuse the human rights of the people within that country.

    John Spellar

    The Minister has rightly identified that the clerical fascist regime in Tehran is increasingly using violence and terror in trying to crush the popular protests there, while also destabilising the region through proxies, as well as further afield. He knows that a vital underpinning of this dreadful regime’s activities is the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. He mentioned working with other parties; he knows that the United States has already taken action to proscribe the IRGC. Will that finally persuade him to sanction to the IRGC?

    James Cleverly

    We already sanction the IRGC in its entirety. We will continue to work closely with our friends in the international community to prevent the point that the right hon. Gentleman raises: the exporting of attack drones and other munitions to Russia, which are then being used by Vladimir Putin’s troops to attack civilians and civilian infrastructure in Ukraine. We will continue to sanction individuals, and as I say, the IRGC is already sanctioned in its entirety.

    Mr Speaker

    I call the shadow Minister.

    Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)

    The Metropolitan police have warned about threats described as an “imminent, credible risk” to life against British-Iranian journalists in the United Kingdom. The Iranian regime has also threatened BBC Persian journalists. I ask the Foreign Secretary again to set out what further targeted sanctions the Government will be taking against the whole Iranian regime and, more importantly, to ensure that the Government act against any threats to individuals in the United Kingdom.

    James Cleverly

    The hon. Gentleman will understand that it is counterproductive to detail what future sanctions designations might be brought in—we want to ensure that the targets of those sanctions do not in any way try to evade the sanctions before they are brought in. The UK remains absolutely determined to ensure that Iran does not intimidate people within this country. We will always stand up to aggression from foreign nations. We will absolutely not tolerate threats, particularly towards journalists who are highlighting what is going on in Iran, or indeed towards any other individual living in the UK. On 11 November, I summoned the Iranian chargé d’affaires to highlight the UK’s position on this; and, working with our colleagues in the Home Office, we ensured that the Iranian journalists who were under threat according to our information were protected by the British police.

  • Chris Bryant – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Human Rights and Death Penalty in Saudi Arabia

    Chris Bryant – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Human Rights and Death Penalty in Saudi Arabia

    The parliamentary question asked by Chris Bryant, the Labour MP for Rhondda, in the House of Commons on 13 December 2022.

    Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)

    Whether he has made recent representations to his counterpart in Saudi Arabia on (a) the use of the death penalty and (b) potential human rights violations in that country.

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

    Saudi Arabia remains an FCDO human rights priority country, particularly because of the use of the death penalty and restrictions on freedom of expression. We strongly oppose the death penalty in all countries and circumstances. We regularly raise our concerns with the Saudi authorities and will continue to do so. The Minister for the Middle East raised the death penalty and freedom of expression with the Saudi ambassador on 24 November.

    Chris Bryant

    I am afraid that recently it feels as if the Government are frightened of saying boo to Saudi Arabia on human rights abuses. The Minister himself, only a few days ago, said that Hussein Abo al-Kheir had been abhorrently tortured by Saudi authorities. He withdrew the remark; as I understand it, the Saudi authorities asked the Foreign Office to withdraw that remark. The truth is that Hussein Abo al-Kheir has been tortured and he has been on death row since 2015. The Saudi Government executed 81 people on one day earlier this year and are intending to execute a large number more later this year. They have already reneged on all of their promises on ending the death penalty for non-violent crimes. Will the Minister please go back to Saudi Arabia and make it clear that this country abhors torture and the death penalty?

    David Rutley

    I corrected my answer to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) to clarify that those were allegations of torture, as I underline again today. That is consistent with the line I used in my opening remarks on this issue in the urgent question on 28 November. I also contacted the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that he was aware of the correction. Notwithstanding that, of course it is vital that we continue to raise these issues, as Lord Ahmad has done and will continue to do.

    Mr Speaker

    We come now to the SNP spokesperson.

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

    I am sure the Minister would agree that, in moving away from any possible reliance on Russian energy supplies, the UK should not simply choose further dependency on a different authoritarian regime. It has been reported that the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), when he was Business Secretary, held undisclosed meetings with Saudi Arabian firms. Will the Minister tell us what was discussed—and if he cannot, why can he not?

    David Rutley

    I do not recognise those conversations that the hon. Gentleman refers to, but clearly the important thing is that we have access to the energy we need with allies that we trust and, over time, build our own energy security as well.

  • Hilary Benn – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Northern Ireland Protocol

    Hilary Benn – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Northern Ireland Protocol

    The parliamentary question asked by Hilary Benn, the Labour MP for Leeds Central, in the House of Commons on 13 December 2022.

    Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)

    What recent discussions he has had with the European Commission on the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol.

    Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)

    How many hours his Department has spent on negotiations with (a) EU member states and (b) the European Commission on the Northern Ireland protocol in the last month.

    The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)

    Fixing the Northern Ireland protocol is a top priority for this Government. Since September I have been in regular contact with Vice-President Šefčovič. We last spoke on 1 December and I will be seeing him for further talks this week. My officials have also been working with our counterparts in the EU on a regular basis to try to resolve the issues, which we recognise—and we are impressing this upon them—are causing serious, genuine and damaging friction in relationships between the various communities in Northern Ireland.

    Hilary Benn

    I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that answer. It was reported recently that the Prime Minister has assured President Biden that an agreement will be reached with the EU in time for the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement. We also read that the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is on ice while the negotiations continue. Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that if an agreement with the EU is reached—and we all hope that will happen—the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill will be dropped?

    James Cleverly

    The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill exists for a reason. The commitment that I made to Maroš Šefčovič in the conversations that I had with him and others was that we would not either artificially accelerate that process or artificially hinder or retard it. We have always said that our preferred option is through negotiations. We speak regularly, the tone is positive, and I think that there is now an understanding that the concerns that we have raised, and that have been raised particularly by the Unionist community in Northern Ireland, are not confected but real, and that any agreement would need to address them.

    Ian Paisley

    Is it not the case that there has not been one hour of actual negotiations, because the EU has not extended its mandate to allow for any changes whatsoever in the operation of the current protocol? That being the case, does the Foreign Secretary not believe that the EU will smell weakness in this Government if they take their foot off the pedal with the protocol Bill in the other place? I encourage him to press on with the Bill.

    James Cleverly

    I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the UK negotiating team are very conscious of the frustrations, particularly in the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. But we have also made the point to our interlocutors in the EU that, across communities in Northern Ireland, there is a recognition that the protocol is not working, that it needs to be addressed, and that the relationships between Northern Ireland and Ireland, and between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK—of which Northern Ireland is a part—all have to function properly. That is the underpinning of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and that is what we seek to achieve through our negotiations.

    Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)

    One needs only to visit the port at Belfast and see the potential for new facilities there to realise the interruption there could be to the vital east-west trade routes that Northern Ireland relies on. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is vital that the Government are clear that we do not take anything off the table in getting to an agreement? Even though we want an agreement, we still need all the options to be on the table, to ensure that we get what we need for the United Kingdom.

    James Cleverly

    The United Kingdom’s position has been consistent. We recognise that the way the protocol is working is undermining community cohesion in Northern Ireland and disrupting business flows, particularly east-west between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. These issues have to be addressed. That is, I think, something that the EU negotiating team understand, and we will continue negotiating in good faith. However, as I say, the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill exists for a reason, and we want to ensure that we get a good working resolution that is sustainable for all the communities in Northern Ireland.

    Mr Speaker

    I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

    Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)

    For 18 months we have been at an impasse on the Northern Ireland protocol. Instead of negotiations, we have had cheap rhetoric and threats to break agreements. With a UK Government showing determination and diplomatic skill, and an EU willing to be flexible, these problems would be easily resolvable. Is the real problem that the Prime Minister is in the pocket of the European Research Group, too weak to stand up to his Back Benchers, and putting his party before Northern Ireland?

    James Cleverly

    The right hon. Gentleman needs to keep up. We have had very well-tempered negotiations between the UK and EU negotiators. He will find in our public reporting of those negotiations that there has been a high degree of mutual respect. He says that there is an easy resolution. If he believes that, all I would say is that we are waiting to hear it. If it were easy, it would have been done already.

    Mr Speaker

    Let us hear from the SNP spokesperson.

    Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)

    I say to the Foreign Secretary that if politics goes wrong for him, he has a great career in stand-up ahead of him.

    This discussion is not happening in a vacuum. The Foreign Secretary will be aware of a poll in The Irish Times yesterday that showed that 54% of the people of Northern Ireland are in favour of EU membership. I want to see a negotiated outcome over the protocol; we all do. There are things with the protocol that need to be addressed, and we all agree on that, but the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is not the way to do that. Surely he must recognise that it is the biggest block to progress in these talks, and that now is the time to scrap it.

    James Cleverly

    I am the one who has been in the conversations with the EU. I know that it does not particularly like the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, but, nevertheless, the conversations that I have had with my direct interlocuters and that our officials have been having with their opposite numbers in the EU system have been progressing. As I have said, there are still a number of serious issues that need to be resolved, but we are working in good faith. The Bill exists for a reason and it is important that it is there.

    I welcome the hon. Gentleman highlighting the fact that there is pretty much universal agreement now that the protocol needs to be changed, because that is what is driving an increased degree of community tension and disruption in Northern Ireland.

    While I am on my feet, let me welcome the hon. Gentleman resuming his place.

  • Chris Elmore – 2022 Parliamentary Question on War Crimes in Ukraine

    Chris Elmore – 2022 Parliamentary Question on War Crimes in Ukraine

    The parliamentary question asked by Chris Elmore, the Labour MP for Ogmore, in the House of Commons on 13 December 2022.

    Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)

    What diplomatic steps he is taking to help ensure that perpetrators of war crimes in Ukraine are held to account.

    Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)

    What diplomatic steps he is taking to help ensure (a) prosecution of and (b) effective sanctions against perpetrators of war crimes in Ukraine.

    The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)

    The UK has led diplomatic efforts to refer the situation in Ukraine to the International Criminal Court. With the US and EU, we established the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group. We are working closely with our international partners to ensure that our sanctions are effective, and that those who are responsible for atrocities and breaches of international humanitarian law, at whatever level, are ultimately held accountable for their actions.

    Chris Elmore

    I thank the Foreign Secretary for his answer. In her recent visit to Parliament, the first lady of Ukraine highlighted that Russian soldiers had carried out sexual violence, including rape, against Ukrainian women with the consent of their commanders. As the Foreign Secretary will be aware, under UN international law the use of rape in combat is a war crime. Will he set out specifically what he will be doing on the diplomatic stage to ensure that when the war is over, or indeed before then, the soldiers who committed those crimes and the officers who authorised those disgusting and heinous rapes are dealt with in the International Criminal Court?

    James Cleverly

    The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point. I had the privilege of speaking to the first lady at the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative conference that we hosted in London recently. I can inform him and the House that this morning we designated 12 more Russian military officers who were in command of Russian troops when atrocities took place. We work closely with the Ukrainian chief prosecutor, the International Criminal Court and our international allies to ensure there is an accountability framework that is effective, from the people on the ground who are perpetrating these crimes directly, to the officers who are ordering them to do that, right up to and including Vladimir Putin himself, who is ultimately responsible for these vile acts, which have taken place because of his invasion of Ukraine.

    Andrew Selous

    Does the Foreign Secretary agree that prosecutions and sanctions for atrocities in Ukraine should also be extended to those in Russia who perpetrate violence against women and girls, such as the Russian police officer Ivan Ryabov, who tortured courageous Russian women for speaking out against the brutality done in their name but against their will in Ukraine?

    James Cleverly

    My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. There are many, many Russians who are deeply opposed to the invasion that Putin initiated against Ukraine. Their bravery is legion. We have sanctioned more than 1,200 Russians and more than 120 entities as a direct result of Putin’s invasion. I will make note of the name he raised. He and I have discussed this previously, and he will understand that we do not comment on specific designations that might have been brought about.

    Mr Speaker

    I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

    Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)

    Labour has been calling for a special tribunal to prosecute Putin personally since March. This is a necessary part of securing justice for the victims of Putin’s war crime, and would add to the legal basis for confiscating frozen Russian assets. The EU has already set out a plan to shift frozen assets into a fund to help rebuild Ukraine, and Canada has already passed laws to do that. Why are the Government not doing the same?

    James Cleverly

    The Government and I have committed to exploring ways of ensuring that those individuals who supported Vladimir Putin—the kleptocrats and oligarchs who have helped to fund this aggression against Ukraine—are not just sanctioned; ultimately, we will look at legally robust mechanisms to seize assets as part of the reparations, rebuilding and reconstruction phase. Of course, we work closely with the Canadian authorities. Canada has a similar legal system to ours, for obvious reasons, and we will explore what it has done to see what we can learn to ensure that whatever vehicle we put in place has the desired effect and is robust.

  • Anthony Eden – 1942 Speech on the Holocaust (First Mention in House of Commons)

    Anthony Eden – 1942 Speech on the Holocaust (First Mention in House of Commons)

    The speech made by Anthony Eden, the then Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 17 December 1942.

    Mr. Silverman (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make regarding the plan of the German Government to deport all Jews from the occupied countries to Eastern Europe and there put them to death before the end of the year?

    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden) Yes, Sir, I regret to have to inform the House that reliable reports have recently reached His Majesty’s Government regarding the barbarous and inhuman treatment to which Jews are being subjected in. German-occupied Europe. They Have in particular received a note from the Polish Government, which was also communicated to other United Nations and which has received wide publicity in the Press. His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom have as a result been in consultation with the United States and Soviet Governments and with the other Allied Governments directly concerned, and I should like to take this opportunity to communicate to the House the text of the following declaration which is being made public to-day at this hour in London, Moscow and Washington:

    “The attention of the Governments of Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Luxemberg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Yugoslavia, and of the French National Committee has been drawn to numerous reports from Europe that the German authorities, not content with denying to persons of Jewish race in all the territories over which their barbarous rule has been extended the most elementary human rights, are now carrying into effect Hitler’s oft repeated intention to exterminate the Jewish people in Europe. From all the occupied countries Jews are being transported, in conditions of appalling horror and brutality, to Eastern Europe. In Poland, which has been made the principal Nazi slaughterhouse, the ghettoes established by the German invaders are being systematically emptied of all Jews except a few highly skilled workers required for war industries. None of those taken away are ever heard of again. The able-bodied are slowly worked to death in labour camps. The infirm are left to die of exposure and starvation or are deliberately massacred in mass executions. The number of victims of these bloody cruelties is reckoned in many hundreds of thousands of entirely innocent men, women and children.

    The above mentioned Governments and the French National Committee condemn in the strongest possible terms this bestial policy of cold-blooded extermination. They declare that such events can only strengthen the resolve of all freedom loving peoples to overthrow the barbarous Hitlerite tyranny. They re-affirm their solemn resolution to ensure that those responsible for these crimes shall not escape retribution, and to press on with the necessary practical measures to this end.”

    Mr. Silverman While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that statement, in which he has given eloquent expression to the conscience of humanity in this matter, might I ask him to clear up two points: First, whether the phrase, “those responsible” is to be understood to mean only those who gave the orders, or is it to include also anybody actively associated with the carrying-out of those orders? [An HON. MEMBER: “The whole German nation.”] Secondly, whether he is consulting with the United Nations Governments and with his own colleagues as to what constructive measures of relief are immediately practicable?

    Mr. Eden The hon. Gentleman and the House will understand that the declaration I have just read is an international declaration agreed to by all the Governments I mentioned at the outset. So far as the responsibility is concerned, I would certainly say it is the intention that all persons who can properly be held responsible for these crimes, whether they are the ringleaders or the actual perpetrators of the outrages, should be treated alike, and brought to book. As regards the second question, my hon. Friend knows the immense difficulties in the way of what he suggests, but he may be sure that we shall do all we can to alleviate these horrors, though I fear that what we can do at this stage must inevitably be slight.

    Mr. Sorensen Having regard to the widespread abhorrence of all people regarding these crimes, could attempts not be made to explore the possibility of co-operation with non-belligerent and neutral Governments to secure the emigration of Jews, say, to Sweden or to some other neutral country?

    Mr. Eden My hon. Friend will see that it is only too clear, from what I have said, what is going on in these territories occupied by Germany. Naturally I should be only too glad to see anything of the kind, but the hon. Member will understand the circumstances.

    Mr. Sorensen Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is exploring that possibility?

    Mr. de Rothschild May I express to the right hon. Gentleman and this House the feelings of great emotion—the really grateful feeling that I am certain will permeate the Jewish subjects of His Majesty’s Government in this country and throughout the Empire at the eloquent and just denunciation which has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman? Among the Jewish subjects of His Majesty there are many to-day who have been in this country only for a generation or so. They will feel that, but for the grace of God, they themselves might be among the victims of the Nazi tyranny at the present time. They might be in those ghettoes, in those concentration camps, in those slaughter-houses. They will have many relations whom they mourn, and I feel sure they will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and to the United Nations for this declaration. I trust that this proclamation will, through the medium of the B.B.C., percolate throughout the German-infested countries and that it may give some faint hope and courage to the unfortunate victims of torment and insult and degradation. They have shown in their misery and their unhappiness great fortitude and great courage. I hope that when this news goes to them they will feel that they are supported and strengthened by the British Government and by the other United Nations and that they will be enabled to continue to signify that they still uphold the dignity of man.

    Sir Percy Hurd Can my right hon. Friend say whether Canada and the other Dominions were asked to share in this declaration?

    Mr. Eden In the first instance, this, as my hon. Friend will realise, is a declaration organised by the European countries who are suffering, and it was necessary that the three great Powers should get together quickly about the matter. We thought it right, and I am sure the House will think it right, that the principal victims should sign this paper as rapidly as possible. I think the whole House fully understands that, and I know that the Dominions Governments very fully understand it. Perhaps I should state that arrangements are being made for this statement to be broadcast throughout Europe from here, and, of course, it is being done from Moscow and Washington also. I may also say that all the information we have from the occupied countries is that the peoples there, despite their many sufferings, trials and tribulations, are doing everything in their power to give assistance and charity to their Jewish fellow subjects.

    Mr. Lipson May I associate myself with everything that has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) and Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), and ask my right hon. Friend whether if this protest is broadcast to the German people, it will be made clear to them that this is not war but murder and that they must be held in some measure responsible, if they allow the German Government to carry out their horrible intentions?

    Mr. Eden Yes, Sir, that is precisely what was in the minds of His Majesty’s Government when we took steps to set this declaration in motion.

    Mr. Silverman Would the right hon. Gentleman consider in the broadcasts which are made not limiting the question of responsibility to the negative side of punishment but expressing the appreciation which we all feel for the numerous acts of courage done all over Europe by individuals who take enormous risks in order to render what help they can to those who are suffering; and would it not be right, in the broadcasts, to promise those individuals that what they are doing now will not be forgotten but will redound to their credit and benefit when the time comes?

    Mr. Eden Yes, Sir.

    Mr. McGovern May we take it from the right hon. Gentleman’s statement that any persons who can escape from any of these occupied territories will be welcomed and given every assistance in the territories of the United Nations?

    Mr. Eden Certainly we should like to do all we possibly can. There are, obviously, certain security formalities which have to be considered. It would clearly be the desire of the United Nations to do everything they could to provide wherever possible an asylum for these people, but the House will understand that there are immense geographical and other difficulties in the matter.

    Miss Rathbone Will this declaration be addressed also to the Governments and the peoples of Hitler’s unwilling allies, the other Axis countries, who might be able to do much to secure the rescue of these victims?

    Mr. Eden That has already been arranged.

    Mr. Cluse Is it possible, in your judgment, Mr. Speaker, for Members of the House to rise in their places and stand in silence in support of this protest against disgusting barbarism?

    Mr. Speaker That should be a spontaneous act by the House as a whole.

    Members of the House then stood in silence.