Moved by Lord Sharpe of Epsom That the draft Order laid before the
House on 6 September be approved. Relevant document: 51st Report
from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee The Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, before getting into the detail of this order, I take this
opportunity to apologise sincerely to the House that news of the
Home Secretary’s decision, which we are here to debate,...Request free trial
Moved by
That the draft Order laid before the House on 6 September be
approved.
Relevant document: 51st Report from the Secondary Legislation
Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office () (Con)
My Lords, before getting into the detail of this order, I take
this opportunity to apologise sincerely to the House that news of
the Home Secretary’s decision, which we are here to debate,
became public before the order was laid. I am grateful to House
for its consideration of this draft order, which will see Wagner
Group, a truly brutal organisation, proscribed.
Some 78 terrorist organisations are currently proscribed under
the Terrorism Act 2000. Not only is proscription a powerful tool
for degrading terrorist organisations, it sends a strong message
of the UK’s commitment to tackling terrorist activity globally.
Wagner Group are terrorists. As such, the Home Secretary proposes
amending Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000 by adding Wagner
Group, also referred to as Wagner Network, to the list of
proscribed organisations.
For an organisation to be proscribed, the Home Secretary must
reasonably believe that it is currently concerned in terrorism as
set out in Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000. If this statutory
test is met, the Home Secretary must then consider the
proportionality of proscription and decide whether to exercise
her discretion.
Proscription is a powerful tool with severe penalties. It
criminalises being a member or supporter of a proscribed
organisation, and wearing articles of a proscribed organisation
in a way that arouses suspicion that an individual is a member or
supporter. Penalties are a maximum of 14 years in prison and/or
an unlimited fine. Proscription also supports other disruptive
activity, including immigration disruptions and terrorist
financing offences. The resources of a proscribed organisation
are terrorist property and are, therefore, liable to be
seized.
This builds on sanctions already in place on Wagner Group.
Terrorist financing incurs criminal, rather than civil,
penalties, and allows the Government ultimately to forfeit
terrorist property, rather than just freeze an individual’s
assets. The Home Secretary is supported in her decision-making by
the cross-government proscription review group. A decision to
proscribe is taken only after great care and consideration, given
its wide-ranging impact. It must be approved by both Houses.
A great deal of carnage can be laid at the feet of Wagner Group,
a Russian private military company that emerged following
Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and Putin’s first illegal
invasion of eastern Ukraine in 2014. It has acted as a proxy
military force on behalf of the Russian state, operating in a
range of theatres including Ukraine, Syria, the Central African
Republic, Sudan, Libya, Mozambique and Mali. It has pursued
Russia’s foreign policy objectives and the objectives of other
Governments who have contracted Wagner’s services. In the hours
following Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine, Wagner was
reportedly tasked with assassinating President Zelensky—a task in
which it failed, thanks to the heroism and bravery displayed by
Ukrainian security forces.
Wagner Group describes itself in heroic terms, even suggesting,
abhorrently, that it is the saviour of Africa. That private
military companies remain illegal under Russian law is something
that has never particularly concerned Putin. Putin can distort
the truth to suit himself all he likes, but the truth is that the
Wagner Group are terrorists.
With this House’s consent, Wagner Group will be proscribed.
Having carefully considered all the evidence, including advice
from the cross-government proscription review group, the Home
Secretary has decided that there is sufficient evidence that
allows her to reasonably believe that Wagner Group is concerned
in terrorism, and that proscription is proportionate. Although I
am unable to comment on specific intelligence, I can provide the
House with a summary of the group’s activities supporting this
decision. I warn the House that some of this detail is deeply
unpleasant.
Wagner Group commits and participates in terrorism; this is based
on its use of serious violence against Ukrainian armed forces and
civilians to advance Russia’s political cause. Wagner played a
central role in combat operations against Ukrainian armed forces
to seize the city of Popasna in May 2022 and during the assault
of Bakhmut, largely occupied by Russian forces this year. This
assault has resulted in the virtual destruction of a city once
home to 70,000 people. Wagner barely showed any more concern for
the lives of its own side. Defence Intelligence has assessed that
up to 20,000 convicts, recruited directly from Russian prisons on
the promise of a pardon and an early release, were killed within
a few months of the attack on Bakhmut. Wagner’s relentless
bombardment of Bakhmut was one of the bloodiest episodes in
modern military history.
Noble Lords may also be aware of multiple reports alleging
unbelievable brutality by Wagner commanders against their own
troops who retreat, desert or otherwise refuse to carry out their
leaders’ orders. The most notorious of these—the killing of a
purported deserter, murdered by a sledgehammer blow to the
head—has even been glorified by Wagner’s leaders and Russian
ultra-nationalists. This macabre culture and brutality are
indicative of the fact that Wagner Group is a terrorist
organisation, not just a private military company.
The group carries out preparatory acts for terrorism, including
undertaking activities intended to cause serious violence against
people or serious damage to property, directly to advance a
political cause and to intimidate opponents in Ukraine. Ukrainian
prosecutors have accused Wagner Group fighters of war crimes near
Kyiv, in which the tortured bodies of civilians were found with
their hands tied behind their backs in the village of
Motyzhyn.
Wagner Group has also been implicated in serious acts of violence
and damage to property while working in several countries in
Africa. A UN report published in May this year implicated Wagner
Group in the massacre of at least 500 people in the Malian town
of Moura in March 2022, including summary executions as well as
rape and torture. In June 2021, a panel of experts convened by
the UN Security Council detailed atrocities in the Central
African Republic, including
“excessive use of force, indiscriminate killings, the occupation
of schools and looting on a large scale, including of
humanitarian organizations”.
Despite its mutiny in June this year, and the reported death of
its leader Yevgeny Prigozhin last month, Wagner Group remains a
violent and destructive organisation. Proscription sends a strong
message of the UK’s commitment to tackle terrorist activity and
builds on our existing cross-government work to counter Wagner
Group’s destabilising activities. Its leadership’s recent feud
with senior Russian military figures is a predictable consequence
of Putin’s disastrous decision to invade Ukraine, but it is
fundamentally a distraction from the fact that Wagner Group
continues to commit violent acts around the world.
While Putin’s regime wavers over what to do with the monster it
has created, Wagner’s continuing destabilising activities only
serve the Kremlin’s political goals. All this means that the case
for action is now stronger than ever. Wagner is vulnerable. A
leadership vacuum and questions about its future provide a unique
opportunity to truly disrupt its operations and the threat it
poses. That is why this House must proscribe Wagner now.
This decision comes after public calls from President Zelensky
for international allies to take action and list Wagner Group as
a terrorist organisation. In doing so, we stand alongside our
allies in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and France, whose
parliaments have called for Wagner Group to be labelled as a
terrorist organisation on the EU’s list of terrorist groups. We
continue to work in close co-ordination with the US, which
designated Wagner Group under its transnational criminal
organisations sanctions programme earlier this year. In formally
proscribing, we will be leading the international effort by
taking concrete legal action against Wagner Group. I urge our
other allies to follow suit. This decision demonstrates that the
UK will maintain its unwavering support for Ukraine, in
co-ordination with our allies. It shows that we stand with the
people of Ukraine against Russian aggression.
Wherever Wagner Group operates, it has a catastrophic effect on
communities, worsens existing conflicts and damages the
reputations of countries that host it. Wagner may be at its most
vulnerable, and Russia’s military leaders may be grappling to
regain control of the organisation, but the brutal methods it has
employed will undoubtedly remain a tool of the Russian state. Let
there be no misunderstanding: whatever form Wagner takes, we and
our allies will pursue, expose and disrupt it. Wagner Group is a
terrorist organisation, and we must not be afraid of saying so.
We will hold Russia to account for its use of these malign groups
and the devastation they inflict around the world. We stand
shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine, while confronting terrorism
with the relentless enthusiasm the public rightly expect. I
commend this order to the House.
(CB)
My Lords, since I and many other noble Lords in this House have
long called for the Government to proscribe the Wagner Group, it
is unsurprising that I give this legislation a warm welcome. The
sad fact is that war, armed conflict, is a terrible thing. It
results in death, maiming, destruction and wholesale suffering,
but most of us understand that, regrettable as it may be, it
cannot be eliminated from the world. We therefore have to do all
we can to contain its devastating effects.
The global community in the 20th century put a great deal of
effort into constructing laws of armed conflict that would do
this, yet we see in Europe a conflict during which the most
horrific war crimes have been, and are still being, committed. It
is not just in Europe; we see it in many countries throughout
Africa as well. In so many instances, the Wagner Group has been
and is at the centre of them. The proscription of the group is
therefore to be warmly welcomed. But it is not alone in
committing these war crimes; only this morning I heard evidence
of some of the things that have been going on in Ukraine, which
frankly makes one’s blood run cold.
My simple comment to the Government is: well done on this. I
welcome it; it is a step in the right direction. But if we are to
live in anything approaching a civilised world in the future,
there is much more to be done in addressing the war crimes being
committed today in Ukraine. I hope the Government will take the
strongest action in that regard.
12.30pm
(LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and gallant Lord.
I agree with every single word he said. I also agree with what
the Minister said in outlining these measures, which we support
from these Benches.
Ever since the formation of this private military consultants
group, after the illegal invasion of Crimea by Dmitry Utkin then
led by Yevgeny Prigozhin, I have been following not only the
activities but the tactics of this group. I followed the fact
that it had been recruiting from prisons; that it had carried out
its activities way beyond those norms which the noble and gallant
Lord indicated; and the spread of its activities, which are on
the one hand formally not permitted under Russian law but on the
other hand are a very useful tool of Putin to extend some form of
terror and influence across the Sahel and other parts of Africa.
This led me to be the first in Parliament to call for the group’s
proscription in April last year; I did so again on 23 May, 9
June, 7 July, 15 November, 21 December and have done so countless
times this year to Ministers from the Home Office, the FCDO and
the Treasury. So I am very pleased that the Minister has brought
forward these measures to see this evil organisation categorised
as exactly what it is: a terrorist organisation.
I was alarmed during this process by some of the responses from
the Government. I hope the Minister will allow me to make just a
couple of comments with regards to the missed opportunity in not
proscribing earlier. On 11 July, my noble friend Lady Northover
questioned the Defence Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie.
Citing my calls, my noble friend said that
“surely the case for proscription is now more pressing than
ever”.
The Minister replied:
“I would observe that proscription in its own right is perhaps
less effective because of the particular environment in which it
applies”.—[Official Report, 11/7/23; col. 1644.]
However, that is entirely the point. The Wagner Group has, to
some extent, acted with impunity. Therefore, the signal from the
UK to act now is very welcome, but it is worth nothing that it
was this Government and this Treasury who issued a sanction
avoidance licence to the leaders of this terrorist group in order
to use the English legal system in palpably malign legal
activities under a SLAPPs action. It was this Government’s
Treasury that permitted the abuse of our system, therefore His
Majesty’s Government—and Her Majesty’s Government before—have
been slow to act. There was a Treasury derogation of sanctions
that this Parliament had approved; we in this House would have
said that that was outrageous had we been informed. I say this to
the Minister: I hope that there will be no other actions such as
those sanctions derogations for the other groups that the noble
and gallant Lord indicated are acting similarly to the Wagner
Group.
My second point relates to some of the areas where this group has
been acting; the Minister and other Ministers have heard me say
this before. I have seen Wagner operatives in Sudan at first
hand. I saw them in Khartoum. I have seen the breadth of their
work, not just purely within terrorism activities but in
misinformation, disinformation and disruption of processes.
Regrettably, they have continued to operate. I have raised in
Grand Committee the fact that the Wagner Group has been
contracted through a number of joint ventures that Russia has
operated in—one with regards to the Kush gold project in Sudan
with the United Arab Emirates. At this gold project, Wagner has
been under its security consultant’s arm. I am sure that they are
but I hope the Minister can confirm that all elements of the
Wagner network are so proscribed, and that there is no loophole
where some form of private sector separate contracting security
operatives could operate within this. Wagner, operating under
security for the Kush gold project, which provides funds to one
of the warring parties to Sudan—the Rapid Support Forces—is in
effect, to my knowledge, being operated under a financial vehicle
between Russia and the UAE. I would be grateful if the Minister
could indicate what discussions we are having with our allies to
ensure that any commercial relationship with the Wagner network,
or those who advise the Wagner network, will also be within scope
of the Home Office’s activity.
In supporting this measure, I hope that His Majesty’s Government
will be assertive not just in following suit with our friends in
the European Union and the United States—I welcome the fact that
the Government are in discussions with them—but in using all of
the money laundering measures that we have in place and our
diplomatic relations with those in the Gulf to indicate that
their relationships with this network are now beyond the pale for
any UK operatives. I would be more than welcome a briefing from
officials in due course should the Minister allow me to do so
because it is simply the case, as we all know, that proscribing
is welcome but is not the end of the process. It is about how we
ensure that it is implemented not just alone but with our allies
in order to ensure that this evil network is halted in its
activities, which are against humanity.
(Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement and the Home
Secretary for giving the Statement yesterday. This is the right
thing to do; maybe it is a bit late in the day but it is the
right thing to do.
The problem we have in this area is that we are not always
consistent. We have done the right thing here but I have here on
my phone the front page of the Jewish Chronicle,
published today before the Jewish New Year, which
is tomorrow night. The headline reads:
“James Cleverly: ‘We will not ban Iran’s Terror Guards’”.
In everything that was read out by the Minister, you could cut
and paste in “IRGC”. The IRGC has done everything—and more, in my
view—that the Wagner Group has done in terms of the UK. I know
that the Home Secretary and my noble friend the Minister will say
it is under review and all of that, but it is the consistency
that I hope the Government will look at. In the middle of the
interview, it says here that Foreign Secretary Cleverly said
that
“he would not ‘speculate’ on whether the policy might change in
future, pointing out that any decision of this kind would be
taken ‘across government’, not by the Foreign Office alone”.
I welcome that statement because it seems that everybody across
government is supportive of the proscription of the IRGC; it just
seems to be that the Foreign Office is not. I congratulate the
Minister today but I do wish we would be consistent.
(Con)
My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point, which I am
sure the Minister will take on board. I join the noble and
gallant Lord, , and the noble Lord, Lord
Purvis, in welcoming what my noble friend the Minister said
earlier. Many of us—in particular the noble Lord, Lord Purvis,
who was the first to raise this on the Floor of the House—have
referred to this matter in the past. This is a truly evil
organisation.
What worries me is this: in the light of the brutal events in
Russia a couple of weeks ago, with the death of the founder of
this ghastly group, what is going to happen in Africa? There is a
real danger. I hope that my noble friend, although I realise that
he is from the Home Office not the Foreign Office, will be able
to give some reassurance that activities in Africa are being
monitored as closely as possible and that we are doing all we can
to strengthen our relations with legitimate and acceptable
African Governments. What is going on at the moment is subversion
of the most brutal kind and suppression of nascent democracy of
the simplest sort.
I believe that, if we are not careful, bearing in mind the
population of Africa by the middle of the century, we will see a
danger build up that will distort the very fabric of world
civilisation and relations. I think proscription is excellent. It
is too late, but it is good, and we are grateful for it, but we
must have careful regard for what these people are still doing,
even though their dreadful, satanic funder is now dead.
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for
his statement and for the apology that he made in his usual
courteous way. Any such debate should begin by paying tribute to
all the exceptional people who work tirelessly in our security
services, the Government and the police to keep us safe.
The order before us today adds the Wagner Group to the list of
proscribed organisations in Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000.
It therefore becomes an offence to engage in various activities,
as the Minister outlined, such as promoting or supporting the
group, and it allows property to be seized. We fully support the
Government in taking this action and welcome the proscription of
the Wagner Group. It is a necessary step to meet the threat it
poses.
The Minister will know that there have been calls for this
proscription for a considerable period of time. The shadow Home
Secretary called for it in February and the former chair of the
Foreign Affairs Select Committee was a strong advocate of it and,
although he has moved on to other areas, I hope he had an
influence. The noble and gallant Lord, , and the noble Lord, Lord
Purvis, have also been strong advocates for this designation. In
May, we saw France take action against Wagner as a terrorist
organisation and the United States has designated it a
transnational criminal organisation. Given all this, it would
helpful if the Minister could explain why it has taken until now
to designate Wagner, whether there are any lessons to be learned
about whether the Government could have acted sooner, and why
they did not act more quickly.
The Minister will know that, as mentioned by the noble Lord,
, and others, there are concerns
about other groups, such as Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard
Corps, and our security, so it is important to ask the Government
what their policy is towards these state-sponsored actors, which
we discussed quite significantly and at great length during the
passage of the National Security Bill, which is now an Act. Can
the Minister confirm that there are ongoing discussions across
government to address any tension that exists, including in the
proscription group that the Minister mentioned? We know that
there are difficulties between the Home Office and the Foreign
Office with respect to the proscription of various groups, so
will the Minister say a little bit about how the Government are
seeking to resolve that? Can he outline what, if anything, the
recently refreshed Contest strategy had to say about the national
security threats posed by state and non-state actors?
Can the Minister update us on the 81 individuals and entities
recently identified by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee as
linked to Wagner? Is it still the case that by July, only
one-quarter of those 81 individuals had been sanctioned? Surely
more can be done more quickly. Can he lay out for us the
territorial application of this order? We know that Wagner has a
record of violence, theft and murder, from Ukraine to Syria, from
Mali to Mozambique. We know it has been involved in the massacre
of civilians in places such as the Central African Republic and
that it trades violence for natural resources. Indeed, the
Minister helpfully outlined many grotesque details of what the
Wagner Group has been involved in. Indeed, the noble Lord, , highlighted that in his
contribution. It would be helpful for us to understand what
practical effect the order will have on any of these activities
and what practical effect the Government consider this
proscription will have in the UK.
The Government have the defending democracy task force. Can the
Minister say anything about it, given the threat that Wagner
poses? Can he give us any update on the Government’s view on the
future of Wagner, given recent events? We strongly support the
Government’s actions in Ukraine. Of course, President Zelensky
called for the proscription of Wagner, so this is another
important step in the demonstration of our solidarity with
Ukraine. The Minister mentioned that the Government are trying to
encourage other Governments to take similar action. Can he say
more about that?
12.45pm
Much remains to be done, including ensuring that sanctions bite
and that dirty Russian money is seized and confiscated in much
larger quantities and more quickly than is done now. There can be
no doubt that some of that money will have been used to support
Wagner and its various activities. Can the Minister assure us
that this is being done and that the new laws the Government have
introduced are being used against the billions in money, property
and assets that have been identified in report after report, here
at home and in our overseas dependencies?
I say once again that we fully support the proscription of
Wagner. In doing so, we all demonstrate once again our commitment
to protecting democratic values, human rights, freedom and
democracy. Wagner is a state-sponsored terrorist group, and we
are all united in standing up against it. This order represents
one more important step in doing so here in the UK, across Europe
and, indeed, across the globe.
(Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all who have contributed to this
debate. A lot of ground has been covered, and I am encouraged by
the supportive atmosphere in which the discussion has taken
place. Members of the Wagner Group are terrorists, plain and
simple, and am I confident that the House recognises, as do the
British people, that we have a moral responsibility to act. We
must and will confront terrorism wherever and however it occurs,
and that is why we are taking this action.
I turn to the specific points raised. I start by reassuring, I
hope, the noble and gallant Lord, , that, in addition to our
continued training offer to the national police of Ukraine to
support Ukraine’s collection of evidence of Russia’s war crimes
in Ukraine, the Home Office is currently providing short-term
funding to the war crimes documentation centre, run by a
Ukrainian NGO in Warsaw. It ensures that first-hand testimony
from Ukrainian refugees in Poland is recorded. The UK is also
providing £2.5 million to the Atrocity Crimes Advisory Group to
support Ukraine’s domestic investigations and prosecution of
international crimes. We are also working extremely closely with
the ICC in support of its investigations. That is a very
comprehensive package of support, and I hope it continues and is
enhanced.
A number of noble Lords asked what would happen if the Wagner
Group merges with the Russian MoD or Redut. HMG keep the list of
proscribed organisations under very careful review. It is not
government policy to comment on whether an organisation is under
consideration for proscription or whether the Government will
consider a specific organisation, but proscription sends a strong
message about the UK’s commitment to tackling terrorism globally
and calling out terrorist activity wherever it is committed. The
turmoil currently facing the Wagner Group presents opportunities
for impactful disruption of its activities, and I will come back
to that later.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Purvis
and , and my noble friend asked why it has taken so long.
The decision has not been taken in isolation. It builds on a
strong response to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and the Wagner
Group’s wider destabilising activities, including extensive
sanctions. The Government sanctioned the Wagner Group in February
2022, imposing asset freezes on any funds identified as belonging
to Wagner in the UK and travel bans on any of its members. The
Foreign Secretary expanded these sanctions in July this year,
with 30 new UK sanctions targeting a range of individuals and
businesses linked to the actions of the Wagner Group in Africa.
The House will be aware of the recent significant events
surrounding the Wagner Group, so it was right for the Home
Secretary to consider the impact of those key events when taking
the proscription decision.
Now is the time to proscribe. The turmoil currently facing the
Wagner Group, as I have just said, presents opportunities to
disrupt its activities. Proscription sends a strong message of
the UK’s commitment to tackling terrorism globally and calling
out terrorist activity wherever it is committed. This
proscription reiterates the UK’s unwavering support to Ukraine
and condemns Russia’s aggression, Wagner’s role in the war in
Ukraine and its wider activities, which have consistently been
linked to human rights violations, as others have noted.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked what the impact of
proscription is. It sends a very clear message and will enable us
to disrupt significantly. In addition to the proscription
offences, proscription can support other disruptive activity,
including the use of immigration powers, encouraging the removal
of online material, EU asset freezes and so on. The resources of
a proscribed organisation are terrorist property and therefore
liable to be seized.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, also asked why Prigozhin was able to
circumvent sanctions to sue a journalist in this country. I refer
the House to the statement made on this matter by my noble friend
Lady Penn on 30 March this year. Following a review of how these
licences are granted, it is now the Government’s view that in
most cases the use of funds frozen due to sanctions for the
payment of legal professional fees for defamation cases is not an
appropriate use of funds and, in many cases, will be against the
public interest. OFSI will in future take a presumption that
legal fees relating to defamation and similar cases will be
rejected.
The noble Lord, , asked for clarification of the
application of proscription offences. The membership offence
under Section 11 of the Terrorism Act 2000—TACT—has
extraterritorial jurisdiction, applying to anyone, wherever they
are in the world. The support offence applies to any UK citizen
or resident. Terrorist financing offences could also apply
outside the UK. Once Wagner is proscribed, we will expect social
media companies to identify and remove content that promotes or
supports the Wagner Group.
I anticipated the question by my noble friend on the IRGC and I understand
it, because there is obviously significant parliamentary, media
and public interest in a potential proscription decision. Both
the House of Commons and the House of Lords have discussed IRGC
proscription, with the House of Commons unanimously passing a
Motion in January to urge the Government to proscribe. As
Ministers have previously made clear to the House, the IRGC’s
destabilising and hostile activity is unacceptable, and we will
use all tools at our disposal to protect the UK and our interests
at home and abroad. That includes considering proscription where
appropriate.
The UK Government have sanctioned the IRGC in its entirety. While
the department keeps the list of proscribed organisations under
review, as I have said, our policy is not to comment on the
specifics of individual proscription cases, and I am unable to
provide further details on this issue. Ministers have previously
confirmed to the House that this decision was under active
consideration, but they will not provide a running commentary. I
say to my noble friend that there is one difference: the IRGC is
an Iranian military body answerable to Iran’s Supreme Leader. The
Home Secretary’s role, as discussed in relation to Wagner, is to
consider all available evidence before arriving at a
decision.
A number of noble Lords asked what efforts have been made to
persuade international allies to take co-ordinated action against
the Wagner Group. His Majesty’s Government continue to work with
key international partners to ensure that the Wagner Group is
held to account on the world stage and to promote global efforts
to curtail Wagner’s destabilising activity. When it comes to
proscription decisions, the Home Secretary will consider the
position of key international partners and, where appropriate,
departments will undertake proactive engagement to explore the
benefits of concerted multilateral action to increase the effect
of proscription. The Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence have
been very supportive of international engagement over this
particular decision. I would also like to reassure the noble
Lord, Lord Purvis, that this is very comprehensive and there is
no way for Wagner or its offshoots to hide.
The noble Lord, , asked about Contest. I refer
to the Government’s recent refresh of the integrated review,
which set out that the UK will use all tools at our disposal to
protect the UK against the modern threats we face.
(LD)
I will be happy if the Minister wishes to write to me on this,
but I raised a point regarding entities that have contracted the
Wagner Group as private security. This can include joint ventures
with commercial organisations and countries we have friendly
diplomatic relations with, including in the Gulf. Can the
Minister write to me about how we will apply the extraterritorial
aspects of this with regard to that component? That is very
important to ensure that there is no avoidance of the very valid
reasons we are doing this.
(Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point. He reminds me that I should
have commented on his comments about a very specific country,
which of course I am not really able to do in detail. I am sure
that diplomatic efforts and overtures are ongoing. I am certainly
happy to write to the noble Lord in as much detail as I am able
to.
(Lab)
I was concerned when I read the Foreign Affairs Select Committee
report about the 81 individuals who had been identified as linked
to Wagner and how only a quarter had been actively sanctioned by
the Government. Can the Minister update us on what is happening
with that? If not, perhaps he can write to me and put a copy in
the Library.
(Con)
The noble Lord, , will not expect me to comment
on live or ongoing situations. I will find out what it is
possible to say and certainly have a conversation with him or
place a letter in the Library, depending on what I am able to
say.
I offer thanks to all who have participated in this debate.
Through this proscription, the UK will again demonstrate that we
will not waver in our support for Ukraine and will hold Russia to
account for its aggression. We condemn Wagner’s role in Russia’s
war. Its wider activities have consistently been linked to human
rights violations. Through this action, we are sending a message
loud and clear that the United Kingdom will never stay silent in
the face of injustice or stop fighting terrorism. Finally, in
answer to the noble Lord, , about Wagner’s future, I
sincerely hope that it does not have one. I commend this order to
the House.
Motion agreed.
|
