Oral evidence from the Foreign Secretary, HC 538

Oral evidence, 21 March 2018.

Witnesses

Boris Johnson, Sir Simon McDonald and Karen Pierce.

Chair

Welcome to this afternoon’s session of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Foreign Secretary, Permanent Under-Secretary and Political Director, thank you very much for coming. We can start directly. I am going to ask Royston to kick off.

Royston Smith

Foreign Secretary, this is probably an obvious line of questioning, and entirely appropriate in my opinion— I am sure you will agree. Is it your assessment that President Putin was directly involved in, or gave the order for, the recent Salisbury attack?

Boris Johnson

Mr Smith, as you say, it is exactly right that we should begin with that subject. I am grateful to the Committee for having me along today. What the Prime Minister said a week ago was very clear. We gave the Russians two alternatives: either they could explain how stocks of Novichok had mysteriously escaped their possession and come to be used in Salisbury, or else we would be forced to draw the conclusion that the attempted murders that took place there, the reckless endangering of public life in this country and the first use of a nerve agent on European soil for 75 years was the direct responsibility of the Russian state. To go to your point, Mr Smith, as we saw in the case of the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, the trail of responsibility for such assassinations and assassination attempts does lead inexorably back to the Kremlin.

Royston Smith

On “Newsnight” recently, Mikhail Khodorkovsky—excuse my pronunciation—said that the attack could have been carried out by people empowered by President Putin but no longer under his control. Do you find that a plausible explanation?

Boris Johnson

I really think I would go back to what I just said. It is our view that when it comes to the use of a Novichok-type nerve agent in Salisbury to attempt to assassinate somebody who had been identified by the Russian state as a target for liquidation, not long after President Putin himself had said that such people would choke on their own 30 pieces of silver or deserve to be poisoned, no matter how exactly it came to be done, the pathway—the chain of responsibility—seems to me to go back to the Russian state and those at the top.

Mike Gapes

Foreign Secretary, why do you think that Putin, Russia, felt able to undertake such a brazen, despicable, illegal attack on British soil?

Boris Johnson

Well, I think that there are several reasons why the attack was made—the unlawful use of force, as the Prime Minister has correctly defined it. First, it was a sign that President Putin or the Russian state wanted to give to potential defectors in their own agencies, “This is what happens to you if you decide that you support a country with a different set of values,” such as our own. “You can expect to be assassinated.” The reason that they picked the United Kingdom is very simple. It is because this is a country that does have that particular set of values. It does believe in freedom, in democracy and in the rule of law, and time and again it has called out Russia over its abuses of those values. We have seen it in the western Balkans; we have seen it in the Baltics; we have seen what has been happening with the connivance of the Russians in Syria. And whether it is in the EU or the UN, or whatever, it is Britain that has been most forthright and most obstinate in sticking up for our values. I think that is probably the reason why it was decided to make the gesture here in this country.

Mike Gapes

Why do you think they used this particular nerve agent, rather than something more easily concealed and contained?

Boris Johnson

Obviously we can only speculate about that, Mr Gapes, but actually I thought it was the Father of the House, Ken Clarke, who put his finger on it the other day when he said that this was really to put a Russian signature on the deed, and by using a specific type of nerve agent that was known to have been developed in the Soviet Union, in Russia, it was a sign that nobody—no former Russian agent—was immune and no one could escape the long arm of Russian revenge. I think as the story has unfolded it has really become clearer and clearer how reckless the assassins were in their contempt for human life. It is not only that we still have a police officer in hospital and two people seriously injured; but many members of the public were put at serious risk of their health.

Mike Gapes

Why didn’t they fear what our response, our reaction, would be? Is it related to 10 years ago, 12 years ago, when they murdered Alexander Litvinenko with polonium? Is it to do with how we are seen internationally? You have referred to how the Russian state sees the UK. Did they feel that we were at a particular point where we might be less supported internationally than we might have been in the past?

Boris Johnson

If that was their assumption I think they have been greatly disappointed, because I think there is a big difference in the global reaction to this event and the assassination of Alexander Livinenko. If you remember what happened 12 years ago, the world was in fact rather muted in the way that it responded, and what we have seen over the last couple of weeks has been, I think, a mounting disgust globally at what has been done; and I have certainly been surprised by the strength of the solidarity that there is with the UK and the determination, whether it is at NATO or the EU, or the Quad statement, or in the UN Security Council—the determination by other countries to show their support for us in this country.

Mike Gapes

Do you have any thoughts about why they chose this particular timing to do this?

Boris Johnson

I think the most common suggestion that I have read and heard is that there may have been some—for instance, I have seen it speculated that there may be some reaction in Moscow, in the Kremlin, to the very considerable loss of Russian life in the Wagner mercenaries. You will remember what happened in Syria. I have certainly read speculation about that; but I think the timing is probably more closely connected with the recent election in Russia. As many non-democratic figures do, when facing an election or some critical political moment, it is often attractive to conjure up in the public imagination the notion of an enemy. That is what I think it was an attempt to excite amongst the Russian electorate.

Chair

Before we go on, Foreign Secretary, may I reiterate the support that I have had from parliamentarians across Europe who have contacted me as Chair of this Committee on any number of occasions and at any number of levels to repeat exactly your words?

Mr Seely

Perhaps I can ask Mike’s question with a different twist. You are giving your understanding of why the Russians may have behaved liked this, but there is another alternative: that they saw the response after Litvinenko and the possible other murders carried out on British soil since, and they see a nation that does not really spend very much on defence—as many European Union states do not—and that does not understand the nature of Russian full-spectrum war. You are saying that they are attacking us because they see us as being strong, but you could argue that they are actually attacking us because they see us as being weak and because we are desperate to look the other way, rather than see the nature of Russia’s full-spectrum war—whether in Ukraine, Crimea, the Baltic republics, Cyprus, Bosnia, Syria, London or the US elections.

Boris Johnson

Regardless of what happened 12 years ago after the Litvinenko assassination, I think most people on both sides of the Commons and all the Back Benchers I listened to last Wednesday overwhelmingly approved of the response that the UK is issuing this time. It has been a mixture of a very firm diplomatic response—as you know, the biggest expulsion of undeclared Russian agents since the 1980s—coupled with a series of measures designed to push back on Russia in all sorts of ways. I don’t believe that that would have been factored in or priced in when the decision was made to make this assassination attempt. You will know what they are: countering Russian disinformation with our colleagues, looking at what we can do to tackle cyber-war and build up our own cyber-capabilities, and above all making sure that we have a series of ways to crack down on those who may have illicitly or corruptly obtained money and who are connected to Vladimir Putin. We are working with our colleagues across the world to do just that; that work, as you can imagine, is now intensifying.

Priti Patel

Foreign Secretary, after your visit to Russia in December you said that we have to engage and we have to talk to each other. Is that still your approach when it comes to Russia? What are your plans, in terms of communication, in light of what has happened?

Boris Johnson

Yes, the policy is effectively unchanged, as the Prime Minister said on Wednesday. No one can say that we have not been trying. That was the reason for going to Moscow: to show that we were willing to engage. I am not going to say that Sergei Lavrov is coming here any time soon; he certainly isn’t. There will be no high-level UK representation at the World Cup; we all know that. Things are going to be very difficult politically—of course they will be—for a while to come, but that does not mean that all contact must be stopped and all engagement must be stopped. I will tell you why: because I believe that the UK, in spite of everything, actually has many admirers among the Russian people and people who want to listen to what we have to say. Those people were very disappointed, by the way, by Russia’s actions in closing down the British Council—of all the things that happened, that provoked the biggest hostile reaction that we know of amongst the Russian public. We want, if we possibly can, to continue communication and continue to hold out the hand of friendship to the Russian people, because our quarrel is emphatically not with them. Our quarrel is not with the Russians; it is with Putin’s Kremlin.

Priti Patel

How would you define success going forward, in terms of communication, engagement and actually making some progress with key dialogue on some of these issues, which are really pressing issues that are affecting us in diplomatic terms, but also politically?

Boris Johnson

I think there are several areas in which we have to be absolutely honest, where the Russians do play a role across the geopolitical landscape—not least in Syria, where the crisis is getting worse and the slaughter is again intensifying. We have people dying at the rate of about 80 a day now in eastern Ghouta. It is up to the Russians to get their client state and get Bashar al-Assad to the negotiating table in Geneva, to abandon what is happening in Sochi, which is not really leading anywhere, and have a proper negotiation. There the Russians can be influential—they certainly are influential. We in the UK have to engage to make that point.

Priti Patel

I know we will want to talk about Syria in a bit, but specifically you have raised Russia’s position on Syria and in Syria, in terms of its own actions and activities. In light of what we are facing in this country—following all the lines of culpability, getting accountability, getting them to take responsibility for what has happened—how far do you think we in Britain can push the Russians in being responsible and accountable for their own actions in Syria?

Boris Johnson

As you know, we have led the way in getting denunciation of what they have done and getting sanctions, certainly on members of the Assad regime, who were responsible the Khan Shaykhun massacre. We have continued to hold the Russians to account at the UN for what they are doing in Syria. Obviously, it is difficult since Russia is also a P5 country, but we continue to press the case and toughen up resolutions, so as to put the pressure on Assad and the Russians, and we continue to do so. If you look at the sanctions over Crimea. I think it is more or less exactly the fourth anniversary of that invasion. The UK has been in the lead across the world in imposing sanctions on Russia. I was asked about this a few days ago, those sanctions have been responsible for a 0.4% fall in Russia’s GDP in 2015 alone. So they are not insignificant. The UK has been at the forefront of pushing for these and we will continue to do so.

Chris Bryant

I want to press you a bit along the same lines as Mr Seely. When Alexander Litvinenko was murdered, obviously the first intention was to try to get a proper trial. It took a long time to have rows with the Russians about whether any extradition was possible, and whether it was even going to be possible to interview Mr Kovtun or Mr Lugovoy. Then there was a change of Government in 2010. Why did it take such a long time for the Government to agree to have a full inquiry into Alexander Litvinenko’s death?

Boris Johnson

I know you have been following this type of issue for a long time with a great deal of assiduity and clarity, Mr Bryant. It goes to why we took the decision to respond not immediately, but in a measured and proportionate way, and not to let the grass grow under our feet this time round in the case of Sergei Skripal and his daughter. The reason is, when it came to Litvinenko, the British state basically behaved in the way you would expect us to behave. We scrupulously followed the legal processes. Indeed, we have done on this occasion. Then we thought that the Russians would do the same. My understanding is that every effort was made to persuade the Russians to handover Lugovoy and Kovtun for trial, and the Russians, as ever, responded with denial, distortion and delay. That is their tactic. I think we have learned a lesson from that. That is why we have moved in a different way this time.

Chris Bryant

The Litvinenko inquiry then happened and at the end of that, even when it had been decided by the judge in the closest we could have to a full and proper trial that the trail ran straight back to the Kremlin, we did nothing.

Boris Johnson

I can tell you, Mr Bryant, that the case of Alexander Litvinenko was the first thing I think I raised in my first ever meeting with Sergei Lavrov, so we have continued to raise it.

Chris Bryant

I know but we didn’t do anything, did we?

Boris Johnson

It is very difficult, when you have absolute denial by the Russian state of what they have done, to ask them to produce—

Chris Bryant

Have you met Marina Litvinenko—his widow?

Boris Johnson

Not to my knowledge. It may be that I have.

Chris Bryant

I urge you, if you have not had an opportunity, to do so, because she is one of the most clear-sighted, calm and outstanding individuals that I have met and she has a lot of good ideas about things that we could do.

Sir Simon McDonald

Just on a point of fact, Mr Bryant, it is not true that the Government did not do anything. The Government of Gordon Brown, in July 2007, when it came in, put in place a series of measures—four expulsions.

Chris Bryant

I understand that. I am talking about after the inquiry had been held. We did nothing then.

Sir Simon McDonald

There have been a series of actions, most of which are still in place.

Chris Bryant

I understand that. The point is that after the Litvinenko inquiry had been held, when the judge pointed the trail straight back to the Kremlin, we did nothing. That is where I think Mr Seely’s point is quite a good one. Obviously, we would much prefer to have a full trial, with suspects and all the rest. If that proves impossible, for all the same reasons, will we have a public inquiry led by a judge as soon as possible, so that as much as can be held in a proper judicial process can happen?

Boris Johnson

First of all—to get back to your point about the British state doing nothing about Kovtun and Lugovoy—we continue to demand their extradition. That is a point, as I said, that I raise with my Russian counterparts when I have met them. On your question about a judicial inquiry, I think what most people would want to see now—the priority is to allow our police, our law enforcement agencies, to get on with their job and try to establish the facts of the case as best as they can. As you know, what we are doing now is handing over or making sure that the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has access to the samples of nerve agent, so that they can be properly evaluated in what I think most people would accept are going to be impartial conditions.

Chris Bryant

I am going to ask an allied question if that’s okay. I have had it put to me that the reason we did nothing of substance after the Litvinenko inquiry was that Russian money in the UK is now so important that it would be an existential risk to the City of London to lose that money.

Boris Johnson

I don’t believe that for a minute, Mr Bryant.

Mr Seely

Building on what Chris was saying, Foreign Secretary, I am slightly concerned that the west and the UK do not understand the nature of the Russian threat, so can I ask you what you believe it consists of—Russia’s full-spectrum war, new generation war, hybrid war—and where you believe it is being played out, in the UK and elsewhere in the world?

Boris Johnson

I think the Russian threat consists mainly in a state of mind that is to be found in the Kremlin. It’s a revanchist, bitter feeling about the way the Cold War ended and about what happened to the old Soviet Union, and a feeling that Russia is now simply the controller of a much diminished sphere of influence. The boundaries of Moscow’s dominions have been rolled back, and I think Vladimir Putin feels that very keenly. He feels that Russia lost out and so he wants to cause trouble wherever he can. That is why you have seen the kind of provocations—the attempted assassination in Montenegro, the cyber-warfare, disinformation, meddling in European election campaigns, to say nothing of election campaigns elsewhere. It’s a general feeling that Russia has got to be noticed. And then of course there is the action in Syria. It’s a desire for the world to take Russia seriously again, at any price. Of course, his principal audience for this is not us; it’s his domestic audience, who want, after what they see as all these humiliations, to feel that Russia is strong again and that Russia is ruled by someone who is strong and capable of expressing his strength and his desire for revenge, even in a place like Salisbury.

Mr Seely

I asked that question because—and thank you for the answer, which I thought was very full. You didn’t list many tools and you primarily looked at forms of political covert warfare—what, in the Cold War, was called active measures, so disinformation, smears, assassinations, etc. Do you link that to other tools: conventional military tools, economic tools, soft power, hard power? I’m talking about what the Russians say in their doctrine is the mixing, the integration, of military and non-military.

Boris Johnson

Of course, and hybrid warfare is the correct term. Think about what happened with the attempted murder of an agent in Salisbury,[1] or things like attacks on a TV station—such as TV5 in France—the disabling of a network, or unexplained hacking. Those things are very carefully chosen because they probably come beneath the threshold of article 5 of the NATO treaty. They don’t quite justify the nations of NATO coming together for a joint response, not least because—unlike the advance of a tank battalion, let alone a nuclear strike—they are much harder to identify and prove. It is that type of hybrid warfare that Russia is now engaged in.

Mr Seely

Coming back to what we are doing—we are doing something in finance, something in cyber, and something on the espionage front. Is our response to full-spectrum war, full spectrum?

Boris Johnson

I want to be very clear that we do not wish to engage in a new Cold War. I deprecate that term—I remember the old Cold War, and it was a pretty miserable time. I grew up genuinely worrying that our country was going to be evaporated in a thermonuclear strike. I don’t think that we face that kind of existential threat, but it is a threat none the less. We have to be very tough and resolute. To return to your earlier question about defence spending, I think it is absolutely right that we as a country are one of the biggest spenders on defence in NATO, and that we meet the 2% threshold.

Mr Seely

Finally on this point, however you want to characterise our relationship with the Russians now, during the Cold War the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence did fantastically good work methodically exposing Russian active measures and disinformation campaigns. Rather than just waving a stick or wagging a finger at the Russians, should we not be trying to do something similar and setting up some kind of permanent standing inquiry, under Government and under Parliament, that methodically exposes to our own people, the Russian people, and for the historical record, these subversive campaigns? If they are a threat, should we not be doing more to expose them to the light of truth?

Boris Johnson

I certainly think that we need to do more to expose Russian disinformation. As you know, the UK makes a contribution to various organisations—not least in the EU—that are engaged in that effort, and we will continue to do so. One difficulty we have is that a lie goes half way round the world before the truth has got its boots on, and a lot of people are being taken in by stuff coming out from Russia Today and other outlets. The Russians are very, very adept at organising tweetbots and trolling factories and so on that pump out all sorts of stuff, and we certainly need to counteract that.

Mr Seely

As Foreign Secretary, what are you going to do about it?

Boris Johnson

We are investing in good journalism, and we are supporting the BBC World Service. As you know, that is an impartial, independent organisation that is much trusted and loved around the world.

Chair

On exactly that note, you have spoken about the intent of the Russian Government in order to talk at home, and most of us would recognise that many of the actions of the Russian Federation in recent weeks have been for a domestic audience. But surely, however, some of this is not for a domestic audience; it is designed to destroy the ties that bind us and the rules of the international system, and effectively to undermine the alliances and fabric of the world that we have built with such pain and difficulty over the best part of the last 70 years since the war. Do you see that as a very threatening situation of course for the United Kingdom, but also for our European partners, and particularly the smaller members who have clubbed together—either in NATO, the European Union, or any other form—to ensure that they are able to exercise their national mandate, free from the pressure of an overweening neighbour?

Boris Johnson

That is exactly right, Mr Tugendhat. I think that is maybe part of the Russian intention and, in so far as it is, so far they have been wholly confounded in their efforts, because what they have done is actually reinforce the solidarity—as you have discovered yourself in your conversation with other parliamentarians around Europe—of our continent and reinforce the solidarity of NATO. I have to say, I was very surprised by the strength of the language and the endorsement of the UK analysis that appeared in the Quad statement, and the power of what Nikki Haley had to say to the UN Security Council. These were things that we didn’t necessarily go looking for, but which came spontaneously as it were, I think partly because so many countries over the last few years have felt the effects of Russia’s disruptive and malign behaviour. I just want to go back to a point Mr Seely made because Karen reminds me that in addition to supporting free and independent media—one of the things that I have done at the Foreign Office is to invest in support for journalists who fall foul of regimes with their legal difficulties—we are also putting £8 million into independent media operating in the Russian language. We are trying to reach those people as well.

Chair

Correcting the lies coming out of Russian state-sponsored media outlets in both London and Edinburgh, which we all know about, is clearly an important thing to do. I would also like to draw attention to the fact that these lies are being spread very effectively through modern means of communication. The work that our sister Committee under Damian Collins has done is extremely important. May I ask what support you as the Foreign Office would be willing to give to enable those forms of inquiry? Holding inquiries overseas, holding inquiries through embassy networks and all that is extremely important in making sure that Committees can reach out to partner nations like the United States that have lessons to give. It would be extremely useful to be able to use embassies in that way.

Boris Johnson

Yes, I recall that about Mr Collins’s Committee. In fact, you are getting at a specific point here, which is that the DCMS Committee wanted to have an evidence session at the UK embassy in Washington. I thought that was a very interesting idea, but the difficulty with that is that it would have been construed as UK interference in domestic US politics, and we had to think very carefully about how to handle that. Of course we support the Committee going out fact-finding. That is what we are there to do: we are there to support all such inquiries and every effort to get to the truth and to counteract the peddling of lies.

Chair

I assure you that not only this Committee but other Committees feel very strongly that, as representatives of the British people, the embassies have a role to host not just the will of the British Government but the will of the British people, as assembled here in Parliament. Therefore, enabling the Committee system to work through the embassy network is seen as an important aspect of that.

Boris Johnson

Let me take that away, Mr Tugendhat. Let me take that away.

Chair

If we are not willing to explain to people the difference between Parliament and Government through our own embassy network, it does rather call into question our ability to communicate many of the finer points of our constitutional settlement—

Boris Johnson

I can see, Mr Tugendhat, that you would like to hold your inquiries around the world. I don’t necessarily wish to stand in your way. I can see where this is leading. It is leading to us supporting you in having wonderful meetings of your Committee at embassies around the world. May I think about it?

Chair

It is not actually about this Committee, because this Committee already uses embassies extremely effectively and has no complaint to make; it is about other Committees. If it was solely about us, it would be much easier—

Boris Johnson

But I think the issue, if I understand it correctly, is that what was proposed was that there should be, as it were, an empanelled Committee holding a session and calling American politicians to a hearing on, as it were, UK soil—it was a novel idea.

Chair

Instead they just rented a room. The Committee was still quorate, the Committee event still happened, except instead of being held in the embassy it was held in a hotel—with extra cost to Parliament, admittedly. More importantly, it lost some of the impact, I would argue. We would be very happy for you to look at that and to come back.

Boris Johnson

Your point is heard and understood.

Chair

May I say specifically that that is not as relevant to this Committee as it is to many others in Parliament?

Boris Johnson

I understand. I certainly do not want to deter hon. Members representing the people here assembled in Parliament, as you have rightly described, from being able to hold their deliberations anywhere else in the world where the UK has representation—where that is reasonable. We will certainly look at it, but I don’t want to make a blanket commitment to all sorts of sessions and all sorts of panels taking place around the world. I do foresee difficulties.

Ian Austin

I think that’s a yes.

Boris Johnson

No, it’s not; it’s a no.

Chair

I think it’s a no and that we will have to come back to this.

Mike Gapes

You referred in an earlier answer, Foreign Secretary, to the British Council. What discussions are you having with the British Council about how to help staff? Many of them are locally engaged staff, and there will be other people who have to leave Russia with their families because of this decision. Have you had any discussion with it about this?

Boris Johnson

Obviously, the Foreign Office has had extensive discussions with the British Council about how we are going to handle their needs. I think it is a desperate shame that so many British Council staff will have to come back. As the Committee may know, following what Maria Zakharova had to say after the Russian announcement, there is still some ambiguity about exactly what rights the British Council may still have in Moscow, so we are keen to bottom that out, but—

Mike Gapes

Will you write to us?

Boris Johnson

We will do everything we possibly can to look after them. By the way, may I take this opportunity to thank them for their outstanding work? They have done a fantastic job—Shakespeare all over the subway in Moscow, fantastic things with concerts and with young people, really showing the best of this country to Russians. That was why, I think, one of the strongest negative reactions to what Russia did was from people who value the British Council and British culture.

Mike Gapes

A few years ago, we unveiled a statue to Yuri Gagarin outside the British Council offices in London. There was a big ceremony and the Russians were very happy to have that. That is another example. Finally, you spoke in answer to a previous question about the continuing UK contribution to organisations, not least in the European Union, and said that we will continue to do so. I welcome it very much that we will continue to work with the European Union on those values-based issues. Thank you for saying that.

Boris Johnson

Yes, we will. Of course, as you know, because you will have studied the detail of the Prime Minister’s Mansion House speech, we will sometimes do things in concert with our European friends and partners; we may sometimes do things differently—for instance, we may have tighter sanctions than our European friends and partners, where sanctions are appropriate—and we may take other initiatives. May I clarify one thing that I think it is important for the Committee to understand? The British Council representative has not been expelled, so there is still a question at the moment about how the British Council may or may not operate.

Chair

Are you going to be very quick, Chris?

Chris Bryant

I was going to ask about football.

Chair

We will come to that in a moment. Stephen.

Stephen Gethins

I have a couple of questions to ask, just to build on what Mr Gapes said. When this Committee went to Moscow—first, I commend your ambassador and embassy staff out in Moscow, who were very good to us, and I know that they have an extraordinarily tough gig at the moment, and did then as well—I was impressed by the work of the British Council, which was extraordinarily helpful to us. It is seeing its budget reduced quite significantly in 2019-20. Do you still think that that was the right decision to take?

Boris Johnson

Mr Gethins, there is a negotiation going on and a discussion under way about funding for the British Council.

Stephen Gethins

Okay, but in the light of what has happened recently, do you think that it is something worthwhile reviewing?

Boris Johnson

I am a massive fan of the British Council.

Stephen Gethins

I’m not sure whether to take that as a yes or a no, Foreign Secretary. It sounds like a no, though.

Boris Johnson

Mr Gethins, I can assure you that they will be getting more money.

Stephen Gethins

Good. I am really glad to hear that. Just to build on some of the additional work that is going on at the moment, can you set out some details about where you think we could be taking additional measures in terms of tackling the finances?

Boris Johnson

You are talking about, as it were, the corrupt associates of Vladimir Putin, and so on and so forth.

Chair

And Putin himself.

Boris Johnson

Indeed. There are powers, under the Criminal Finances Act of April last year, to make unexplained wealth orders against people who law enforcement agencies determine have corruptly or illicitly obtained their wealth. We have the National Crime Agency currently working very hard on various lists of names, as you can imagine, of persons of interest to them. I should stress that they are persons of interest to them. We have to be clear about how this country works. This is not a country where we in the Government can say, “Oi! We think this so-and-so deserves to have his or her collar felt.” That is not how it works here. They must decide on the basis of the evidence whether a crime has been committed, and they must decide whether or not to prosecute. We have a national economic crime unit—they are also involved. That work is certainly intensifying. It is one of the areas in which the work is intensifying across borders. This is something that we are doing together with our American colleagues and our French colleagues. We are working together on this issue. I could not now name individuals who are in the crosshairs of the law enforcement agencies, simply because that would be legally very unwise. If we are to have any chance whatever of successful prosecutions of these individuals, it would be totally wrong to prejudice the case against them by identifying some sort of political directive or mandate.

Stephen Gethins

I know that you will be aware of, and you’ll understand, the concerns about the political will to tackle the finances. Notwithstanding games of tennis that cost more than 99% of what people earn in a year, can you reassure the Committee that there is absolutely the political will in Government to tackle the financial element of this?

Boris Johnson

Absolutely. We believe that that is the next big shoe to drop, as it were. We think that is where the UK activity will go. It is not just financial, of course. I should have mentioned to Mr Seely in the list of things that we are doing what the Prime Minister said about making sure that there was a proper Magnitsky—or Magnitsky-style—amendment to the new sanctions Bill. I know that there is, more or less, cross-party agreement now on how that should work.

Stephen Gethins

As well as looking at that, just as one final question on the finances, you will be aware of Scottish limited partnerships. They were originally set up in 1907, but more have been created in the past decade than in their first 100 years of existence. Is that something you will look at as well?

Boris Johnson

Forgive me, Mr Gethins, did you say Scottish limited partnerships?

Stephen Gethins

Scottish limited partnerships.

Boris Johnson

I am sure we will certainly take that away.

Stephen Gethins

It was something that came up at the weekend on the Peston programme, for example. I’d be grateful to you if you could look at that.

Boris Johnson

I’d be very happy to have a look at that.

Mr Seely

I just want to make sure, because by far the most important element of the modest amount of stuff that we promised to do across the full spectrum of effects to counter Russia is in this field, that there is no reluctance on the part of Government to hit significant oligarchic criminal supporters.

Boris Johnson

Absolutely.

Mr Seely

And you’re going to go after them at this juncture?

Boris Johnson

All I can say—and this is not by political fiat; this must be done according to the law, because that is how we work—is that I can assure you that if there is evidence that the wealth of people in London, the wealth of people with great big schlosses in wherever it is, in fashionable districts of this city, has been illicitly or corruptly obtained, and we have evidence for that, we now have the statute to have an unexplained wealth order against them, or to find other means to deprive them of their assets and to go after them.

Mr Seely

Thank you. One of the things that concerned me, prior to Colonel Skripal’s attempted murder, was the reluctance—the slight dragging of feet—about the Magnitsky law. I hope that has now changed. There are five elements that not only I but Transparency International and other people have recommended that the Government do: unexplained wealth orders; the public register, which seems to be permanently delayed—we should be speeding it up, but we seem to be delaying it; prohibiting agents who are not linked to the anti-money laundering supervising programmes but are setting up companies in this country; providing Companies House with resources; and bringing the overseas territories and Crown dependencies up to UK standards. Are those five elements going to be part of our attempt to ensure our system is clean so that we can dissuade corrupt money from coming to London and legally target Kremlin cash?

Boris Johnson

First of all, on Magnitsky and why there was some delay and some discussion about how to proceed, to be fair to the Government—which is, after all, my job—

Chris Bryant

Sometimes.

Boris Johnson

Always, Mr Bryant, always. If you look at the text, it actually says that we should be able to hold to account anybody who is responsible for human rights abuses in Russia—or, indeed, in any other country.

Chair

Sorry, just to be clear, who will determine what the human rights abuses are?

Boris Johnson

That will obviously be a matter for our law enforcement agencies to determine. My point to Mr Seely is that, a fortiori, “any human rights abuse” is a stronger formulation than “gross human rights abuse”, which is what the Magnitsky terminology demanded. I think we have reached a good place on that, and as I understand it there is cross-party agreement on the language, and we are happy to support it. On the issue of beneficial ownership and making sure there is total clarity about that, the UK is far in advance of every other G20 country in that it has the first public central register of beneficial ownership information. That is something that few other countries do. The issue relates to the overseas territories, where there is a controversy about some of the ways in which they make information available.

Mr Seely

They’ve been very slow.

Boris Johnson

At the moment, it is certainly true that they operate a slightly different regime from us. But, as you yourself say, Mr Seely, they do make that information available to law enforcement agencies, people cracking down on financial crime, and all the rest of it. That’s what they do. There is no secrecy per se. What they don’t necessarily do is put it all out in the public domain for journalists and everybody else. Now, that’s where we want them to get to. That’s the ideal world. We all want to achieve that. The question is, how do we get that? The discussion going on with parliamentary colleagues is about the pace we insist upon for them to achieve that. Several issues are raised by that. The first is a constitutional point: is it really right for us in the UK simply to order them to do something like that, when after all we believe in devolved Government here in the UK and we wouldn’t want to order the Welsh or the Scottish to do absolutely everything in the way we do it?

Chair

What about financial probity?

Boris Johnson

We make no comment on their probity. The second question relates to the very great suffering that some of these jurisdictions have experienced in the last year after Hurricane Irma—the worst natural disaster we have seen for generations. Their case to us is that they need to proceed a bit more slowly because of the risk that funds—the British Virgin Islands’ tourist economy is very limited by comparison with its financial services industry. The risk is that you would simply see a diversion of investment away from British overseas territories to the Netherlands Antilles or wherever it happens to be, which have a jurisdiction that is much less demanding than the UK’s. We want to get there and that’s the movement that we are engaged in.

Ian Austin

I think people will be quite sceptical about what you have said about the response to Magnitsky, for example. He was murdered almost nine years ago. Since then, on at least five separate occasions, Bill Browder has presented the Government with dossiers of evidence, showing that money from that crime was laundered here in London. Twelve other countries have initiated investigations into laundering of that money. As far as I am aware, that has not happened in the UK. Why is that?

Boris Johnson

As I said earlier to the Committee, first of all, we do have powers under existing statute to go after people who we think are involved in the abuse of human rights.

Ian Austin

But they have not been used.

Boris Johnson

What we are doing now is strengthening those powers under an amendment to the sanctions Bill, to give further encouragement to law enforcement agencies to go after such individuals.

Ian Austin

With the greatest of respect, Foreign Secretary, it should not have taken another attempted murder on the streets of Britain for the Government finally to have woken up to the severity of this issue. It should not have taken that. I agree with you that we should be tough and robust, but nothing you have said this afternoon will have boots quaking in the Kremlin. For all you have said about engagement, it is about time our Government woke up to the fact that we are not dealing here with a legitimate leader of a democratic country. Putin is an unreconstructed KGB thug who has enriched himself to the tune of hundreds of billions, has looted the country, has murdered his opponents at home and abroad, and has sanctioned the use of chemical weapons in Syria. The best way to deal with that is to go after him and the corrupt people around him. I will give you one example: Igor Shuvalov, the First Deputy Prime Minister, supposedly earns £112,000 a year but, within a few hundred yards of this building, has bought two flats on Whitehall near the Ministry of Defence, worth £11 million. What are you going to do about that?

Boris Johnson

First of all, Mr Austin, I completely disagree with your first point. The reaction that I saw on both sides of the House of Commons on Wednesday was that they thought this was a commensurate and robust package of measures. It has overwhelming parliamentary support and I do think it will make a great difference. We intend to ensure that it does. On your point about the individual, as I said, nothing could be more prejudicial to our chances of actually cracking down on somebody whose wealth has been corruptly or illicitly obtained than for me to identify politically any such target.

Chair

Can I just jump straight on that? Forgive me. One of the ways that people are getting their money out of this country is by allowing Russian sovereign debt to be sold in the UK, and that debt to be used to reimburse Russians, in a way, to bring back their money onshore, in Moscow terms. As that gold is moving towards Moscow, we are, quite extraordinarily, enabling those bond auctions, those debt auctions. In fact, I believe I am right in saying that only last week $4 billion of Eurobonds were sold in London, and half that was bought.

Boris Johnson

Mr Tugendhat, where a crime has been committed and you have evidence, you should take that to—

Chair

I am not specifically referring to a crime. I am saying that the sanctions on individuals only work if the state is not allowed to find a loop around the sanction. This is one of those areas where it appears that sanctions on businesses are being compensated for by the Russian state. As Mr Austin rightly said, we are not dealing with a normal regime here. If you go to the Russian state and say, “A particular aspect has been sanctioned. Will the Russian state, therefore, recognise the international importance of the sanctions regime?”, they will look for a way round the sanction and a way to help the individual because, of course, the individual, the state and the gangster regime of KGB-affiliated agents are all one.

Boris Johnson

As you know, Mr Tugendhat, we have already sanctioned about 149 individuals, who have restrictions on their travel and on their ability to transact business in this country, certainly. If you have evidence of other individuals who are breaking the law at the moment—

Chair

I am referring to the whole state. I am not referring to individuals.

Boris Johnson

If you are saying that our country is breaking the law, then you as a parliamentarian are entitled to—

Chair

No, I am saying that the state is using its organs to undermine sanctions on banks like VTB Bank. That is what I am saying.

Boris Johnson

If there is a deficiency in the law of a kind that you describe, we will look at it to see what we can do.

Chair

So would you consider, as part of that, imposing sanctions on Russian bond sales in London or through London clearing houses?

Boris Johnson

I didn’t say that.

Chair

No, I know. I am asking you whether you would.

Boris Johnson

I think what we need to do is—You are talking about getting round sanctions, if I understand you correctly. If there is something we can do to stop people who are sanctioned individuals getting round the penalties against them, then we should certainly look at that.

Chair

Russian debt markets use London clearing houses.

Boris Johnson

If there is something that we can do to stop individuals from getting round the sanctions—

Chair

Yes, there is, and that is called sanctioning Russian debt markets and preventing sovereign bonds from being traded in London.

Boris Johnson

You make an interesting suggestion.

Mr Seely

This is a matter of policy, not a matter of criminality. For example, quite recently, a month or two ago, EN+ floated in London and raised lots of money. Greg Barker, sadly, is the chairman of it—an ex-Tory MP who now sits with much majesty and finesse in the House of Lords. He is chairman of this outfit. It floated. A lot of money went to EN+. They go and pay VTB Bank, which is sanctioned. London is being used to raise funds to give hard currency to banks that are sanctioned. We are almost enabling the Russians to play the sanctions. Is that because Lord Barker is just so powerful or because our sanctions are weak?

Boris Johnson

I hesitate to comment on any individual case, but it is very important in this whole conversation to make a hard and fast distinction between those who the law enforcement agencies believe are responsible for crimes, and Russian people, Russian business people and Russian businesses trading freely and living their lives in this country.

Chris Bryant

Can I ask one simple question? Was Vladimir Putin validly elected in a free and fair election this week?

Boris Johnson

I think, according to the OSCE monitors, there was an absence of genuine competition. I think that slightly understates it but, you know.

Chris Bryant

Say what you really mean. Do you think he was validly elected or not?

Boris Johnson

I prefer to go with the judgment of the OSCE monitors, which was that there was, as far as I can remember what they said, very little free and fair media, people were discouraged from taking part, and there was an absence of genuine competition. That does not strike me as a free and fair election.

Chris Bryant

Okay. I don’t understand why you can’t just say it straight for yourself.

Boris Johnson

The answer to that is no.

Chris Bryant

Thank you. For the Sochi Olympics, notwithstanding the fact that we had suspended intelligence co-operation with the Russians, we did co-operate for those Olympics to make sure that they could happen safely. Are we doing the same for the World Cup or are we doing something different?

Boris Johnson

As you would expect, we are doing everything we can to ensure the safety of UK fans—of England fans—going to watch the football. There has been an awful lot of work in the last few months with the Russian police to try to co-ordinate. It is up to the Russians. It is up to the Russians to guarantee the safety of England fans going to Russia. It is their duty under their FIFA contract to look after our fans. We will be doing everything we can in the Foreign Office to make sure that they have access to the best possible advice. There are updates on our “Be on the Ball” website and we will of course make sure that they have that. We are watching it very, very closely. At the moment, we are not inclined actively to dissuade people from going, because we want to hear from the Russians what steps they are going to take to look after our fans. I want to hear from Russia how they propose to look after UK nationals coming to the World Cup. I will give you one interesting statistic, which is that, so far, the applications from England fans to go to Russia for the World Cup are about a quarter of what they were at this stage for the Rio World Cup—so about 24,000 against about 94,000 for a comparable stage in the competition. So the numbers are well down, but that does not mean that we are not deeply concerned about how they may be treated.

Chris Bryant

Despite being Welsh, I do have an interest in English football fans, but that was not the question I was asking really. The question I am asking is, have we suspended intelligence co-operation with Russian intelligence or not?

Boris Johnson

I don’t make any comment on intelligence matters.

Chris Bryant

In previous operations, we have. When Litvinenko was murdered, we said that we were suspending all intelligence operations with the Russians—

Boris Johnson

I don’t comment on intelligence matters, but what I have told you, Mr Bryant—

Chris Bryant

But every previous Foreign Secretary has made that commitment.

Boris Johnson

What I have told you, Mr Bryant, is that we are—have been—co-operating at a police level with the Russians. There are questions now about how that co-operation will go on, and my challenge to the Russian authorities is to show that the 24,000 UK applicants for tickets to the football World Cup are going to be well treated and safe in Russia.

Chair

The way you are expressing yourself, Foreign Secretary, suggests that you are doubtful that they will be.

Boris Johnson

I think it is up to the Russians to give us undertakings that they will be. It is there in their FIFA contract, and they should.

Ian Murray

Foreign Secretary, may I take you back to the previous questions? How much dirty money, whether Russian or otherwise, does the Foreign Office estimate is currently in the UK?

Boris Johnson

We don’t have a figure for that.

Ian Murray

Although you don’t have a figure, do you think it is greater or less than it would have been five years ago?

Boris Johnson

I can’t—I have no data I can give you on that, Mr Murray.

Ian Murray

How do you know the scale of the problem?

Boris Johnson

What I can tell you is what I have said repeatedly to the Committee, which is that we have the powers under the Criminal Finances Act to go after money that has been illicitly or corruptly obtained. That is what our law enforcement agencies are doing.

Ian Murray

Could the public conclude from that concession that Russian money in London in particular is too important for the Government to have a really strong policy against it.

Boris Johnson

No.

Ian Murray

In what way?

Boris Johnson

Because we are determined to go after money that has been illicitly or corruptly obtained, and we will use unexplained wealth orders and other devices against such individuals.

Ian Murray

So when you come back to the Committee, say in 12 months’ time, you will have a list of people who have been properly sanctioned, assets that have been properly seized and money that has been properly returned to its rightful owner.

Boris Johnson

I will certainly guarantee that the National Crime Agency and the entire apparatus of our law enforcement bodies are on that case.

Ian Murray

It is not just about crime agencies and law enforcement but, as Mr Seely said, it is about Government policy.

Boris Johnson

No, it’s not. If I may say so, Mr Murray, it is very important for the Committee to understand that it cannot be Government policy to single out individuals and to say that they are right for persecution, or prosecution.

Ian Murray

Government have put in place the legal framework that crime agencies work towards—

Boris Johnson

That’s right.

Ian Murray

And it seems to me that the legal framework is deficient.

Boris Johnson

Well, I respectfully disagree with that. We have ample statute to go after people. And it is vital that we do that work in co-operation with Governments and law enforcement agencies around the world.

Ian Murray

In example after example, evidence has been produced, and it appears on the face of it, to the public, that people are not being brought to justice.

Boris Johnson

I revert to what I said a while ago. Where we can find good evidence, of course we must have convictions, but the worst possible thing would be to start, politically, a great hue and cry against certain individuals who might actually have their wealth by perfectly proper means.

Ian Austin

I hope that the message you got from the Committee this afternoon is that we think there should be much more urgent, much more serious efforts. I accept that you cannot say to officials, “Go after this individual, go after that individual”, but the Government can certainly tell the National Crime Agency and the other law enforcement bodies to take a much more urgent and more serious approach to tackling money brought to this country by people responsible for corruption in Russia or the gross abuse of human rights. That is the message that I hope you have got from this discussion, and I hope as a result there will be a much more co-ordinated approach across Government.

Boris Johnson

Mr Austin, I totally get what you’re saying. Nobody would be happier than me if we could finger the collar of several corrupt oligarchs and distrain them of their possessions in London. That would be a fantastic thing. But nothing could be more prejudicial to that operation than for me to identify those people—

Ian Austin

I am not asking you to do that.

Boris Johnson

Could I just finish the point? Nothing would be worse than having a case that misfired, where someone got off.

Ian Austin

Let’s agree on this then. The next time you come here you will be able to tell us that action has been taken against a series of people. Let’s just agree on that. On the World Cup, I am a football fan and season ticket holder. I love watching England but there is absolutely no way that I would be going to Russia to watch the national team. If a member of my family wanted to go, he would be subject to a visa ban by me, frankly. They got the right to stage the World Cup, clearly through corruption. Putin is going to use it the way Hitler used the 1936 Olympics. The idea of Putin handing over the World Cup to the captain of the winning team fills me with horror.

Boris Johnson

I’m afraid you’re completely right—that’s completely wrong.

Ian Austin

The idea of Putin using this as a PR exercise to gloss over the brutal, corrupt regime for which he is responsible, fills me with horror. I think we should look carefully at the participation of the England team.

Boris Johnson

When you say look carefully, Mr Austin, what do you mean by that?

Ian Austin

I frankly do not think that England should participate in the World Cup. I do not think we should support Putin using this as a PR exercise to gloss over the gross human rights abuses for which he is responsible. I also think it is not safe for England fans to travel to Russia, particularly when so many of our diplomats have just been booted out. How on earth can we think that proper consular services are going to be provided to England fans who could be attacked, as they were attacked by Russian thugs during the European championships a couple of years ago? That violence was supported and encouraged by members of the Russian Parliament. I think we have got to wake up to this and take this much more seriously.

Boris Johnson

Let me say of your characterisation of what is going to happen in Moscow and all the venues for the World Cup, yes, the comparison with 1936 is certainly right. It is an emetic prospect to think of Putin glorying in this sporting event. I have thought about it a lot. I mentioned it when I first came to Parliament. At your suggestion, Mr Chairman, I suggested that we might consider UK representation at the World Cup. By that I meant what has now happened: the decision not to send the princes or high-level political representation. Thinking very hard about the tournament itself, English football and fans of England, who could come from any part of the United Kingdom, or elsewhere indeed—global fans of England—on balance, it would be wrong to punish them or the team, who have worked on this for a long time incredibly hard, giving up their lives to it. I think it would be a pity for them. Your point about the safety of fans is well made and well taken. That is of crucial importance to us. We do indeed need to have an urgent conversation with the Russians about how they propose to fulfil their obligations under their FIFA contract to look after all fans arriving.

Mr Seely

Are you having those conversations?

Boris Johnson

We certainly shall be.

Mr Seely

Have you had any conversation yet?

Boris Johnson

Not yet, no. We must have a proper discussion at the UK national level on how exactly we proceed. Because one of the consequences of the expulsions that we had from Moscow was that we lost the officer who was going to be responsible for the fans. You can’t imagine anything more counterproductive for the UK’s ability to help fans when in Russia. I will not hide from the Committee that there is an issue and there is a discussion. We need to consider that issue. At the moment, the numbers of applicants for tickets are well down on where we were at Rio, but there is still a considerable number of fans who want to go. We have to think of their welfare.

Chair

There are fans who, if they go, will go to places such as Kaliningrad that are exposed hotbeds of Russian nationalism; and Volgograd, which is a long way from Moscow. Those train and car journeys are—

Boris Johnson

Mr Austin has an extremely good point. That is the truth. You are right, Mr Tugendhat, about Kaliningrad. We are thinking actively about all that.

Chair

We have no diplomatic representation there; we are closing the consulate in St Petersburg.

Boris Johnson

We can see the risks, of course we can. To appreciate the risks and to understand our latest thinking, I tell all fans to look at the “Be on the Ball” section of our website.

Chair

And you’ll keep that up to date?

Boris Johnson

We will keep that updated, and across Government we are considering what further steps we need to take to get the Russians to guarantee the safety of our fans, if we can.

Chair

Of course we are talking about fans, coming up to the World Cup, but there are many UK businesses operating perfectly legally in the United Kingdom. Surely, this is one of those moments when they should think very hard—

Boris Johnson

In Russia?

Chair

Sorry, in Russia. This is one of those moments when they should think very hard about the safety of their own staff.

Boris Johnson

Yes, and that is why it is so important that, notwithstanding the strong feelings that this whole episode has evoked in the UK, and indeed in Russia, we make it clear to the people of Russia that our quarrel is not with them. We don’t want Russophobia or anything like that. That is why I use my language carefully about our quarrel being with the Russian state and with Putin.

Priti Patel

Do you envisage a situation at all where the British Government could advise football fans not to travel to Russia?

Boris Johnson

As I say, we need to understand what steps are going to be taken to give England fans the safety that they require.

Priti Patel

When do you think you will make that judgment call?

Boris Johnson

At the moment, our judgment is that there is no cause for a boycott, but we urge fans to get on to our website and to take our advice.

Priti Patel

Could I ask another specific question post the Salisbury attack? You have spoken very clearly about the support that we have received from friends and allies around the world. You have also said that financial sanctions and the measures that we have make us able to go after various individuals, culprits and people who are known to be responsible for corruption—washing money through London and so on. What are you doing to ask our allies to undertake specific action with regards to further sanctions and targeted interventions on Russia? Secondly, tomorrow we have a meeting of the European Council. Do you expect anything specific to come out the European Council tomorrow that could lead to firm actions?

Boris Johnson

Let me just say that actions are a matter for our friends and colleagues; I am not sighted on what they may or may choose to do.

Priti Patel

Are there any recommendations?

Boris Johnson

What we are pleased by is that, so far, the intensity of the fellow feeling that I have detected from colleagues around the world has been far beyond what we expected. We have had statements basically backing up our analysis from the Quad, and from the Americans in the UN of what has happened, pointing the finger very firmly at Russia; the EU calling for Russia to explain what it has done; and a very strong statement from NATO. These are things that we did not get 12 years ago when Alexander Litvinenko was assassinated. I am pleased to see that.

Chair

You must have been particularly pleased with the comments with the Frans Timmermans and Guy Verhofstadt, who you have clashed with in the past. They were very critical of Jean-Claude Juncker, who congratulated Mr Putin.

Boris Johnson

Let’s be clear: we have had some very powerful statements of support.

Chair

But you welcome Guy Verhofstadt and Frans Timmermans’s statements?

Boris Johnson

I welcome the very powerful statements in support of the United Kingdom.

Chair

There is one thing that we would like to clarify on Georgia. You were going to bring it up, Bob? Then we will move on, if that’s all right.

Mr Seely

The question was about Georgia and Ukraine, which are clearly bearing the brunt of the more violent end of Russia's full-spectrum warfare, eastern Ukraine now, Abkhazia from the early 1990s onwards and then the Georgian war. In your view, is Russia occupying Abkhazia and South Ossetia? If it is an occupation—a lot of people would suggest that it is—why does the UK Government not call it an occupation, since Russian proxies and Russian forces are in both those territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia? Clearly, Georgian territorial integrity has been violated.

Boris Johnson

We don’t for legal reasons use the term “occupation”—perhaps I will ask Karen to comment on that. I believe we refer to them as breakaway republics. Karen, do you want to elaborate on that?

Mr Seely

Isn’t that a bit mealy-mouthed?

Karen Pierce

Occupation means something very precise in international law, and it also confers rights as well as responsibilities, so there are a range of legal reasons why we don’t use it in this case. We could write to you—

Mr Seely

So it is a bit like the west bank. If it is “occupied”, Israel has various rights and responsibilities. What you are saying is, if it is occupied, you expect the Russians to do certain things, because they are the occupying power.

Karen Pierce

That is essentially correct, but if you wanted a more detailed legal briefing we would write to you.

Mr Seely

But, briefly, because I will not talk about this for long, this is part of the problem—because they are an occupying power but have proxy Governments and are manipulating the situation, acting through others, you cannot call them an occupying power. But clearly Russia and its proxies have broken up parts of another state. It seems to me that in our whole diplomatic framework and the language we use, we are missing a chunk of language to describe a manipulated occupation, a managed conflict or a frozen conflict—call it what you like. What would be your thoughts on that?

Boris Johnson

Again, that goes back to the point that I was making to the Committee earlier about the malignant subtlety of the way the Russians sometimes behave. For instance, in Crimea or the Donbass there are perpetual denials of any activity at all. MH17 is nothing to do with them at all. It is very difficult sometimes to find the right way of countering this, short of a military engagement, which of course is very difficult for us to mount.

Mr Seely

They are not breakaway; they have been broken away.

Boris Johnson

I understand.

Mr Seely

So there is a—

Boris Johnson

I understand. I saw the Prime Minister of Georgia[2] only recently and we were discussing this. I intend to go there very soon. To get back to the point Mr Gapes made right at the beginning, it is because, particularly on Ukraine, the UK has been the most fierce and forthright in our denunciations of what has happened, so they have us in their sights.

Karen Pierce

May I add something, Foreign Secretary? Russia was voted off the UN Human Rights Council largely because of its approach to Ukraine and Georgia.

Chair

May we move on, because we don’t want to run out of time?

Mike Gapes

Talking about being voted off things at the UN, we failed to get our judge at the International Court of Justice. The Committee produced a report on that. In the memorandum we received from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on Global Britain, you said that you would be “building on lessons learned from the loss of our seat on the International Court of Justice”. Will you tell us what could have been done differently?

Boris Johnson

Obviously it was disappointing that Sir Christopher Greenwood was not elected. He was a superb candidate. He very nearly got it on the first ballot. I think that all sorts of considerations have been advanced to me about it. One of the difficulties was that we were running a lot of campaigns that year, such as trying to get David Nabarro into the WHO—as Priti will remember. We were trying to do an awful lot of stuff. We will make sure that we contest the next election and that we succeed. That should be the ambition of any country. Although I must stress, I congratulate the Indians on their success.

Mike Gapes

We were told that you were going to carry out an exercise to assess the reasons. How has that gone?

Boris Johnson

We certainly have looked at what went on, and that is among the reasons we think that we did not succeed that time. We have had plenty of successes. We got Mark Lowcock into OCHA. Martin Griffiths is the new representative for Yemen.

Mike Gapes

Foreign Secretary, the question is about the failure. We were told that you, as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, were going to look in detail to find out the reasons and learn the lessons. I am asking you specifically—

Boris Johnson

Unless I missed my guess, I think you had a whole session with Lord Ahmad on this matter on 7 February.

Mike Gapes

We had a session, and we were told that there was going to be an assessment within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and you were going to look at the lessons. We produced a report, and your memorandum on Global Britain that you sent to us refers to building on the lessons learned. I am asking you what specific lessons there are.

Boris Johnson

I think I have given one, which is that even with the resources at our disposal, sometimes you should not run too many campaigns at once.

Mike Gapes

But you may not be able to choose the timing of these changes, surely?

Boris Johnson

Yes. We know the timings fairly well in advance, but we decided to go—we were perhaps greedy—for the WHO and we had to contest the ICJ.

Chair

Are you saying that the United Kingdom should not have a position on both the ICJ and the WHO, given our generosity in aid and our importance to the international rule of law?

Boris Johnson

No, sorry, the job was the director general of the WHO. That was the job.

Chair

Indeed.

Boris Johnson

There is no question of not having a position on the WHO, Mr Tugendhat.

Mike Gapes

Can I ask you this then? In her speech at the General Assembly in September last year, the Prime Minister had a sentence where she threatened to potentially set aside 30% of contributions to the UN. She said there would only be payment if there was an improvement in the results. How does it reflect the idea of Global Britain if we are starting to move towards what could be perceived as an old-style American approach to the UN?

Boris Johnson

No, no, no. It is right to want to reform the UN—the UK is the third-biggest contributor to the UN. We greatly value the UN and what it achieves around the world, but it is also important to drive the process of reform that António Guterres is leading. We support him in that.

Mike Gapes

Is it necessary to threaten to cut contributions in order to achieve that reform?

Boris Johnson

I think that you have to encourage value for money, and the way to encourage value for money is obviously to insist that future contributions may be withheld if value for money is not demonstrated, but we want to see a reformed, superb UN.

Mike Gapes

Will progress on addressing the issue of sexual violence be one of the criteria you will use to assess whether that contribution should continue?

Boris Johnson

We certainly have been making every effort to stress the seriousness with which we approach the issue. We have been making that clear to all UN agencies.

Mike Gapes

You have not answered my question.

Boris Johnson

If your question is, “Are we going to withdraw funding on the basis of whether there is adequate action on SEA?”—

Mike Gapes

Yes, that is my question.

Boris Johnson

Of course that will be among the considerations that we will make.

Karen Pierce

It might be worth adding that the UN itself wants to work with us and other donors to stamp out SEA. It is a slightly different issue from performance, where the UN is responsible. The UN as a body is very determined to take proper action against SEA.

Mike Gapes

Are your performance assessments related to particular agencies or organisations within the UN? It has been reported in the press that it was specifically to do with the United Nations Development Programme, as opposed to the general culture.

Boris Johnson

I do not want to get into any invidious comparisons between UN agencies, but obviously some of them have better reputations than others.

Mike Gapes

So you are not denying my point?

Boris Johnson

No.

Ian Murray

Foreign Secretary, have you read the report that we published on the ICJ?

Boris Johnson

I have certainly looked at your report on the ICJ, yes.

Ian Murray

And your only conclusion is that the UK should not run too many concurrent elections.

Boris Johnson

I didn’t say that. I said that was among the conclusions that we have drawn.

Ian Murray

It was not one of the conclusions of Lord Ahmad, who gave us a session on the ICJ.

Boris Johnson

I can’t comment on Lord Ahmad’s views, but those are my views.

Ian Murray

So your views are contrary to those of one of your Ministers?

Boris Johnson

No, I didn’t say that.

Ian Murray

Will you publish your views when you reply to the Committee?

Boris Johnson

I think I have just given you my views.

Ian Murray

But you will be replying to the Committee’s report.

Boris Johnson

Oh yes, of course. Yes, certainly.

Ian Murray

And you will put your own view in that report when you reply?

Boris Johnson

Yes.

Ian Murray

Which will contain the point about concurrent elections?

Boris Johnson

I think you will find, when they arrive, that my views are uncannily close to those of Lord Ahmad.

Ian Murray

This is the first time since the start of the ICJ that we have not had a judge from the UK sitting on it. Have we ever run concurrent elections before in that process?

Karen Pierce

We have run concurrent elections, but not to the best of my knowledge concurrent with the ICJ. I was involved in the previous ICJ election, but the world changes and more countries want to compete for these jobs, so we keep our process under review, as the Foreign Secretary said.

Ian Murray

Do you think there may be a capacity issue if we are unable to run concurrent elections?

Boris Johnson

There are all sorts of issues raised, and I will be responding to the Committee and to your report in due course. Actually, since you mention capacity, Mr Murray, it is an opportune moment to inform the Committee that we have been able, thanks to new funding for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to fund 250 more diplomatic posts as a result of the Chancellor’s spring statement. Not only are we are going to be able to have 250 extra diplomats overseas, but we will have 10 new sovereign posts, including a new diplomatic office in N’Djamena in Chad. We are running up the Union Jack in Chad for the first time ever, I think. As a result of that, not only will we be spending more altogether on our overseas engagement than any other country in Europe—about £53 billion overall—but we will have more sovereign posts for the Foreign Office than any other European diplomatic service.

Ian Murray

So we will win a seat back on the ICJ?

Boris Johnson

Indeed. Thank you, Mr Murray. You teed me up well for that.

Ian Murray

Is that a guarantee?

Boris Johnson

Among other things, when a seat next falls vacant, of course we will be contesting it very keenly.

Chair

Can we come to funding in a moment? We very much welcome the statement about funding—

Boris Johnson

I am sorry if I shoehorned that in, but I realised that time was marching on and I had to drop my bombshell.

Chair

Not at all.

Chris Bryant

Are you sure that is more than France? Are you absolutely certain?

Boris Johnson

I am told it is one more sovereign post than France.

Chris Bryant

You made a big hullabaloo for one post, didn’t you?

Boris Johnson

On a sauté—on a dépassé.

Chair

If you had been to N’Djamena, Foreign Secretary, you may not feel so joyous about that extra post.

Boris Johnson

I think it is a place of great potential.

Chair

I have been there, and it has got a long way to go for the potential to be achieved.

Boris Johnson

Be very careful what you say, Mr Tugendhat.

Chris Bryant

That’s been your motto in life, hasn’t it?

Boris Johnson

I don’t wish Mr Tugendhat to make any gaffes.

Ann Clwyd

Can we turn to Syria, Foreign Secretary? I know you felt very strongly about Aleppo and reacted in the same way as I did at the time in the Chamber. I then took a cross-party group to the Russian embassy. We tried to discuss with the Russian ambassador at the time the situation in Aleppo. We asked him why he was bombing hospitals in Aleppo. His answer was that they were not hospitals; they were run by jihadists. Presumably, he expressed that view to the team of reporters he had in the Russian embassy at the time. When people make allegations of that kind and they refute them what do we do? Do we try and find out what the truth of the matter is and put that on the record?

Boris Johnson

Mrs Clwyd, first of all can I thank you for the passion with which you have taken up the cause—the suffering of the people of Syria—as well as everything you have done for the Kurdish people. You are right that it has been one of the most miserable episodes that I can remember: an absolutely shameful episode for us. We certainly do ask the UN to investigate all these episodes, all these crimes, and to identify what really happened if we possibly can. The excuse that is always used by Assad and by the Russians is that they are going after terrorists. That is the loophole that they use, under resolution 2401. If you remember, that is how they have been able to keep the bombing going in eastern Ghouta—because they say that they are just going after terrorists. In reality, they are killing hundreds of totally innocent people. Our argument to Russia and to the Iranians, and to everybody who is responsible for this campaign, and to Bashar al-Assad, is that, even despite the massacres that are taking place, they are not going to win. It is going to be such a Carthaginian peace that they will never be able to control the country. Assad currently controls 75% of the population, 50% of the territory. There is, if he is going to continue in this way, a huge amount of slaughter still to come. As I said, it will sow the dragon’s teeth of revenge. The best thing they can do is get round the table in Geneva and try and begin the process of a new constitutional settlement for Syria. That is what needs to happen.

Ann Clwyd

Do we in the UK have any way of influencing his departure or his indictment?

Boris Johnson

I think it is the second point that is the most interesting one now, and I think it is the fear of indictment that is probably more powerful than anything else. The old mantra of “Assad must go” is certainly not one that is working at the moment. The idea of a commission of inquiry is certainly one that we support.

Priti Patel

Britain, as you know, has led the way in terms of Syria, the humanitarian crisis, support in the region, the various countries—Lebanon, Jordan. We have seen, obviously, humanitarianism has been completely devastated, full stop. You have mentioned the indictment as an option. Through our leadership—Britain has led the way in terms of convening countries, funding, forums—how assertively are you going to pursue that angle in terms of indictments, through the international process with our colleagues and our allies, with donor countries? Particularly—because of course there was a Brussels conference last year—are there any plans coming forward to convene something that can actually take this to the next stage further?

Boris Johnson

There are several things here under resolution 2371, I think it is. You and I did some work on it together to try to hold to account Daesh in Iraq and Syria. Yes, of course I would like to hold Assad to account for his war crimes. The difficulty is finding a court in which to try him or process him, in which we could make it work, but as I say, I certainly believe that we should have a commission of inquiry into what has happened. Ultimately, the way forward is for the people of Syria. They have got to have a political process; they have got to have a new constitution. That is when the fate of Assad will be decided.

Priti Patel

Do you think donor countries will effectively start to say at some stage “Enough is enough. We can’t carry on like this”? We saw last year as well that there is fatigue. Everyone is completely drained and broken by these atrocious scenes—the atrocities that we see day in, day out. There are reports in the newspapers today—you will have seen them, Foreign Secretary—about the surgeon David Nott, who is a hero. He has achieved amazing, life-saving tele-technology in terms of operations, yet we saw more abuses when the hospital undertaking the operations last year was blown up. Surely something will have to give. The international community and hopefully Britain can lead the way by saying, “We cannot continue like this.” We need to fast-track a process—create a process, even—and use our leadership and leverage in the right way.

Boris Johnson

Yes, but the leverage that we have, Ms Patel—you were very tough on this when you were at DFID—is in not giving money to the Assad regime to rebuild as long as all of this is going on. It is vital that Britain holds to that line now, because I am afraid there are other partners who are saying, “Well, because of the catastrophe that has happened all over Syria, we have got to start giving money to the Assad-controlled areas as well.” That would be to give up one of the most important levers we have.

Ann Clwyd

You have said that we will not stand idly back where there is another chemical weapons attack. Well, there have been several. Is that just an idle threat, or can you see some way of ensuring that international law, which prohibits the use of chemical weapons, can be enacted?

Boris Johnson

I want to stress that there is no proposal at the moment that we should take action. There is no proposal either from the Americans or the French about such joint action. But I remind you about what happened at Khan Shaykhun on 4 April last year, when there was an attack with chemical weapons, which poisoned more than 100 people, including kids. America did take action, and I pay tribute to the American Administration for what they did. All I can say, probably, is that if there were to be a plan for such action again, it would be very important for the UK at least to keep its options open.

Ann Clwyd

Obama had a red line. Do we have a red line?

Boris Johnson

Well, we did—we also had a red line, as you will recall. The sad thing is that we allowed it to be crossed.

Mr Seely

Just to follow up on the David Nott story, my understanding is that in electronic warfare they hack into a Skype call and target a hospital on the back of that. I am aware of cases of the Syrian opposition also being hacked during calls—that information is a military target. The Russians have also put up fake apps for the Ukrainians to download compasses, which then send Ukrainian positions. Some of these are ruses of war, and some of them are clearly war crimes. There have been at least two dozen chemical attacks since Syria—I think 27—which is a phenomenal number, to which one was responded to in a somewhat perfunctory way by the Americans. Better than nothing. This is a plethora of war crimes across the board. I want more than just angry words. Are people recording these? Can we at least name those individuals responsible? Clearly, the Russians will block any move to try them, because it will implicate people within the Russian military command as well, which Putin will never allow. Are you at least gathering information? Where and how?

Boris Johnson

Yes, absolutely. We are certainly gathering information—we are tabulating. But the trouble is that at the moment we do not have a criminal court that will try him, because Russia will simply veto any reference to the International Criminal Court as things stand.

Mr Seely

So really this is a waste of time, effectively?

Boris Johnson

Well, no. You may say that. The mills of justice grind slowly, but they grind small. Let’s see where we get to.