COP 29: United Kingdom Delegation

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Thursday 21st November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, these matters are hugely significant for the future of the world. Yes, it would be wonderful if we could reach agreement on really difficult issues—where the UK, I am proud to say, plays a leading role—by circulating an email or on WhatsApp. Sadly, we cannot do that; we need to meet face to face and we need to hammer these things out. The cost of this and the CO₂ that may be included in gathering together to make these decisions and to provide that leadership pales into insignificance compared with the benefits to the climate of being able to reach agreements together. I just encourage noble Lords to perhaps raise their sights ever so slightly to look to the longer term.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the vital issue of loss and damage for developing states, which are at the front line of the climate emergency, was not mentioned at all in the Prime Minister’s speech in Baku. I met a delegation of MPs from Barbados on Tuesday and they, alongside the SIDS community, told me—quite alarmingly—that they see little support from the UK for climate mitigation efforts. First, can the Minister assure me that UK support for loss and damage is ring-fenced against the development cuts that were announced in the Budget? Secondly, does she agree with me that—as the Barbadians told me—when the UK does not offer support, China does? It offers support with conditional lending. Surely, within the Commonwealth, the UK should be doing more and not creating gaps that China fills.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

What the noble Lord highlights is the importance to many of our global partners of action on the climate, whether that is prevention of climate change through the work that we do, not just here in the UK but internationally, on reducing carbon, or whether it is on loss and damage mitigation or resilience against extreme weather events. Many of the countries that the noble Lord refers to are very low emitters but are on the front line of this. That is why I am proud of the leadership that this country takes on this issue.

Jailing of Hong Kong Pro-democracy Activists

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

I was not expecting Chagos this afternoon, I have to say. We have discussed the issue around Chagos and the treaty we have with Mauritius at length. As the noble Lord knows, Mauritius is a close ally of India and the UK, and the treaty will be subject to scrutiny in this House, so I hope that the concerns he raises about Mauritius somehow being susceptible to something around China can be responded to during that process.

The noble Lord is right, though, to draw attention to the fact that the UK Prime Minister met President Xi at the G20 in Brazil in the last few days and rightly raised the case of Jimmy Lai. Noble Lords can see the footage of that exchange for themselves, and they can reach their own conclusions about how it went.

On the 45 who were sentenced under the NSL, we are opposed to the NSL. We see this as in breach of the agreement that we reached with China in respect of Hong Kong; we are deeply concerned about what has happened. The 45 people were exercising their right to political expression and have now been imprisoned for it, and we oppose this.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, after meeting President Xi, our Prime Minister said that he wanted to see more trade with China, notwithstanding the fact that the UK has a trade deficit in goods with China of over £25 billion. The previous Government refused to even countenance the suspension of some trade preferences from China in the UK economy if there were significant human rights abuses. In opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and I were at one in calling for a statutory human rights and trade policy. Can the Minister state that it is still the intention of the Government to ensure that human rights can trigger suspension of certain trade preferences from China if there are significant human rights abuses?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

As the noble Lord knows, we keep these things under constant review. We are deeply concerned about what has happened, not just in recent days in Hong Kong with the sentencing but about wider issues that I know he and my noble friend Lord Collins will have worked on together in the past. We have made quite strong statements at ministerial level in the last few days on these issues, and we will continue to do so as appropriate.

Chagos Islands

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said, there have been changes of Government in the US and Mauritius. I take this opportunity to congratulate both President-elect Trump and the new Prime Minister, Dr Ramgoolam, in Mauritius, on their election victories. Changes of Government are an inevitable part of negotiations with fellow democracies. We have also had a change of Government in this country since these negotiations began. This is the conclusion of a few years’ worth of negotiation—11 to 13 rounds of negotiation took place under the previous Government. We were aware that this could happen, and we are working closely with our allies, in both the US and Mauritius, on making sure that everyone is comfortable with the deal and the treaty. We have no reason to think that this is not the case at this stage.

On engagement with Chagossians, it was not possible for them to be party to these negotiations because they took place between Governments. I regret what happened to the Chagossians in the past—it was over 50 years ago, but that in no way diminishes the pain and hurt that they will have experienced. I accept that Chagossians will be concerned about the arrangements reached. We have prioritised the security of the US-UK military facility on Diego Garcia. People can disagree with that and can say that prioritising security was the wrong thing to do, but that is what the Government have chosen on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom, because we think that was in the best interests of the UK. There are arrangements in the deal to allow Chagossians to visit and return, and some Chagossians will be able to take advantage of that.

The treaty will be published as soon as it has been finalised with the Mauritian Government, and there will be a process for Members of this House and the Commons to debate it.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Given that there was no public information from the previous Government—of whom the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, was a member—about any of the 11 rounds of negotiations that took place, does the Minister agree that two points of principle should be adhered to now? First, for the treaty approval process, nothing should be done on behalf of the Chagossians without their involvement, and Parliament should have an ability to vote on the treaty proactively, rather than the limited process under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act. Secondly, unlike what Nigel Farage or Kemi Badenoch might suggest, British foreign policy should be formed and set by us, not Donald Trump.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My understanding is that the process will be the usual one for agreeing these treaties. We need to be careful about the use of the word “consultation”, because there will be an opportunity to listen to the views of Chagossian communities and to understand that there is more than one view among them about this deal. It would be wrong to give the impression that there would be an opportunity to have a treaty changed in light of Chagossian voices. We can all have a view on that, and some of us might wish that it could be otherwise, but when we are dealing with a matter of security like this in the Indian Ocean, and with a treaty between two Governments, it is far better if we are up front and honest about what will be possible during that process.

BBC World Service

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is vital that we maintain the independent position the BBC has, so that it makes its own decisions. However, this Government want to refresh the approach to soft power. We are establishing a soft power council, in which I hope the World Service will take part. From my point of view, it is absolutely legitimate for the Government to say that we are worried about these circumstances in these places and to share our understanding of situations around the world, and it is for the BBC to tell us to back off and to make its own decisions. My aim is to have a collaborative, respectful relationship with the BBC, preserving at all times its independence and ability to make its own choices.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the comments the Minister just made and thank the Leader for her response to me two weeks ago, when I raised concerns about World Service cuts in Lebanon. Does the Minister share my concern that, although the BBC World Service is critical for supporting civil society in many conflict areas, the more recent government development cuts of £2 billion—a reduction from 0.58% of GNI to 0.5%—could put at risk the very kind of programmes that support civil society resilience in many conflict areas? I welcome the extra support for the BBC World Service, but will the Minister make sure that there are not cuts elsewhere to programmes that support civil society in these critical vulnerable areas?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are reviewing development spend, as noble Lords would expect. We do not have the luxury of limitless funds to spend. We are spending a lot of our development money on housing people who arrive here in the UK for 12 months after their arrival. We need to get that spend down so that we can spend it much more wisely on preventing conflict, educating women and girls, supporting freedom of religion and belief, and all the other really positive, important work that we want to do in country. That is our aim.

West Papua

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

This is very much a bipartisan issue, and so it should always be. The Government will be making announcements about trade envoys and others, I hope very soon.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, has the Minister been briefed on the Human Rights Watch report from September, which recommended that the Indonesian Government unconditionally release West Papua and other detainees in exercise of their fundamental political rights, and specifically for the new Indonesian Government, just formed, to permit UN human rights monitors to visit West Papua? This would honour a commitment that the previous Indonesian Government gave in 2018 but that has yet to be honoured. Have His Majesty’s Government specifically asked for that latter point with the new Administration?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We support the work of the UN Commission on Human Rights in this regard. As the noble Lord suggests, this was raised in recent dialogue with Indonesian political representatives.

Journalists Detained or Killed Overseas

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the situation in Juba, South Sudan, requires the kind of reporting and free media that the Minister states, and I agree with her very strongly. However, in Sudan, with the world’s greatest humanitarian crisis and the conflict going on, there is scant reporting and still very brave journalists who are under very considerable threat. The Disasters Emergency Committee has told me that it is not willing to open a humanitarian appeal for Sudan because of the lack of public awareness of the Sudanese crisis. Will the Government support UK-based media and those who are seeking to allow the public to understand that the world’s greatest humanitarian crisis is going on? Those who are responsible for asking the public for support are not being asked.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I was not aware that the DEC took that view. I will look into that, following the noble Lord’s question. It is clearly right that journalists should be able to report from situations that they feel we need to know about, and we respect their freedom to do that and support it. I assure journalists who wish to report from Sudan that they will have the support of the British Government in doing their job.

China: Human Rights and Sanctions

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

That is quite an easy one because my colleague, Minister Catherine West, has met Jimmy’s family on several occasions, both in opposition and since being appointed as a Minister. I also recall from reading the transcript of the Commons exchanges yesterday that the Foreign Secretary did indeed commit to meeting Sebastien Lai.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the Foreign Secretary said yesterday in the House of Commons

“this Government will set a long-term, consistent and strategic approach to China”.

That would be welcome. He went on, however, to criticise the previous Government in 2015 for what they termed a “golden era” of their relationship with China. Have the Government committed in their strategic audit of their relations with China, which I support, to include all the preferential trading agreements the UK has offered China? This includes financial services, where Chinese state enterprises which have some element of involvement in human rights abuses may be involved in preferential market access to British financial services. Will that review be public?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support for the China audit. I think the most helpful thing I can say at this point is that the audit will be thorough and cross-government; the whole of Whitehall and all departments will be included in that audit.

Ukraine: North Korean Troops

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble and gallant Lord is correct, and that is what we will have. We have gone over this ground very many times, but it is always worth repeating that the defence of Ukraine is the defence of Europe. The consequence of the West doing anything other than showing the resolve that the noble and gallant Lord recommends would be to send a deeply worrying message that we fail to stand up to aggressors such as Putin. That must never, ever be something we can tolerate. We stand united in this House, in the country and with our allies.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, part of the pernicious relationship between North Korea and Russia is the supply of military equipment, but the disturbing BRICS summit, which many of our trading allies are currently attending with Putin, means that there are too many countries supplying component parts that can be channelled through North Korea and end up being used on the battlefields of Ukraine against our ally. Will the Minister ask the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation—a new development that we welcome —to be proactive in ensuring that component parts for military equipment from our trading allies do not end up in Ukraine, and to look at widening our trade sanctions?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Our sanctions regime and the legislation that surrounds it apply to any UK entity, be that in the UK or worldwide, as the noble Lord knows. We will speak to anyone we need to, using any appropriate channels, to try to dissuade others from supplying Russia through whatever means. All anybody supplying Russia with munitions, troops or anything else serves to do, whether they are an ally of ours or not, is prolong this illegal war and the suffering of the people of Ukraine.

Iran (Sanctions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Monday 21st October 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I again thank noble Lords for their contributions and support for these measures.

On the IRGC, I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, about the frustrations of political life and government. That is all I will say on that line of inquiry. We have already sanctioned the IRGC in its entirety. The separate list of terrorist organisation proscriptions is, as noble Lords know, kept actively under review. We do not routinely comment on whether an organisation is or is not under consideration for proscription. I will leave that there for today.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, makes an important point on Sudan. I will write to him about Sudan, but I point out that when sanctions are applied to Iran, they will affect Iran’s ability to supply Sudan as much as it would Russia. That will be the intention. On the issue of personal property, we have in minds such things as laptops, phones and other personal items. It would be restricted to that. It is right to flag this issue, and we are aware of it, but we felt it was important to include it.

This will apply to UK entities and individuals overseas and anyone who is in the UK. It will not apply any more widely than that. This is how the UK organises its sanctions, as the noble Lord knows. I know that he has long had a very keen interest in the issue of secondary sanctions and how we might engage with them. That is the situation as embodied in these regulations and with regard to the UK’s policy towards sanctions more generally. If I have missed a point there, which I think I may have done, the noble Lord must feel free to come back and help me out.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

It might be my ignorance about how this operates, as it may well be covered elsewhere. I understand that there will be a prohibition on exporting this equipment, but I am not sure that any of it has end-use certificate requirements. Therefore, how will we know if we are sending it to another country which then immediately ships it to Iran? How is that covered?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I will hopefully improve my note-taking as we go on with this. Brokers would be specifically in breach of sanctions were they to facilitate or knowingly support in any way something ending up with Iran. I hope that helps the noble Lord. If he needs any further information, I would be happy to speak to him about it.

These measures represent a step forward in our capability to restrict Iran’s proliferation of advanced conventional weapons, which continue to fuel conflict in the Middle East and support Russia in its illegal war in Ukraine. The UK Government are firmly committed to using sanctions to hold the Iranian regime to account for its malign activities in the UK and elsewhere. I beg to move.

Somaliland

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Thursday 10th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Well, I am very pleased to provide consistency in the Government’s approach. The UK needs to tread carefully in the Horn of Africa in regard to this, given the situation that the noble Lord has just described. We have strong links; we have a permanent diplomatic presence in Somaliland. But my sense is that it would not be the right thing to do for stability in the wider region to wade in and take such an action at this time.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, given that Ethiopia has recognised Somaliland in return for Red Sea access, and Egypt has signed a military and security defence arrangement with Somalia, and with Ethiopian troops currently in Somalia, I believe caution is justified. The UK was the lead funder for the African Union peacekeeping mission in this area in Somalia against Al-Shabaab. Is it not in the UK’s key strategic interests that we restore the funding for the new mission, whose mandate will be renewed at the end of this year, to ensure that Al-Shabaab does not benefit from the tension and standoff between Somaliland, Somalia, Ethiopia and Egypt?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding us just how complex this situation is. We have to keep in mind where Ethiopia, Egypt, Somalia and Eritrea are—this is somewhere where you do not take rash decisions. We are committed to making sure that the fight to combat Al-Shabaab is taken forward and we will play our role in that, as the noble Lord would expect.

British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, these Benches believe that the UK has a very special responsibility for the overseas territories and the people who live within them. There should be a fundamental principle that nothing should be decided about them without them. Their participation, and ultimately their consent, is of the greatest importance. I hope that the Minister will agree with that.

It has been interesting to see this suddenly becoming a highly party-political issue. The overseas territories and their sovereignty were not part of a negotiating mandate with the European Union after Brexit, for example. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, was the Minister at the time. When it came to consideration for the overseas territories and their sovereignty in our key relationship with the European Union, the Falkland Islands were excluded. That has meant that they have been paying £15 million in tariffs to land fishing, critical for not only the economy but the sustainability and the sovereignty of the islands. Therefore, some vessels from the Falkland Islands have to be flagged as Spanish in order to access the single market, something that my party leader, Sir Ed Davey, challenged the Prime Minister on. I hope that we can correct this as a result of the previous Government’s omission with the OTs.

On Gibraltar, the prospect of the EU frontier force, FRONTEX, being at the border entry point into the United Kingdom is a result of the previous Government not including sovereignty of the OTs as part of a negotiation mandate. Both the Falkland Islands Government and the Gibraltar Government warned the previous Government of the consequences, and now this Government have to correct those errors.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, said yesterday that the issue of the Chagos Islands’ sovereignty was a non-starter. It apparently took 11 rounds of negotiations for the previous Government to decide that it was a non-starter before the general election. A cynic might think that the previous Government knew that there would have to be some tough decisions on the Falklands for fishing, Gibraltar for EU security and Chagos for international law and thought that this was probably best left to their successors in government.

The Minister said yesterday in response to my question that there was not one Chagossian voice. If that were the case, the need for their participation and consent in the process going forward is critical. The House is well aware of my views on the deficiencies of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act on treaty ratification in previous times. Labour, in opposition, had supported calls for resolutions on potential treaty areas which were of concern for human rights. The previous Government resisted this; I welcome the U-turn of the Conservative Party in now calling for a resolution on a treaty. I tried 17 times to call for Motions on treaties, which were resisted by the previous Government, so I hope that there will be consensus on this.

Perhaps the Minister will respond to some specific points. First, how will the financing with regard to the Chagossians’ relocation work, and what will be the timetable? How will location and relocation mechanisms be put in place and over what timeframe? Finally, regarding the Minister’s reply to me yesterday on primary legislation, what is the extent of that legislation, and will the Government commit to ensuring that the Long Title is sufficiently flexible for there to be scrutiny of the wider impacts? Of course there are geopolitical impacts; therefore, the timing of this decision, the treaty and the legislation, linked with the strategic defence review, are critical, as well as the ability for Parliament to resolve that the voice of the Chagossians will be heard and that consent will be a critical part of it.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Callanan, for their remarks. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked me to clarify who is right—me or the Foreign Secretary. All I can say is that it certainly is not the noble Lord. I am surprised at the lack of background work that he has been able to do on this topic between yesterday and today, because a few things in his contribution were factually incorrect.

On the reaction of the Americans, President Biden has applauded the statement that we made; he calls the agreement “historic” and says that it

“secures the effective operation of the joint facility on Diego Garcia into the next century”.

I would rather take his assessment of the deal that we have just done than that of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan —with all respect.

On parliamentary scrutiny, as I tried to outline yesterday, but obviously in the context of a Question I perhaps could have gone further, there will be the CRaG process to which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, referred. There will also be primary legislation, and this will be implementing legislation. I do not know what the Long Title of that legislation will be, but I take on board the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis—but that will be to amend other legislation, which we need to do to implement the treaty. There will be an opportunity between signing and ratifying the treaty for both Houses to debate it.

On funding, we do not disclose the costs of bases overseas. One of the researchers of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has found that there are some costings from the MoD on the sovereign base in Cyprus. There are many costs of running a base, but we do not pay for the privilege of running the base in Cyprus—the noble Lord ought to know this. There are additional costs around facilities and other things that we will be able to share, including on the base in Diego Garcia, but the basing costs that we will pay to Mauritius are completely separate. We do not disclose them, and we will not be disclosing them.

The issue of China came up yesterday. I am very sad about this, because when we were in opposition, we took great pride in how we approached issues of foreign policy. There were opportunities to make mischief, but we stood shoulder to shoulder with the Government whenever we could, and it saddens me that in the context of a Conservative leadership contest the opportunity is taken to play fast and loose, to play political games, on some of these issues. Not every concern that is raised falls into that category, but unfortunately some of them have.

Mauritius is not, as some in the Conservative Party have suggested, in hoc to China. It is not part of the belt and road initiative; it is one of only two African countries not to be. It is an ally of India, and India too, as well as the African Union, has welcomed the clarity that this deal provides. The Foreign Secretary will make further announcements on the financial support for Chagossians, which noble Lords were quite right to ask about, when the treaty is signed. That is an important element; it is not about the treaty—it is something that the UK is deciding to do, because they have been shockingly treated for many decades. The sad truth—and this is not something that any of us in this Chamber will be pleased to know—is that those islands are uninhabited but for the military personnel, and in that situation the right to self-determination enjoyed by the Falkland Islanders and Gibraltarians is very different. The circumstances that have led to this are sad and shameful, but that is the situation in which we find ourselves today.

I am very happy to take any questions on this matter, but it is important that we stay focused on the primary purpose of this negotiation—that is, the same thing that drove the last Government to have 11 rounds of negotiation—which is to secure this base, which is really important for security in the Indian Ocean. That is the motivation; it is why we wanted to get the deal done, and it is why the Americans are so pleased that it has been done.

British Indian Ocean Territory

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Far be it from me to comment on things that get said during Tory party leadership elections. However, I think it would help if I explained why the legal decisions have been made in this way. When Mauritius gained independence in the 1960s, the UK separated part of the country, in the form of the Chagos Islands, and that has been found to have been unlawful. Separation by the colonial power is not allowed in any circumstance under international law, and that is what the UK was found to have done at that time. That is why we have now had 13 rounds of negotiations to take us to this point.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the Minister that the human rights of the Chagossians have been denied for generations. However, during the rounds of negotiations, and now with the agreement this Government have made, there has been no mechanism of consent for the Chagossians. I understand that we will be receiving a treaty, but in opposition Labour supported a human rights Motion on agreement for treaties. Given the seriousness of this issue, will the Government consider tabling an amendable Motion that can be voted on in both Houses in advance of the limited scrutiny of the treaty, so that all the issues, including the voice of the Chagossians, can be heard?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Noble Lords may or may not be aware that there is no single Chagossian voice on these issues; Chagossians live here in the UK, but many also live in Mauritius itself and in the Seychelles. The treaty will come before both Houses in the usual way, and there will be amendable primary legislation alongside it that will deal with some of the changes we need to make to the law in order to ratify the treaty.

Ethiopia and Somalia

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Monday 7th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is absolutely right. It is one of the key reasons why we are being quite so active in this space, why my noble friend Lord Collins is there this week, why the Foreign Secretary and Minister Dodds have had so many conversations with Ministers in Ethiopia and Somalia, and why we will continue to support the security services on the ground. The mission is up for renewal at the end of the year, and we support work to see it continue for as long as necessary.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

As a result of the pre-existing conflict there are 1.1 million Ethiopian, Somali and Eritrean refugees in Sudan. As a result of the conflict in Sudan, they are now stranded twice over. Human rights organisations have concerns that the Ethiopian and Somali Governments are not providing support for returns. Will the Minister for Africa raise the status of refugees on his visit to Ethiopia this week?

Israel: Arms Sales

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Thursday 5th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

No, I do not accept that. The legal test we have is that there is a clear risk, and the advice we received was that in the case of these 30 licences it could present a clear risk—not that it has done, not that there is a breach, but that there is a clear risk. This is not an embargo on sales of arms to Israel. I am fairly confident that the noble Lord will know that the case of the F35s is different. We supply components which are part of a global supply chain, and stopping those components being provided could cause very difficult disruption and there would be an impact on global security.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, we support the Government’s moves regarding the situation in Gaza, but I hope all parts of the House have been shocked by the extreme violence of the outpost settlers in the West Bank. The outpost settlers are acting contrary to international law but also to Israeli law. Shin Bet’s director said in August that the violence was being provided to support legitimacy and praise by extreme elements of the Israeli Government. Will the Government assure the House that they are looking at potential restrictions of licences and sanctions of those parts of the Israeli Government which are actively, under the decision by the internal security service of Israel, facilitating the outpost settler violence?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

All I am going to say on that for today is that we recognise Israel’s need to defend itself against security threats, but we are deeply worried about the methods that have been employed and by reports of civilian casualties and the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and by the ongoing military operation in the West Bank and the attacks there. It is in no one’s interest for further conflict and instability to spread in the West Bank. The risk of instability is serious; there is a need for de-escalation and that need is urgent.

Ukraine

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Thursday 5th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My view, and that of the Government, is that that assessment is for President Zelensky and the Ukrainians to reach. It is their country that has been invaded and it is for them to say on what terms, if any, they wish to negotiate.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, there are signs that the most recent American sanctions are having an impact on the Russian dark fleet, which the Minister has previously mentioned in the House. Will the Government give an assurance that, when it come to the operation of the dark fleet or shadow fleet for oil or LNG, that there are no UK links with this, either through London, through insurance or brokering, or for landing licences or any flagging? This can have an impact on Russia and we need to make sure that no parts of the UK or overseas territories are associated with it.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord is correct to raise the issue of the shadow fleet. The UK has so far sanctioned 15 ships of the Russian shadow fleet, which is enabling Russia to evade international sanctions, as the noble Lord knows. In the margins of the European Political Community summit, 44 countries and the EU signed our call to action to tackle this specific issue.

Ukraine

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I first welcome the noble Lord to his place. I have not had an opportunity to do so since the election. We had many exchanges in the last Parliament, all of which were very good-natured.

The noble Lord asked about sanctions. The UK has sanctioned over 2,000 individuals and entities, 1,700 of which have been sanctioned since Russia’s full-scale invasion—the most wide-ranging sanctions ever imposed on a major economy. UK, US and EU sanctions have deprived Russia of over $400 million since February 2022, equivalent to four more years of funding for the invasion. According to its own Ministry of Finance, Russian revenues from oil and gas dropped by 24% in 2023.

I also welcome the tone of the noble Lord’s contribution. It is vital that we maintain cross-party, steadfast support for Ukraine and that there is no change in that as we go forward. So I welcome his words and the tone in which he said them.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord to his new portfolio on the Opposition Front Bench. Can the Minister confirm that secondary sanctions are an option that can be considered with regard to those countries that are facilitating the shadow fleet?

My principal question relates to the irresponsible nature of the Russian regime on the nuclear installations in Ukraine. Is it the Government’s assessment that the attacks on 26 August constitute a nuclear terror incident? Are the Government now willing to work with the European Union Commission on the preparations of sanctions against the Russian state nuclear monopoly Rosatom? Are we able, with our partners, to offer Ukraine air surveillance support to ensure that there is potentially wider protection of these nuclear installations that are vulnerable?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that we cannot comment on operational matters, but I note his question and what lies behind it. He asked about the shadow fleet. The UK has so far sanctioned 15 ships of the Russian shadow fleet, which is enabling Russia to evade international sanctions. In the margins of the European Political Community summit, 44 countries and the EU signed our call to action to tackle this issue.

Bangladesh: Aid and Development

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We will continue to support Rohingya refugees in Cox’s Bazar and elsewhere in Bangladesh. The UK is a leading donor to the Rohingya response. Since 2017 we have provided more than £391 million for the Rohingya and host communities in Bangladesh, and nearly £30 million for the Rohingya and other Muslim minorities in Rakhine state. UK advocacy has helped to improve Rohingya lives in Bangladesh’s camps, including through the establishment of the Myanmar education curriculum for children and frameworks allowing skills training for adults. I assure the noble Baroness that we will continue to stress the importance of providing education and livelihood opportunities for the Rohingya refugees to their well-being. Education and skills training are fundamental to the refugees being able to lead safe, fulfilling and meaningful lives.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest in the register. Does the Minister agree that in the peaceful protests, young women in particular were at the forefront of asserting their democratic rights? The UK has a long-standing and good relationship with civil society in Bangladesh, and is now celebrating 50 years of Voluntary Service Overseas being present in Bangladesh. When the Minister and the Government make decisions imminently about the future of the global volunteering programme, will minority communities and the majority community of women—young women in particular—be at the forefront of UK support for civil society in Bangladesh?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. A few noble Lords have now mentioned women and girls, and it is absolutely right that we continue to keep women in Bangladesh at the front of our minds. Women and girls are an important part of our development agenda; Bangladesh signed the joint statement on sexual and reproductive health and rights to mark the 30th anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development. We will continue to support women and girls in Bangladesh, especially with their education.

International Anti-Corruption Court

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Monday 2nd September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I was aware of the discussions in Hamburg, which are a very helpful next step. I have not read the op-ed by my friend Gordon Brown, but I commit to doing so promptly. I would be very interested and happy to join any discussions along the lines the noble Lord described.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I welcome the Minister to her portfolio and wish her well in that role. I also share her commendation of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for his consistency on this issue, including a Question asked last July in the House on which her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked the Government proactively to support the drafting of an international convention on this issue. Am I to assume that the Minister will take forward what the noble Lord asked for in opposition and proactively ask officials to be part of the drafting process?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Noble Lords will of course understand that we cannot make progress on this without a treaty on which to base it. We cannot produce that treaty ourselves; it must be done, by necessity, with international partners. We see this very much as complementing the work that has been done on international money laundering in the UK and with the British Virgin Islands and elsewhere. Should there be discussions along the lines which the noble Lord outlined, we would be happy to take part in them.

CPTPP: Conclusion of Negotiations

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Wednesday 19th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government’s record on trade is quite dreadful. UK exports are projected to fall by 6.6% this year, which is over £51 billion lost to the UK economy according to the OBR. The failure to deliver the India trade deal or the US trade deal promised by the end of last year is a significant issue, so it is important to scrutinise what exactly Ministers have agreed to in these talks. The Government have a history of lauding trade deals one minute and then criticising them the next.

As we all know, CPTPP is made up of 11 countries—Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam—but we also know that other countries, including China, have applied to join or expressed an interest in doing so. We are all aware of the developing situation in relation to Taiwan. It is inconceivable that there would not be economic consequences should tensions continue to escalate in the way some fear they might. Can the Minister let the House know, as far as he is able today, whether our involvement with CPTPP might affect the UK’s response? What is the UK’s position on the application of China to be part of CPTPP?

The UK will be the first new member since the bloc was established in 2018, and the first European member. The Government say that CPTPP membership brings a range of benefits, including lowering trade barriers to a dynamic region. Accession also forms part of the Government’s Indo-Pacific tilt set out in the integrated review. However, the UK already has bilateral agreements with nine of the 11 CPTPP members.

Over the year to September 2022, the UK exported £60.6 billion of goods and services to the CPTPP countries, which is 7.8% of the UK total, and imported £50.2 billion, or 5.9%, so the economic benefits appear at this stage to be relatively small. In fact, the Government’s own assessment tells us that the long-run increase in GDP will be 0.08%. Can the Minister confirm that the figure of 0.08% is correct?

As part of the Spring Budget, the OBR forecast that, in 2023, UK exports are set to fall by 6.6%. That is a hit of over £51 billion to the UK economy. Can the Minister explain why this has happened? The Prime Minister wants us all to be better at maths, so can the Minister lead by example and tell us what proportion of that loss he thinks this deal is going to replace?

Other countries joining CPTPP have negotiated safeguards and put in place support for their domestic producers. For example, New Zealand and Australia have put side letters in place to opt out of the dispute mechanism. Is the UK going to do this and if not, why not?

There needs to be as close to a level playing field as possible, especially on issues such as workers’ rights but also environmental protections, safety and animal welfare. How can Ministers assure us that the highest possible standards are agreed and implemented, so that UK workers are operating on a fair playing field and workers internationally do not become exploited? On the environment, have conditions been put in place to address concerns around the import of palm oil, which has been linked to deforestation?

What consultation has been undertaken with the devolved Governments to assess their views on negotiating outcomes and how will they be involved in the ratification process? Importantly, what detailed assurances can the Government provide that the CPTPP will not undermine the Windsor Framework, given the closeness of standards regimes and the green lane system?

What safeguards have been secured for UK farmers and what support will the Government offer to our agricultural sector on exports to CPTPP countries, particularly given the strong feeling there is that Ministers sold out our farmers to get the Australia deal over the line? The RSPCA has made it clear that the CPTPP has no explicit language on animal welfare, so what safeguards have the Government put in place to ensure that animal welfare is maintained for products imported to the UK?

Can the Minister also update the House on the progress of negotiations with India and the United States? Is it correct that negotiations with those countries will not even start until 2025?

The reason I have asked a lot of questions—I accept that—is that the problem here is detail. It is very important but very thin on the ground at the moment, and I am afraid that the Government do not have the best track record in supporting UK producers on those issues. There absolutely is an opportunity here, but there is risk too. We do not want to find ourselves again in a position where the Government make an agreement without fully understanding the consequences.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for being approachable and proactive in communicating. I also thank his office for its openness and willingness to engage. I am sure that will continue, so if he could indicate what the timeframe will be with regard to the legal text being ready, and when we expect the treaty ratification process to commence, that would be enormously helpful.

These Benches believe passionately in free, fair, open and sustainable trade, so we welcome any reductions in tariffs for our exporters and moves towards reducing non-tariff barriers in new markets. As the International Agreements Committee and others have remarked, this will be the first agreement the UK enters into in which we will knowingly increase net emissions. What is the update from the Government with regard to the climate component of this accession? The Government do not provide much clear information with regard to emissions.

As the noble Baroness said, the UK already has trade agreements in place with most CPTPP members. This agreement absorbs the new ones that the UK has signed with Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Are there carve- outs in this agreement that we will be able to understand clearly when we receive the text?

With regard to the omissions in the Australia and New Zealand agreements on protecting geographical indicated foods, for those agreements, UK GI foods—some of the most cherished brands and produce in this country—will be protected only if Australia and New Zealand sign an EU trade agreement so we can protect them through the TCA. What is the protection for UK geographical indicated produce?

The Trade Secretary was getting into a bit of a tangle over the issue of modelling and the figures on Monday, so it is worth reminding the House that the Government’s scoping paper stated that the net benefit to the UK over 15 years of accession would be a mere £120 million per year to the UK economy. The trade writer for the FT said that, in decibel terms, this was

“a cat sneezing three rooms away”.

The Trade Secretary then asked us not to use the Government’s own paper regarding the 0.08% potential benefit. So I suspect we will have to await a full impact assessment. When can we expect to see that?

The Trade Secretary said that the CPTPP accession was “the future of … trade”. She correctly highlighted that this was the “fastest-growing” trade area but did not say that it was because of those countries’ trade with China. She also did not say that the pace of EU trade with those countries is now forecast to outpace what the Government’s modelling has said that the UK will benefit from in accession. The Trade Secretary said that this was the future of trade and that the people had voted for this, not the past—in some way indicating that there was a choice to be made; we trade either with Asia or with Europe. That is obviously nonsense.

The Government’s approach paper was pretty clear. It said that if we had maintained EU membership and the existing trajectory, UK trade with CPTPP members was already set to increase by 65% by 2030, or £37 billion. This accession is only adding 0.08%. I would be grateful if the Minister could say why it is opening up so little in additional markets.

The accession was also spun as a tilt away from China. However, we know that most of the countries within that agreement are also part of an agreement with China in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which represents 30% of global GDP. Negotiations are in the final stages between China, Japan and South Korea for an FTA. What is the Government’s position on whether they believe that China should accede to CPTPP?

Finally, there is an omission from all the Government’s data. In the scoping paper and the Statement, there is no mention of trade diversion. There has been no consultation with developing countries on what the likely impact of market access will be. There is one line on page 52 of the Government’s scoping paper that says:

“While the impact of the UK’s accession to CPTPP on GDP in developing countries is likely to be negligible, developing countries with a high share of trade with the UK and CPTPP member countries are most likely to be impacted”.


We already know that some exporters from Africa are complaining that they were not consulted and that their produce is going to be harmed by this accession, so perhaps the Government could provide information on trade diversion.

As with the India agreement, I have a considerable fear that some, if not most, of the benefits that we are likely to see will be trade diversion from developing countries with which we are seeking to encourage trade. I hope that the Minister can provide detailed information with regard to those questions.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Committee stage
Monday 7th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I will allow a couple of seconds for people who have obviously got it off their chest during the first group to leave, in the hope that we do not go through the whole thing again.

Clause 19 is very short, at only a couple of paragraphs, but it is quite interesting, as it pleasingly addresses the situation we may find ourselves in where the Government have been successful in reaching an agreement with the European Union. Many of us have said, time and again, throughout this Committee, that we hope to see that. We have been challenging Ministers, as we have seen in the previous group, to show visible political leadership. The visibility has been lacking. I take on board what the Minister said about his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary playing an active role, but visibility and political momentum have been lacking. I like to think that, had one of my right honourable friends been leading these events, we would have seen a far more outward-facing presence, if I can put it that way, through this process—but never mind.

Clause 19 looks at the eventuality of there being an agreement. The amendment I have tabled is one that will be familiar by now to noble Lords who have been taking part in this process from the first day of our considerations. The first line of the clause, as it stands, says that:

“A Minister of the Crown may, by regulations, make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate”.


I have asked that “appropriate” be changed to “necessary”, and I will explain why, in this particular instance, that is sensible.

This clause gives Ministers the power to implement an agreement that they hope to reach with the EU. Obviously—and we accept this—Ministers will need some flexibility in that event, and things may need to be done as a consequence of having an agreement. But I would have thought that an agreement, by its nature, would be clear and specific, and that things would be agreed that are not currently in place that would need to happen. In that instance, surely the things that need to be done by Ministers will, by virtue of the fact that they have just been agreed to with our negotiating partners, meet the test and be necessary.

It troubles me that the Government feel they should have “appropriate” there instead. That seems to give them much greater scope than is ever going to be needed in the event that this clause is used—and we hope that it will be. I would like to know from the Minister what the Government’s thinking is there, beyond thinking that “necessary” is too tight and just wanting to allow themselves a bit more room—of course they do; who would not? But this clause deals with the fact that there may be an agreement, and I do not think it is justified for the power to be as widely drawn as it is.

While I am on my feet, I note that I support the stand part notice from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in this case as well. The DPRRC believes that the powers in this clause are just too widely drawn, though there is obviously merit in discussing what powers are needed in the event of an agreement and what the role of Parliament should be in that situation. We think that a deal can be struck—we have said that many times—and also believe that Parliament should have the opportunity to debate any agreement, as other Parliaments will. I just note that the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 was passed in a day and the TCA was ratified without direct parliamentary process. We accept that Ministers need the ability to act in the event of an agreement and we appreciate the Government demonstrating their anticipation of such an agreement in this clause, which is notable, but surely a Bill to enact an agreement would be better. That is what we have been asking for.

This is a discussion we have had with the Government on many occasions and on other agreements, when we have talked about the unsatisfactory process we still have in this country for parliamentary involvement in agreements. We do not think we have got it right yet; that is understandable, and it is perhaps going to take some time to get to that point. We have not had to engage in this for many years, but I do not think that many people in Parliament are satisfied with the way this works at the moment, and it would be helpful if the Minister could acknowledge that.

Without being too cheeky about it, we want to help the Government, given just how unsuccessful they have been so far in settling these issues. We do not see why they would be so resistant to involvement from people who are being very positive and cheering them on in their endeavours. We really do want to see a resolution to this. With that, I beg to move the amendment in my name and express my support for the stand part notice tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

We support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness. In supporting it, I want to make two points. First, this clause effectively turns the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act principles on their head. We have well-established mechanisms, which are set down in statute, on how we approve new international agreements. If this is a mechanism to replace the Northern Ireland protocol, an internationally made agreement, with a new agreement, then why is the CRaG process, which allows parliamentary scrutiny, debate and, unlike this, an ability to have enhanced approvals or indeed vetoing by Parliament, not going to be the route for it? I do not understand why.

Secondly, it also sets on its head every commitment that has been provided for every trade agreement: namely, that if a trade agreement requires any primary legislation to bring it into effect in domestic law, primary legislation is brought forward—this is not done by regulation. But, again, this is being set on its head. The Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill is coming up, which is primary legislation—not regulation —implemented with agreement. The two Bills contradict each other really quite glaringly.

I think that this is significant because of an interaction I had with the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, on one of the previous days in Committee. I asked him whether he had given consideration—if there is, as a result of these talks, an agreement with the EU—as to how that should be put in force. The Government are saying “by regulations”, which are unamendable and could even be under a negative process; they could use Clause 19 to do this. If the noble Lord’s concern—as well as that of the noble Lord, Lord Empey—was about the need for consent, this is not the means by which that would be secured. Yet this is the means by which the Government could enforce it. There is a very jarring comparison between what consent of any new agreement would be and how the Government are seeking powers under Clause 19 to enable them to put this into force. Clause 19 should not be the mechanism by which we have sustainable support for any agreement. An order-making power for a Minister is simply not the route—and that is in addition to the fact that they are turning on their heads long-standing practices by which we put international agreements into domestic legislation. For this reason, I do not think that Clause 19 should stand part of the Bill.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Committee stage
Monday 31st October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Clauses 5 and 6 standing part. There is consistency in some of the arguments to some extent, so this will not necessarily need to be as long.

As the DPRRC indicated, the Government have not yet formed their policy on the precise elements that they are seeking powers for. The DPRRC indicated and highlighted—I agree with it—that we should not legislate when government has not yet formulated its policy. Let us be clear that the Government’s memorandum states that the powers that they seek under these clauses could make criminal offences by negative instrument. Can the Minister confirm that in his response? We should not make new criminal offences by negative instrument.

The Government also state that they need these powers but should not present them through primary legislation. This includes certain areas of new powers for HMRC and other agencies. In primary legislation—in the Trade Act and elsewhere—proper procedures for dating sharing on customs arrangements within the UK have been brought forward. The Government felt that primary legislation was necessary for that, but, under this Bill, they say that they do not believe that primary legislation is the correct approach for it. This is simply not consistent.

I am interested to know what the Government consider to be the interactions with the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. The regulation-making powers under this legislation, providing more powers for HMRC legislative competence, were not provided for Northern Ireland under that Act. I am not sure what has changed. The interactions between Sections 30A, 30B and 30C of that Act are not clear.

Secondly, we can perhaps explore what the Government seek to do on the use of delegated powers to make new law in an area where we have made an international agreement—as we heard, they have not provided illustration for it. The Government’s response to the European Union’s proposals in October 2021 has not been entirely clear either. I am not sure whether they supported its proposals for having just one certificate per consignment of food products, rather than per product—presumably, that would have a major impact on the HMRC statistics and declarations that the Minister referred to. The European Union indicated that that would remove 80% of checks on products of animal origin, or new procedures for prepared meats, such as sausages, import of which into the EU is generally prohibited. So I am not sure what impact assessment was carried out for the EU proposals, had they been fully adopted.

As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said, the Ministers took credit for the Trader Support Service, but they now seem to suggest that it has failed. Why? What has been the impact of the Trader Support Service? As I understand, it raises all the documentation and it states that it has been successful. It is on a lucrative contract from Fujitsu Services Ltd, which is at the centre of the Post Office scandal, so what is the Minister’s view about how Fujitsu has carried out its contract? Fundamentally, legislating first before introducing proposals should not be done, and trying to say that legislating for areas where agreement can be made will not be sustainable elsewhere.

I close by thinking that there must be a prize somewhere for government irony. As we know, the delegated powers memorandum on Clause 6 states that it is a breach of an “international obligation”. Paragraph 56 says that

“regulatory procedures … can be updated to ensure compliance with, or give effect to, any international obligation or arrangement to which the United Kingdom is a party.”

That is quite welcome. However, it is a shame that these powers are removing those obligations and are providing such unprecedented breadth to the regulation-making powers for Ministers. The case has not been made; therefore I beg to move.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I will speak briefly to Amendments 10 and 11, which we have tabled because, like the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, we too wanted to highlight concerns about these issues. As I am sure noble Lords can see, in the current Bill, delegated powers are to be used when Ministers consider it “appropriate”; we would change this to “necessary”. Prior to tabling these amendments, we have signalled our general concerns about delegated powers fairly consistently throughout the process of leaving the EU, since the EU withdrawal Bill in 2018. It is disappointing Ministers’ fondness for this technique seems to have grown; we now see it frequently in things that are quite wide-ranging. I was recently involved with the Schools Bill, which was riddled with these powers because, frankly, the Government did not know what they wanted to do on a wide policy area, so inserted a bunch of Henry VIII powers to give themselves the flexibility to backfill their argument later and decide what they wanted to do once the Bill had passed. Obviously, there was a huge row about that and the Schools Bill is no more, so we can only hope that lessons were learned.

We have been raising concerns again and again about how the Government are just relying on delegated powers, but for some reason the scope of the powers in EU-related Bills seems incredibly wide and we are starting to tease out, with the Minister, some of their intentions. However, an intention stated at the Dispatch Box—or something indicated in other government documents—is not sufficient when we are talking about these sorts of issues. What we really want is clarity and the ability to scrutinise and have those discussions on the Floor of this House, but the way the Government are going about this denies us this opportunity. One of our main concerns is the Government deciding to use skeleton Bills in the way they are.

These are quite general concerns. As we have heard, there are much bigger concerns about the Bill and we have covered some in our debates today and last week. We fully understand the concerns raised about Clauses 5 and 6, which enable the creation of new customs arrangements without primary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, did a very effective job of going into those in some detail, which I do not feel I need to repeat. This is quite a precedent to set and we feel deeply uncomfortable about delegating these kinds of powers to the Treasury and its agencies. In the past—I mentioned the Schools Bill, but there have been other examples—the Government have backed off, removed some of these powers from legislation and changed tack by putting in place genuine checks on their use. In all honesty, I do not think that particularly helps us with this Bill because, as many have said, a whole face of make-up could be applied to this Bill but it really would not help.

That said, it is important that we, as a House, put down a marker and make our view known to the Government on this issue of delegated powers, because this is quite an extreme example in the Bill. Perhaps when some more stability is available to Ministers, this might be something we start to see less of, because the government agenda would become clearer. I must say—noble Lords can hold me to this—that should my party win power in the coming months or years, I hope that this is not an approach that we would seek to take. I am very well aware that this is on the record and will be quoted back to me. Such is our concern about the overuse of these powers that I am very happy to be held to my words.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I will match his “Get rid of Clause 11” with “Get rid of them all”, because that is our position.

The Advocate-General said at Second Reading:

“the peril … was not inherent in the protocol’s provision.” —[Official Report, 11/10/22; col. 764.]

But he then said today that the “problem lies in the protocol”, which the Government themselves negotiated. So, we are back to the situation regarding the Government’s proposals, and it seems that the Government are going to rest on an assertion of necessity, with an assumption that it is not going to be tested. It surely is not welcome for us, in passing legislation, that the Government are effectively asking people to challenge it in the international courts—I can only imagine that it would be the ICJ.

The ICJ has stated in clear terms that invoking necessity on wrongfulness and not adhering to a treaty commitment cannot be a permanent solution. So I ask the Advocate-General, if he responds to any of the points that I am going to make, whether the Government agree with that. The ICJ has stated on a number of occasions that, even if invoking necessity was upheld, it is only temporary in order to remove the grave and imminent peril; it is not permanent, because it still means that that party is in breach of the treaty.

So if long-term, permanent changes are required to be made, that will require protocol changes and treaty changes, and the Government have not said that. They cannot invoke necessity if they believe that this is a permanent solution. The reason why I say that with confidence is—the Advocate-General, in schooling the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and me as non-lawyers, said we were “less wrong” on this—that, customarily in international law, we have to look at the record of the ICJ. I asked the Library of the House to provide me with information on when the ICJ has upheld parties who have invoked necessity. It has never been upheld, for the very good reason that it has to be limited, and “grave and immanent peril” on a cumulative basis is considered an exceptionally high bar. The Advocate-General must know that.

Of the two cases that the Advocate-General cited, the one involving Hungary and Slovakia—which was referred to by my noble friend—I found fascinating, as I mentioned before, when I read the judgment. The Advocate-General said that necessity

“was recognised by the International Court of Justice in 1997 in a case between Slovakia and Hungary regarding a dam on the Danube.”—[Official Report, 11/10/22; col. 765]

As I referred to before, the Government seem to be relying on one case regarding communist Hungary in 1989 which the ICJ threw out.

The second case mentioned, involving Canada and fisheries, could refer to two cases. In one, the ICJ was asked by Spain to adjudicate because Canada had seized a vessel, invoking necessity, but the ICJ said that it could not look into it because Canada had passed legislation at that time to have a reservation from the ICJ, so the case could not even be heard. The other case relating to the Grand Banks should worry the Minister, as it was about imposing licence fees. Canada invoked necessity; the US responded saying that it would pay the fees of the fishermen and then claim reimbursement from Canada; then Canada amended its laws, which brought in all other aspects, and it was resolved by Canada removing the licence fees. Now, if that is a precedent, it is a worrying one, because I can see that there will be consequences with the EU as a result of this legislation. There will be reciprocal action and the UK will pay for it.

So can the Minister confirm what the Library told me, that there has never been a successful invocation of necessity? Can he tell me if there has ever been a case where any party has invoked necessity for framework legislation? I could not find it, so presumably the Minister will be able to help me.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly; I do not see any point in repeating what other people have said. I added my name to the attempt by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to remove these clauses, and it has been observed by some that this is a wrecking move. I guess it is, in a way, if you do not agree with a Bill and feel unable to amend it in a way that would make it satisfactory, you attempt to remove clauses which then unravel it. We are not happy with this piece of legislation and we are seeking ways—some of them creative, others more blunt, as this one is—because we think the Government are taking the wrong approach.

The points about necessity have been made at length. I think the Minister needs to be as thorough as he can—although perhaps not as lengthy as he can, just very clear. I think we want clarity about exactly where the Government think they are on this. My suspicion is that the Government are backfilling their answers as they go along and that they did not really think about this, because this piece of legislation was not really thought about. Introducing it in the first place was a political act to give the impression that the Government were playing hardball in negotiations. It has kind of served its purpose, as some people have explained, over the months. Ministers are now having to justify where they have got themselves, and we are all intrigued about where it is going to go next.

I do not know how the Minister is going to respond to the concerns raised by the DUP, which are incredibly serious and ought to be considered with the utmost thoughtfulness. Especially in the absence of any draft regulations, I do not know how those concerns are going to be dealt with. It is all very unclear. This is not the way we should proceed with any issues, and especially not when it comes to Northern Ireland.

We have been around the houses on the issue of Article 16 rather a lot. It is just ridiculous to claim that Article 16 lacks the flexibility to be able to deal with the concerns that have been raised—obviously it does. The Minister’s explanation for why that is no longer the Government’s preferred route does not really add up. Again, I think that in their desire to have some legislation, they are having to make up reasons going backwards, and that is why they are now coming unstuck on the Floor of the House.

I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and her concerns about the haulage industry. It is absolutely right that those concerns should be raised. I would be very happy to go to Ballymena and to meet Mr Jackson to listen to what he has to say, because I am sure that what he said in his letter to us is true. Of course we ought to be looking at ways to make sure that those issues are fixed, but I do not think that this is the right way to go about it. This is not about the EU always being right; I think the EU was wrong to link these issues with Horizon. They have absolutely nothing to do with each other. We should have made progress on both issues, but separately. So, we do not always take the EU’s side. That is just not true.

The principal concern we have is that unless we get at the very least the things we have asked for in our earlier amendments—specifically these draft regulations; that is really important—we are going to be looking at ways to make sure that the Bill does not proceed as smoothly as the Minister would like. This is not a tweaking issue; we just do not think the Government are going about this in the right way.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Debate between Baroness Chapman of Darlington and Lord Purvis of Tweed

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Not any more.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I hear he has changed. The former Paymaster-General, who is now the former Attorney-General, was citing the former Attorney-General Suella Braverman, who is now the Home Secretary—even I am struggling to keep up with what is going on. Nevertheless, the principle is clear that, if the then Attorney-General was happy to provide advice to the Times in her abortive leadership campaign, we humbly seek that Parliament be equally enlightened with an update on exactly what the Government’s position is.