Ukraine
Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Perhaps I could extend that patience to the great Lady Ahmad as well; she has endured much over the years.
Picking up on the specific points, I raised the case directly at the Human Rights Council, and rightly so. I assure the noble Lord that we will do so not just through international for a but with those countries that have direct influence over Russia. It is important that we leverage that; we will do, and are doing, so. Of course, we retain our diplomatic presence in Moscow. We will use that bilateral level of engagement at a diplomatic level through the ambassador and his team to ensure that this remains very much at the top of our priority list in terms of what we demand from Russia.
The noble Lord talked about accountability. I was conscious of time earlier but I assure both the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover—as well as the noble Lord, Lord Alton —that we are fully engaged on the issue of accountability directly with Ukraine. I work closely with the prosecutor-general on the specific requirements; I know that the Attorney-General of the United Kingdom is also fully engaged on the support that Ukraine needs. We work closely with the prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, Karim Khan. Again, I commend his efforts and real courage when he issued those arrest warrants against the Commissioner for Children as well as the Russian President; that was an important step forward. We are working in a very collaborative way there.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about the international tribunal. Of course, we are aware. There are three or four different versions of that, including derivatives thereof. I assure the noble Lord that I recently asked for a summary of the pros and cons of each approach. We understand the call that Ukraine has made and we want to work with international partners to ensure that the model presented is something that is consistent with, and complementary to, existing accountability measures. At the same time, we fully understand that this crime should be investigated and the perpetrators brought to account.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, the Minister speaks of working with our international partners—I absolutely endorse that—but, in response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, he reiterated his view that one must not give in to Russian threats, which we have heard before. Not giving in to Russian threats also involves working closely with partners to accept that we need to look forward and work co-operatively. Can he tell us why His Majesty’s Government dismissed within minutes the suggestion from President Macron of France that we will perhaps need to do more to confront Russia in Europe and may well need to defend ourselves? Why did the Government dismiss this so quickly? The only leadership that we have seen in Europe recently has come from France. I am afraid to say that, in Germany—about which I know quite a lot—the Zeitenwende policy has not delivered the pivot that we expected to see. I am extremely sorry but I wonder whether the Minister might reflect that, when you rule out options so fast, you also run out of options. That is the risk you face.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that I have to disagree with the noble Baroness on that point. We work very closely with France and all our European allies. The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, alluded earlier to the NATO membership of Sweden; we used every opportunity to achieve that. I said to my noble friend Lady Fall earlier that I knew that I was going to meet the Hungarian Foreign Minister, and our brush-by in India was the moment to endorse the need for Hungary to act and expedite direct engagement with Sweden and also its accession to NATO.
The United Kingdom has shown nothing but leadership on this agenda, so I am surprised by the noble Baroness’s call. Of course we work closely with France; we evaluate what our allies will say and ensure that we move together on this. If the noble Baroness were to ask the Russians directly—not that I expect that she would be able to—she would find that, quite often, when they challenge or attack the West, there are two countries in Europe at the forefront, both beginning with “U”: one is Ukraine, directly, and the other is the United Kingdom.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
I will come back to the Minister, since we still have a few minutes. Perhaps he will recall that it was the United Kingdom that was a signatory to the Budapest memorandum that gave security guarantees to Crimea. It was also the United Kingdom that stood idly by, that February, exactly 10 years ago, as Russia invaded Crimea. I suggest that a dose of humility might come handy occasionally.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I am afraid that, if you look at the history of Crimea, and at 2015, you find that if there has been one country that has stood consistently with Ukraine it is the United Kingdom. I am the first to accept that humility is an endearing aspect of anyone’s character, but I am sure that, on this occasion, the noble Baroness will find herself in a minority view.
The United Kingdom has been consistent. Who provided military support and training to Ukraine? The United Kingdom. That started in 2015, and has continued since then. Who was the first to point out that the Russian invasion was imminent? Two countries—the United States and the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has led on economic support, military support and humanitarian support. We have 140,000 Ukrainians in the United Kingdom. When we say “Slava Ukraini”, we mean it, and not just with words: we walk the walk, talk the talk and deliver.
Death of Alexei Navalny
Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend has great insight in this respect: history has shown that, for coercive regimes, an end will be brought about. Normally, it is brought about from within, by the courage of people who stand up for their rights as citizens of a particular country. Although the Russians will determine who will lead them, it is very clear that Mr Putin and his Government have used nothing but repressive tactics on their own citizens, which has culminated in eliminating all political opponents. We will work with key allies and partners to ensure that accountability is very clear. The Government have led on this, and we appreciate the steps that have been taken in the wider context, for example within the ICC against Mr Putin and what he has inflicted on the Ukrainian people.
On sanctions, I remind my noble friend that the UK has sanctioned over 1,900 individuals and entities since the full-scale invasion. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, referred to assets being frozen. Those amount to about £22.7 billion. Without sanctions, we estimate that Russia would have had in excess of $400 billion more to fund the war. So, although I accept that there is circumvention and that the Russians are seeking new, innovative ways to conduct particular derivative operations, that $400 billion has nevertheless been denied to the Russian war machine.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I have been in this House for 20 years and periodically we have these Statements. We recall this list of names: Sergei Magnitsky, Boris Nemtsov, and now Alexei Navalny. Members on all sides of the House have mentioned that stalwart of freedom and democracy, Vladimir Kara-Murza, who I have had the privilege to know personally; he has been here in this House to brief me and others. The Minister has been quite careful not to say very much about the condition of Mr Kara-Murza. I am not going to press him on that, but he has also recorded the fact that Mr Kara-Murza is a British citizen. I would like to know what he is doing in terms of speaking to other UN Security Council members to keep him safe and alive, and to allow him to carry that torch of freedom that proves to be so elusive to the Russian people.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I recognise what the noble Baroness raises. As I said, we are very much seized of the situation with Mr Kara-Murza and making sure that his welfare is very much a matter of discussion not just with our key partners in the G7 and the G20 but directly with the Russians to ensure that he is protected, and his welfare and health prioritised. However, there can be no escaping the fact that he too has been detained in a colony that is restrictive. We directly challenge the basis of his detention. The noble Baroness says that I have taken great care and measure. We want to ensure that his welfare is fully protected, but I assure your Lordships that we will leave no stone unturned in our advocacy with key partners, and directly with Russia, to ensure the freedoms that he stands for and his rights as a British citizen, and to make our advocacy very clear to the Russians that we regard him as one of our own. We will do our utmost to ensure, first, that his welfare is protected, and, secondly, that he is allowed to return to our country.
Situation in Russia and Ukraine Recovery Conference
Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, sometimes a non-answer contains the answer itself. The noble Baroness is correct that I cannot speculate about what may or may not happen. What is very clear, as we have said repeatedly from this Dispatch Box, is that the Wagner Group is a mercenary force. There is an irony here, in that the very mercenary force that sought to plug gaps across Africa and in Ukraine, and to provide its support in other parts of the world where there was great instability, is now acting against its own so-called master.
As to who was the master and who was not, that remains to be determined. We have seen inconsistent statements, including from the Russian Administration themselves—Mr Putin and Mr Lavrov—as to the connection with the Wagner Group. That has become more transparent with the exchange of words that has happened recently. I assure the noble Baroness that we keep all elements under consideration. When it comes to sanctions, a great number of the Wagner Group’s members and the organisation as a whole are subject to sanctions. We always note what noble Lords say in this House and what honourable Members say in the other place, and it is very clear that the Wagner Group is no one’s friend.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned several times that he has been speaking to the UAE. Picking up the theme of the Liberal Democrat Benches, we know that the UAE has a very malign influence in aiding and abetting the financing of the Wagner Group’s activities across a range of countries, not least in Africa. We also know that it has had the same malign influence in busting Iran’s sanctions as well. The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, raised the Government’s approach to working with allies. When are we going to be able to have those candid conversations with countries that we consider our allies but that nevertheless, in the murky shadows of international finance, seem to defy all our interests?
My other brief question is on the investment conference. I applaud the efforts of the Government there, but can the Minister say when our London war risk insurance framework will become a little more substantive than just a framework, because the outcome of that on derisking measures to increase investor confidence was quite disappointing for Ukrainians?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Baroness in her depiction of our relationship with key partners, including the UAE. They are important partners and we have candid and constructive engagement with them, as I have done recently. The circumvention of sanctions has been an issue which has seized many noble Lords—I know the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has repeatedly asked this question—and I assure the noble Baroness that we work directly, bilaterally and collectively to ensure that, in those areas where sanctions are being circumvented, those loopholes are focused upon and can be closed. It is to no one’s benefit if there are indirect ways in which the Russian machinery can be financed.
I will look into what the noble Baroness said about inward investment, et cetera, but in our interactions with the Ukrainian authorities at the most senior level, and in my direct interactions, there has certainly been no reservation along the lines of what she is suggesting. However, if she has further details to share then I will of course look into them.
Council of Europe: Death Penalty
Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am not quite clear as to the premise of the right reverend Prelate’s question. However, I do agree with him that when we articulate policies from the Dispatch Box in your Lordships’ House or the other place, we should articulate what those views are and what the law is. Let me say once again for clarity that the Government have no plans to introduce capital punishment domestically, and we will continue to oppose the death penalty internationally.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned his responses as of last Thursday, when we discussed the killing of Hussein Abo al-Kheir. We know that Saudi Arabia resumed the death penalty in November 2022 and that it murdered 11 people in March alone through those means. We also know that it has restituted its law whereby you can be executed for drug smuggling and narcotics offences—which, in some terms, are not as serious as you might expect, even in a country like Saudi Arabia. How many times has he called in the Saudi ambassador since the death penalty was reinstated in November?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, if the noble Baroness was present last week, she will know that I recounted I think at least eight or nine occasions on which I have been in touch and had direct discussions with His Excellency the ambassador for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Indeed, on the evening before the sad execution of Mr al-Kheir, I was in touch with the Human Rights Commission of, the Foreign Minister of, and, indeed, the ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Turkey and Syria Earthquakes
Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, the Minister touched, as did both Front-Bench speakers, on the catastrophe of attempting to get aid to north-west Syria. It has been nothing less than shambolic, particularly the role played by the United Nations itself. On the one hand, the humanitarian chief, Mr Martin Griffiths, said that we have failed the people of north-west Syria in attempts not to assert themselves over border crossings and deliver aid to the rebel-held areas of northern Syria, and then we had the UN Secretary-General himself ordering the UN not to go there through those crossings for a period of time until there was other intervention.
What is the Foreign Office’s legal assessment of the UN position? The noble Lord will know that this was challenged by international lawyers and that the International Court of Justice itself intervened by publishing an open letter that said:
“There can be no doubt that the provision of strictly humanitarian aid to persons or forces in another country, whatever their political affiliations or objectives, cannot be regarded as unlawful intervention, or as in any other way contrary to international law”.
Did His Majesty’s Government attempt to tell the United Nations Secretary-General that he was misinterpreting international law and in doing so collaborated with the Assad regime in adding to the disaster that had befallen the poor victims of that earthquake?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I cannot provide a direct answer because I do not know what advice has been sought or received by the Foreign Office. I will convey the noble Baroness’s question to my noble friend Lord Ahmad when he returns.
I do not know whether the UN Secretary-General or the UN as an institution misinterpreted international law. The difficulties that the international community has faced in providing assistance to north-west Syria are a product of the Assad regime’s behaviour over recent weeks, months and years and, as I said earlier, its continued use of aid as a political weapon. The blame needs to be placed squarely at the feet of Assad himself. I will be working with the UN to verify that the UN-brokered agreement to open those additional border crossings into north-west Syria for an initial period of three months happens, and happens on the terms that have been agreed.
I should add that, according to the latest figure I have, the UN has sent 583 trucks with aid from six UN agencies, via Turkey, to north-west Syria using three border crossings: Bab al-Hawa, where 473 truck-loads managed to enter; Bab al-Salam, where 91 truck-loads entered; and al-Rai, where 19 truck-loads were able to enter the region.
Iran: Execution of Protesters
Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the Iranian regime has a long, dark record of persecution—not just of religious minorities but of the LGBT community and, as has already been discussed, anyone who stands up to the regime in any way. The atrocities which the noble Baroness has just referenced are par for the course for a regime which is beyond the pale in its actions towards anyone not part of the mainstream establishment within Iran.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has emphasised that he is working with international partners on this issue. What conversations have been had with Pakistan and Armenia, both countries that voted at the UN Human Rights Council against establishing an independent investigation into these human rights violations? Have there been any conversations in the light of the large amounts of ODA of which these countries are in receipt, thanks to the British taxpayer?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I assume that these discussions are happening, but I do not know as I am not party to them. I will convey the noble Baroness’s question to the Minister responsible, who is not able to be here today to answer this Question.
Protection of Media Freedom
Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My noble friend is right, and we do. The UK continues to prioritise funding for media freedom programmes, which have helped journalists all around the world. We have provided over half a billion pounds in ODA to media and free flow of information over the past five years. That includes support for the BBC World Service, which we debated a few days ago, and our £3 million pledge over five years to UNESCO’s global media defence fund. The fund has benefited more than 3,000 journalists over two years. In addition, the UK has committed £7 million of new funding for independent media in Ukraine. We co-sponsored the UN Human Rights Council’s resolution on the safety of journalists, and there was the joint statement on the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes Against Journalists, along with the 51st session of the Human Rights Council. Our media, as has been said, is recognised and respected all around the world, with audience figures rising continuously.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, returning to SLAPPs, last week we were told by the Minister’s noble and learned friend Lord Stewart of Dirleton that there was no legislative vehicle to bring in the measures needed. The Minister will appreciate that, it the Bill of Rights is forthcoming, Article 10 would be the legislative vehicle to expand on an anti-SLAPPs law. Will the Government do that?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The Government have reiterated their commitment to using primary legislation to introduce a statutory definition of SLAPP. It is not for me to determine which legislative vehicle should be used—that is way beyond my paygrade—but I will ensure that the noble Baroness’s suggestion is fed back to the appropriate authorities.
World AIDS Day
Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I do not have specific figures in relation to the rate of testing during the pandemic. If they exist, I shall certainly make sure that they are made available. However, I can absolutely say that the UK remains completely committed to the global goal of achieving zero new HIV transmissions by 2030. As a nation, we have made big progress domestically, as I relayed in my previous answer, and internationally we remain one of the main funders and supporters of action to tackle HIV/AIDS.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister take up the powerful point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, that, in the domestic UK context, women are losing out on getting treatments, including PrEP? There is a very low take-up. Will he speak to his colleagues in the Department of Health about that?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
It is certainly the case globally that women with HIV have some of the highest maternal death rates, which is why our ending preventable deaths approach, which is a major focus of UK ODA, has a strong rights and equality focus and will remain a priority for the UK. In the domestic and UK context, I shall certainly convey that suggestion to the Department of Health.
Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I seem to be taking part in that bit of the proceedings where there are a lot of people who never had the honour of meeting Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth. I, among others in our nation and beyond, have known her only as our singular sovereign. I say that as a first-generation migrant to this country, coming from a republic, so my early experience was not of her as my Head of State. In fact, for many years after I arrived here, I continued to be a republican, but her example finally cured me of that heresy about 30 years ago.
The Queen’s presence among Commonwealth countries has been remarked on considerably today. There never was any doubt as to her status within that family of nations as its head. My first memory of seeing her was as a very young child when she and the late Duke of Edinburgh visited what was then East Pakistan, today’s Bangladesh, in 1961. My late father, who was an army officer, and my mother took us to Chittagong in a state of great excitement. My mother was of her generation, I think born in the same year, and was incredibly excited to see “the Queen”—there was never any question of needing a name—in the flesh. The Queen spoke beautifully, but more importantly for me as a child, she wore a beautiful dress. That sense of style stayed with her to the end.
In more recent times, I saw her in operation in her beloved Commonwealth when I served as a staffer at the Queensland CHOGM of 2002. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, is not in his place; he was there as well in a slightly more significant role. It was a difficult one, after the 9/11 attacks, the problems of Mugabe and Zimbabwean democracy, and the expulsion of Pakistan after the Musharraf coup. There was a general sense of crisis. I said to my boss, who was a veteran of those meetings, “Oh my God, does she really need this on her plate?”, to which his reply was, “My dear girl, the odd coup or two in between these meetings wouldn’t even cause her to blink. She’s seen it all.”
A lot has been said about the late Queen Elizabeth’s personal qualities as our sovereign, but I also pay tribute to her deep knowledge and understanding of complex issues. After we as a country experienced the global financial crash of 2008, a furious debate was raging about all the assumptions that underpinned financial markets and capitalism. She asked to meet a bunch of senior economists at the London School of Economics, of which I am an alumnus. Nobel Prize winners were lined up wall to wall. After listening to the great and good in the world of economics, she asked the simplest of questions: “Why didn’t you see this coming?” This was the question being asked up and down the land in every house. She was always ahead of the game.
Tributes this morning spoke about the role faith played in the Queen’s life and the umbrella that the Church of England holds up on behalf of all faiths in our country. Speaking as another person from the Muslim world, I can say that the service that Queen Elizabeth represents, and which King Charles has so clearly articulated he wishes to continue, will sustain all their subjects in the weeks and years to come.
I am confident that we are, in our sorrow, one indivisible United Kingdom, irrespective of race, religion or creed. All of us mourn her passing. Our thoughts and prayers are with King Charles III and the wider family.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, it is truly humbling to take part in this debate after so many eloquent speeches from those who have known Her late Majesty so well, but I want to pay my own short tribute to a woman who has influenced so much of my life.
I suppose my most solid connection with Her late Majesty is the fact that I was born in the very same hour as her eldest son, our new King. I do not remember the occasion particularly well, but the birth certificate bears this out. As a young boy, I remember looking at the back of my pale hand and seeing these very blue veins and wondering just a little bit, “What if?” Fortunately, you and I have been spared.
Our late Queen came to us as a shy young woman and left us as the greatest of Queens, to stand alongside—perhaps even a step above—Victoria and the first Elizabeth. She was a Queen; a monarch; a woman; a wife who loved but one man ever, and who herself was loved by millions. She led us on the extraordinary and historic journey from an ageing and ailing empire to the enduring friendships of the Commonwealth, about which we have heard so much.
She was a woman who placed duty first, second and third, and who began it all again every single morning. That sense of duty and dignity, that unflappability, personal courage and wisdom, that love of Marmite sandwiches and, oh, that smile, and even shouts of joy—yes, she loved her horses, and winning. She was no pale functionary. She was an example of selfless leadership and we could have done no better; she was an example to us all. She was a golden thread that ran through the tapestries of our lives and the sinews that bind this nation together. They were bonds not of fear—that is the prerogative of leaders in some other countries—but of affection and of devotion; bonds which had tens of thousands of us pouring towards Buckingham Palace, not waving machine guns and severed heads but waving banners and shouting not chants of revolution but songs of joy. We were waving banners that told her how devoted to her we were and how much we loved her. That little word, “love”, keeps cropping up in our discussions about Elizabeth. How we rejoiced at her many jubilees. What fun we had, as other nations marvelled and quietly envied the very British secret that was Elizabeth.
Now the torch passes to another generation, whose sorrows today we share. We send our commiserations to our new King, His Majesty King Charles III, his Queen Consort, Camilla, and the entire family. We thank them for sharing with us the long, long life of such an extraordinary lady. We will bury her not only with sadness but with unquenchable pride and endless gratitude. Thank you, Ma’am.
The Queen is dead. Long live the King.
Evacuations from Afghanistan
Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we continue to work with key groups that have links with NGOs on the ground. I referred earlier to some of the incredible, courageous women leaders; they are also very much part of my formal engagement, and are informing our decisions today and our medium and long-term policy when it comes to Afghanistan. On LGBT people and other minorities, the situation is dire—the noble Lord knows the Taliban’s approach to this issue. However, that does not mean that we should be deterred from our focus on and support for these communities in Afghanistan.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, briefly, I declare an interest as chair of the HRC. I wrote to the Minister about trying to evacuate the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. For brevity, can he just tell me whether he will write back to me to tell me what happened there and whether any of its members got out?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I can say to the noble Baroness that a number of its members left, but I will write to her in this respect to allow for further questions.