Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 7th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I take the point that he made about Clause 22(6). As a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly for many years, I know how much Members of the Assembly value their right to make laws in the areas that are devolved to it. However, I must say gently to your Lordships that, in recent times, there have been a number of examples of this House and the other place interfering in the devolved settlement in Northern Ireland. Although some of us have pointed that out, it has been with your Lordships’ positive assent and approval that the overriding of the devolved settlement in Northern Ireland has taken place in a number of areas. I would like to see a consistent approach to the devolved settlement in Northern Ireland, not this pick-and-choose approach where something being okay appears to depend on the issue of the day but, if you do not like what the Assembly has done, you can interfere—as seems to have happened on a number of recent occasions in this Parliament.

I want to highlight Clause 22(3). On the face of it, it appears—I am open to correction by those who are much more learned and have more legal expertise in these matters than me—to put some kind of restriction on the wide Henry VIII powers that are given under this particular clause. The one thing that it is apparently not possible for regulations under the Bill to do is

“create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland which feature at the border … physical infrastructure (including border posts), or … checks and controls, which did not exist before exit day.”

Having listened to the debate, I think that may well be able to be swept aside at any point. However, why is emphasis put on the one thing that is mentioned? I look to the Government Front Bench as to why it is mentioned, given that it really has no effect. Of course, we do not want any extra infrastructure at the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic and it has never been the desire or wish of anyone in the Northern Ireland political parties, or the Irish Government, the British Government or the EU, to have such infrastructure. But it would be quite helpful and an acknowledgement of unionist concerns if there were a similar provision which acknowledged—under strand 2, the north-south approach in the Belfast agreement and the importance of that relationship, but also strand 3, the east-west dimension—that regulations may not create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I am following the noble Lord closely on this point. Does he realise that today Maroš Šefčovič talked about the need for fewer border checks and, in fact, that they could be invisible on the Irish Sea border. Does the noble Lord agree that if they can be invisible on the Irish Sea border, they can be invisible at the frontier, where of course checks should happen between one country and another independent country?

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

Of course. It appears that things may have moved on, because once all these ideas were dismissed as completely fanciful. Indeed, “unicorns” were brought into play and all sorts of dismissive language was used. I am glad that now there is at least an acknowledgement that some of these checks can be done in the way that the noble Baroness has described Maroš Šefčovič as talking about.

The important point here is that we have been told throughout the Brexit process that there cannot be a single check or single piece of infrastructure on the Irish border because otherwise that will lead to violence—it will be attacked and that will undermine the Belfast agreement—without anyone, hardly, making the obvious point that, if that is unacceptable north-south, then it is doubly unacceptable between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. What does that say to the unionist population?

One of the reasons we have the alienation of people in Northern Ireland is the one-sided approach and interpretation of the Belfast agreement. I would just like an explanation. Whatever its actual import or ability to be enforced, or the fact that it can be superseded by a ministerial direction, why do the Government highlight that issue and not the fact that the reason why we have such a problem in Northern Ireland with the political institutions is that we have this similar kind of infrastructure and checks between one part of the United Kingdom and the other?

On the point that has been raised very powerfully by noble Lords on the legal issue, I fully understand why they take the position they do and, as has been said, it has been raised in relation to other Bills and Acts. I would love to see the same outrage and anger expressed more widely; it may well have been during the passage of the then Bill, before my time in your Lordships’ House.

You can imagine therefore that if there is such outrage about powers being given by Parliament to the Executive and UK Ministers, how citizens of Northern Ireland—British citizens, fully part of the United Kingdom—feel about powers being not just taken from Parliament and given to Ministers but given to foreign officials of the European Commission to propose law. They are totally unaccountable to anyone in the United Kingdom. They do not have to answer to anyone or answer any questions. There is no parliamentary process whatever within the United Kingdom that can even challenge the directives and regulations that cover 300 areas of law affecting the economy of Northern Ireland. Therefore, while accepting entirely the points made about delegated legislation and Henry VIII powers, I would like to see reflected some of the same concerns about how we in Northern Ireland feel about the way that laws are now made by a foreign polity in its own interest. It is not in our interest; it is made in its own interest.

The Bill is part of an effort to try to remedy that problem. People have said we will have negotiations. But given that we have already had communicated to us that the EU is not open at this stage to changing the mandate of its main negotiator, certainly, how else are we going to get to a situation where that outrageous situation in Northern Ireland is remedied?

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hoey]

45: Clause 22, page 11, line 16, at end insert “, but may not amend, repeal, or create an incompatibility with, the Act of Union (Ireland) 1800 or the Union with Ireland Act 1800.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment prevents a Minister of the Crown making provision by regulation which has the effect of repealing, subordinating or otherwise interfering with the United Kingdom’s foundational constitutional statutory framework.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in moving this amendment I will also, in some detail—I apologise, but I have not spoken very much in Committee—make a constitutional plea to the Government on behalf of British citizens in Northern Ireland.

This amendment is very simple. It seeks to remedy an important gap at the heart of the Bill. I believe the Bill is good. It creates the framework for a fair and balanced solution and, if the powers it confers are used appropriately, will restore Northern Ireland’s place within the union. Clause 1(c) is clear that one of the Bill’s primary purposes is to remedy the present subjugation of the Union with Ireland Act 1800 and the Act of Union (Ireland) 1800, which together are known as the Acts of Union.

The Prime Minister before the previous Prime Minister, speaking in the House of Commons, claimed that the withdrawal Act was not intended to affect the Acts of Union, yet a few months later senior counsel, on behalf of the then Government, went to court in our protocol case in Belfast and argued exactly the opposite. As the late Lord Trimble simply put it:

“The Act of Union is the union.”


That is undeniably true. In Halsbury’s Laws, the Acts of Union are described as

“the statutory warrant for the continued incorporation of Northern Ireland with the United Kingdom”.

The High Court and Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland have been clear—we should not really need a court to tell us this—that the Acts of Union remain in force and together have the status of constitutional statutes.

There has been some commentary suggesting that the Acts of Union were somehow repealed or overridden by the Government of Ireland Act 1920 or later statutory provisions, but that is simply not so. The 1920 Act simply made provision for separate devolved arrangements in two parts of Ireland, each of which remained fully part of the United Kingdom and subject to the United Kingdom Parliament. There was and is nothing in the Acts of Union to prevent the creation of subordinate legislatures, provided that the King in Parliament remains sovereign.

Section 1(2) of the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act 1922 provided that the southern parliament be dissolved, and the Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Act 1922 provided that the 1920 Act no longer had effect beyond Northern Ireland. This has the effect of a non-textual amendment to Section 75 of the 1920 Act, maintaining the untrammelled authority of Parliament over Northern Ireland. In consequence, southern Ireland no longer remained within the UK but Northern Ireland did, and therefore remained firmly under the constitutional protections of the Acts of Union. These legislative events in 1922 at most altered the territorial extent of the Acts of Union but did not alter the fundamental constitutional foundation of the union itself.

Here is the simple question I pose to noble Lords. Article 3 of the Acts of Union creates our Parliament, and Article 6 prescribes the economic constitutional framework—essentially, the UK internal market. Could a majority in Parliament constitutionally abolish Parliament, and thus our democratic constitutional system itself, and in its place usher in new authoritarian arrangements? If noble Lords think not, because Parliament is a constitutional fundamental, then that constitutional fundamental is derived from Article 3 of the Acts of Union. If Article 3 of the Acts of Union is a constitutional fundamental, as a matter of simple logic there is no reason to give some lesser status to Article 6. Why should one receive greater constitutional deference or protection than the other?

In our largely unwritten constitution, something may be unconstitutional—that is, offensive to or subversive of our constitutional order—without being necessarily unlawful. Our constitution, however, is entrusted primarily to us and our colleagues in another place. We are here as guardians of the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom as much as we must be guardians of the rule of law. But if a law, even one made by Parliament, is unconstitutional, it is our duty to stand against that in discharge of our functions in this House. In my view and that of many others, Section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which brings the protocol into domestic law, is unconstitutional, given that its effect is the subjugation of the Acts of Union and thus the fundamental constitutional basis of the union itself.

While this Bill may well conflict with international obligations under the protocol—although I think that Article 16 of the protocol itself makes any such claim doubtful—any such obligations must yield for two reasons. The first is the doctrine of necessity, which has been set out by the Government and dealt with expertly by many Members of this House, including the noble Lord, Lord Bew. I need not repeat those contributions but, in so far as I have heard them relate to international law, I support them.

The second, which I think needs to be gone into a little more fully, is that the protocol subjugates the fundamental constitutional foundation of the United Kingdom. The Government have an overriding constitutional obligation to remedy that and, if that requires acting against a previous treaty, so be it. The Bill as it stands would remedy the present breach of the Acts of Union if Clause 4 were brought into force via commencement order. However, there still seems to be a hole. Although the Bill, in line with its intent in Clause 1, would remedy the present breach of the Acts of Union by removing the most offensive elements of Article 5 of the protocol from having effect in domestic law, it does not prevent a Minister of a Crown using the Henry VIII powers that we have heard so much about to replace the current arrangements with new arrangements that would again breach the Acts of Union. The superficially attractive answer to that point is to say that Parliament could legislate again to subjugate the Acts of Union if it so wished. As a matter of parliamentary sovereignty, it could—notwithstanding the validity of my point around how it is constitutionally improper.

The distinction here is that Parliament, with all the checks and balances, could do it or try to do it. As it stands, Clause 22 permits—or, to put it another way, does not prevent—a Minister of the Crown by regulation to alter the foundational constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom. If it were to stand, it would mean that a Minister of the Crown, in exercising powers as specified in Clause 22, could again subjugate the Acts of Union and thus act in a manner contrary to what is, superficially at least, a fundamental aim of the Bill, which is to restore the Acts of Union.

It is notable that Clause 22 prevents a Minister of the Crown doing anything by regulation that would create a north/south border. This inherent imbalance, which my amendment seeks to remedy, once again eliminates the entirely one-sided nature of the so-called “peace process” in Northern Ireland. A Minister of the Crown, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, earlier, is prohibited in exercise of these powers from doing anything to facilitate or create a land border where it should be, but there is no such constraint on creating a border in our own country and subjugating the Acts of Union. That simply is an absurdity. I know that the Minister could not really give a reason why this had not gone in but I trust—being very naive, perhaps—that it was simply an oversight on the part of the drafters.

There is no reason why the Government could not adopt this amendment. In answer to a question posed in the House of Commons by Sir Jeffrey Donaldson MP, the then Secretary of State—the previous Secretary of State, not the current Secretary of State; it gets a bit confusing—gave an assurance that the exercise of powers under the Bill would have to be in a manner compatible with the Acts of Union. He made that assurance in the House. If that assurance, given to Parliament, is to be worth while, why would the Government not give effect to it by way of a straightforward clause in this Bill?

I therefore ask again for clarity from the Government. I know the Minister may well need to go back and discuss whether they will perhaps be able to adopt this amendment, so I do not expect an answer right now, but I do pose a question—and, if possible, I would like a response in the wind-up—about the commitment made by Brandon Lewis MP. Is the Minister willing to reaffirm to this House that any new arrangements to be made by regulation will have to be compatible with the Acts of Union?

This is fundamental. If the Government cannot do so, they will be saying to pro-union people, who the Conservative Government continue to urge to trust them, that the promises made to them about the restoration of the Acts of Union are in fact hollow and that once again they may well be being tricked. There seems to be little point in remedying the Acts of Union breach via the commencement of the relevant provision in this Bill and then replacing that which has been removed with another breach of the Acts of Union. It brings us back to the same place, because no self-respecting unionist will support arrangements which occasion a breach of the Acts of Union.

The fundamental issue for unionists—the clue is in the name—is that the Acts of Union must be restored, and the Acts of Union require equal footing in matters of trade. Let us be clear: the restoration means an end of EU law applying in Northern Ireland. If it continues to apply in Northern Ireland but not in the rest of the United Kingdom then the Acts of Union are breached. A breach of the Acts of Union is also a breach of the principle of consent because it fundamentally alters the constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the union.

That brings me to another pertinent point. Last week, after a lot of procrastination, the Northern Ireland Office ruled out lawmaking powers over Northern Ireland for Dublin. It did so correctly, on the basis that this would breach the principle of consent. Can the Government therefore explain how they reconcile the plainly correct position that lawmaking powers being handed to Dublin would breach the principle of consent with their continued entirely illogical claim that handing lawmaking and judicial powers to Brussels does not? What, tell me, is the difference between Brussels exercising lawmaking powers over Northern Ireland and Dublin doing the same? In truth, I do not think that there is any coherent answer to that.

This amendment would offer protection to the fundamental constitutional basis of the United Kingdom. We do not want any more trickery, clever footwork or compromising that ends up with Northern Ireland’s constitutional position not absolutely restored—not just in the present but protected in the future—to being an integral part of the United Kingdom. Amending Clause 22 would provide some measure of constitutional safeguard, which I am afraid is necessary. A little under two months ago, the Government again went before the court in Northern Ireland and argued that the territorial extent of the United Kingdom should be interpreted as meaning only Great Britain, with Northern Ireland instead treated as part of the EU’s territory. That was the Government’s case. Noble Lords can see why so many pro-union citizens in Northern Ireland have voted in huge numbers to give the DUP the mandate to take nothing on trust. I am really sad to say that this Government are increasingly losing the trust of those who cherish the union.

Over the years, unionists and loyalists in Northern Ireland have been betrayed by Conservative and Labour Governments, again and again. They had courage in times of war, fighting for the UK, and through 40 years of terrible terrorism, and their loyalty has been rewarded by being treated like second-class citizens, with constant appeasement to the Irish Government and those who are dedicated to destroying the union and the very birthright of unionists to live as equal citizens under the protection of His Majesty’s Government. They were betrayed during the home rule crisis, betrayed after the First World War and betrayed in 1985, and, sadly, many in Northern Ireland now feel that, even in the 1998 agreement, the unionist community was deceived. That is partly why many of us are determined to get rid of those injustices and ensure that what was promised by the sovereign Government of this country to its British citizens in Northern Ireland is upheld.

Of course, the final betrayal was the Northern Ireland protocol. It was said that no British Prime Minister could allow a border in the Irish Sea—and yet we saw what happened. When such a border was put there, subjugating Northern Ireland and its citizens, it was an historic wrong. There is no justifying or explaining it. It plunged a knife into the back of British citizens in Northern Ireland, the part of the United Kingdom which I call my home. The historical record will show those who stood up for our country, the United Kingdom, and those who stood with the EU and a foreign Irish Government.

--- Later in debate ---

In response to the noble Baroness’s final point about taking these issues seriously, I assure her that we are. That is why we brought forward this legislation in the first place to enable us to fix the elements of the protocol that are not working, to facilitate a return to functioning devolved government in Northern Ireland and to protect the Belfast agreement in all its forms. On that basis, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, and particularly for his reassertion of the United Kingdom Government’s commitment to the union and to Northern Ireland’s integral place within the union. I do not accept his reason for not accepting this amendment. I will look at what he said and I hope he will reflect between now and Report.

I thank noble Lords who spoke. The noble Lords, Lord Bew and Lord Dodds, both gave a very serious warning about the situation in Northern Ireland. The comment of the noble Lord, Lord Bew, that this is no small matter is something we should all reflect on. I am actually very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, did not speak. I will take that as a sign, and hope that the Lib Dems will support this when it comes to Report. But I do not assume the same about the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who also did not speak on this amendment.

Seriously, this is an important issue and it is not going to go away. I hope that, at this stage, we have given everyone a bit of thinking to do before Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 45 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, brought about some cross-community consensus earlier when she said that she was glad that I had not spoken. As I am trying to ingratiate myself with all colleagues, it may assist if I speak to the last two groups together, if that is acceptable to the Minister and the Committee, just for efficiency’s sake.

I found it curious earlier when the Minister said that he rejected an earlier amendment because it might give the impression that agreement was in reach and talks would go on. That does seem to be the Government’s approach and, at some stage, we will need much greater clarity about not only the status of the talks—or negotiations, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, indicated —but what they are about. We know what the mandate of the EU is, but we still do not know what the position of the UK is. The purpose of Amendment 72 is to indicate that, before any regulations come into force, we would need to know exactly what is likely to be agreed.

Amendment 73, the final amendment in Committee, relates to the points that were very well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, regarding the fact that there will be a stage when we need to see the regulations, and I need not rehearse that argument again. We cannot do our job without seeing drafts or indications before Report, and it really should be impossible to commence the legislation unless we have seen the regulations. That is the purpose behind Amendment 73, but I beg to move Amendment 72.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I want to make it very clear to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that I love listening to him speak and I have no aspersions against him whatever. I was just pleased that perhaps he felt that my amendment was worth considering enough to not contribute.

On this, I know it is extremely difficult for the Minister to do so, but could he give us some idea of how long he visualises—he is smiling, so I think he knows what I am going to ask—the negotiations going on before someone actually says that this is not going to work? One of the reasons I am very keen to get this Bill through as quickly as possible is so that we have it there as a safeguard. It would be helpful to know if there are any discussions going on behind the scenes on timing and just how long we can keep negotiating if we are not getting anywhere.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, because I think I heard him say earlier that he returned from Buenos Aires this morning and then went straight into this debate on the Northern Ireland protocol. It is very appropriate that he is the proposer of the last two amendments. I commend him on his stamina. I agree with the idea that regulations should be published as quickly as possible.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I keep hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, will say something with which I can disagree—but he keeps on letting me down. I strongly support Amendment 20, of course, for the obvious reasons that I need not repeat. I also support Amendment 21B, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and strongly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Deben.

I ought to declare an ex-interest. I used to be a director of a power company and, if I remember right, Northern Ireland is a net importer of electricity but a large net exporter to the Republic. The trade with the Republic is less than the trade that comes in from Scotland on the interconnector. It follows that, if the Bill goes through in the form it is in now, unamended by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, the collapse of the common electricity market will do very grave damage to the Republic as well as to Northern Ireland. For Northern Ireland, it is important for security of supply and to keep costs down; in the Republic, it is much more important because the Republic is a net importer; it is very short of generating capacity.

So I say to the Minister that I really hope he will buy Amendment 21B from the noble Lord, Lord Hain —I cannot see any reason why he should not. If he does not buy it, would the Government please produce before Report a clear statement of the discussions they will by then have had, if they have not already had them, with the Government in Dublin about how the crisis that this would create for the Government in Dublin is to be avoided or mitigated.

I will also add a word on the very important point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. He made it very gently. There is no doubt that the European Union means what it says when it says that, if we put this Bill in its present form on our statute book, the TCA bets are off. We are heading for a trade war if we do this. I hope the DUP will bear that point in mind because, although the trade war would be acutely damaging to the whole United Kingdom, it would do particular damage to the economy of Northern Ireland.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

I understand what the noble Lord is saying—that the European Union would likely invoke some kind of trade war—but does he understand that, for many people in Northern Ireland, this Bill is the only thing that is giving them some hope that there will be real change? A trade war is very worrying, but there are also very worrying signs in Northern Ireland of deep unrest, concern and instability. That is why the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that we should get rid of this Bill would be deeply damaging to relations in Northern Ireland.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

With great respect to the noble Baroness, that is not what the public opinion polls are telling us. At present, they seem to be telling us that what a majority of people in Northern Ireland, and a great majority of younger people in Northern Ireland, are looking for is certainty, and they are reasonably content with the protocol.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

The opinion polls told us that remain was going to win the referendum—they were very wrong.

Zimbabwe

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot provide details of ministerial meetings; that is not to say that they have not happened—I just do not have the details of specific meetings. However, I know that at numerous international fora the then Africa Minister, as well as other Ministers including myself, have had discussions with neighbouring countries in the region where this and other issues have been raised. However, I will provide details on specific meetings with SADC after this Question.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, has outlined the shocking violence perpetrated by ZANU-PF and Mnangagwa on anyone, really, who opposes the regime. The economic situation is dire, and hunger is being used against anyone who opposes the regime. Does not the visit of the South African President—the first state visit under His Majesty the King—give the Government a wonderful opportunity to work with the South African Government and talk to them about how they, and other countries in Africa, can influence together to ensure that there really will be free and fair elections next year in Zimbabwe?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

The noble Baroness has been a champion of Zimbabwe for many years, and I pay tribute to her for that. She is right to identify this upcoming visit as an opportunity. There is no doubt that South Africa, and indeed southern African countries, not least through SADC, have a particular ability to influence Zimbabwe, far more so than we can. I am sure that the topic we are discussing today will be on the agenda when the visit happens.

UN Sustainable Development Goals

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

That is an extremely important point. It is a core part of the work we are doing, particularly in the Horn of Africa, which we discussed in the previous Question. I will not repeat all the numbers because the House will have heard them, but the right reverend Prelate makes an important point. Total annual global aid is around $170 billion, but it is estimated that the funding gap, if we are to achieve the sustainable development goals, is nearer $3.7 trillion. Even if we were all to double our aid commitments globally it would still not touch the sides. The answer therefore has to be to use other tools that Governments have access to. I mentioned trade earlier. The UK, as the fifth- or sixth-biggest economy in the world and a big, attractive market for those poorer countries, is committed to making itself more available and more accessible to those countries in a way that perhaps we should have done in the past.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, many of the people facing extreme poverty live in certain countries in Africa and many of those countries are run by corrupt neo-dictatorships, particularly Zimbabwe at the moment. What more can His Majesty’s Government do to expose the corruption in these countries, which is costing the lives of so many ordinary African people?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

The noble Baroness is right. Unfortunately, it is not just a handful of countries; a lot of countries could fit the description that she put forward. From the perspective of our international development assistance, we are very careful not to provide funding directly to Governments because we know that, where we do, a lot of that money ends up fuelling corruption and rarely reaches the projects on the ground. Our job is to try to find examples of projects that we can support outside national Governments where we can attempt to enable those communities where we are investing to prosper in a way that does not foster corruption in those countries.

Women’s Rights to Reproductive Healthcare: United States

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I believe I have already stated that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has prioritised spending on women and girls, including on sexual and reproductive rights. Indeed, it is an area we have focused on for a number for years. The majority of our SRHR programming focuses on increasing and improving voluntary planning information supplies and services. In 2019-20, the UK supported 25.4 million women and girls to use modern methods of contraception, including the sharing of information. With all these efforts, it is important that we continue to work and remain focused on what we seek to do. I fully recognise the important efforts and the work of the noble Baroness in this respect.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, just as the United Kingdom allows every part of the United Kingdom to make its decisions on abortion, surely the Minister must agree that the United States, a democracy, must be allowed to have its individual states, whatever we think of the issue. Does he agree with me that, just as many of us got quite annoyed at the United States interfering in our decisions over something such as the protocol, we should keep well out of this and Her Majesty’s Government should not get involved in the internal affairs of the United States?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

The point made by the noble Baroness is exactly what I have articulated: we have made it clear that this is very much an issue for the United States. Of course, each state has its own elected representatives. It is for the people of those states to choose their democratically elected representatives.

Zimbabwe: Elections

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I welcome this short debate and congratulate my friend the noble Lord, Lord Oates, on his perseverance in getting it and on his excellent speech which outlined practically the whole short history of Zimbabwe. It is vital to raise awareness of what is happening in the deeply entrenched and long-lasting horror of the crisis in Zimbabwe. Particularly at the moment while the world is focused on the terrible tragedy of Ukraine, tyrants and dictators all over the world can get away with even more brutality, such as in Zimbabwe 2022.

In 2018, just before the last presidential election I, along with the right honourable Conor Burns, visited Zimbabwe to write a report for the UK branch of Commonwealth Parliamentary Association on the possibilities of a free and fair election and the chances of Zimbabwe rejoining the Commonwealth. We did not put Zimbabwe out, of course: it left. It was a depressing report. The Zimbabwean Electoral Commission was not impartial and the voter roll was inadequate, for starters. The constitution was being ignored, so we wrote of our disappointment and surprise that our ambassador at that time seemed to be so close to the ruling ZANU- PF party. I have to say that the current ambassador is doing a great job and is widely respected.

Many of us in the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Zimbabwe at that time tried to warn of the danger and futility of expecting change from Mnangagwa. Not for nothing is he known as “the crocodile”. We were dismissed by some as needlessly pessimistic and lacking understanding of his desire to change but, as forecast, the pattern set by Mugabe was carried forward with sustained intensity and vigour, complying with plans cunningly crafted with the help of the military. Those had been planned for some time. Unfortunately too many of the agencies working in the country and too many diplomats initially fell for his lies and rather evil charm. We were told that a new chapter of peace, economic efficiency and prosperity would be opened up. They have certainly opened up a new chapter but it is the same horror story of corruption, greed and violent oppression. The only expertise ZANU-PF has ever shown, I am afraid, is in brutality, lying, theft and terror.

We need more Governments around the world, as well as the media and among those who can bring influence online to call to account and shame the ZANU thugs and their stooges in the army, police and judiciary. There is no rule of law in Zimbabwe. The crisis there blights the whole of Africa, particularly the SADC region. Apart from a few brave African leaders whom we can all admire, most heads of government have been mealy-mouthed and complicit in the oppression and persecution of those who have stood up for freedom, democracy and the rule of law.

Can the Minister assure us that our UK diplomats are being properly briefed so that they can actively and productively engage in rallying support for democracy and reform, and against the disastrous corruption that is ruining the lives and livelihoods not only of people in Zimbabwe but of millions of people in neighbouring countries—and against the continuing threats of violence designed to intimidate and suppress civil society, which is so important in Zimbabwe, and brave political activists? Will the Minister discuss with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association headquarters and the Commonwealth Local Government Forum how increased and targeted support for the valuable work they do to build capacity in support of democracy and freedom can be given? Will they ensure they push to have election monitoring for next year’s election in place many months before the vote? There is no point in being there for just a few days over its actual date.

Even in these darkest of days, there is still hope. The perseverance and courage of the Zimbabwean people, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, is impressive whether in this country or abroad. The vigil outside the Zimbabwean embassy here in London has restarted after Covid. It has been going since 2002, and those involved say they will continue until there are free and fair elections. Women in Zimbabwe have borne the brunt of the struggle to feed their children, which is getting harder every day. I pay tribute to all of them and to Women of Zimbabwe Arise, an organisation which has done so much to keep the flag flying for freedom and which gave me this little WOZA scarf on one of my undercover visits.

A whole generation has grown up never knowing or enjoying the riches and resources in which Zimbabwe abounds. We see so many of them contributing to the prosperity of other nations to which they have been forced to live in exile—so many good people doing their best, such as Ben Freeth of the Mike Campbell Foundation and Tom Benyon from ZANE. But hope has come in the emergence of the Citizens Coalition for Change, which the noble Lord, Lord Oates, mentioned, and the colour yellow. It was a brave move by Nelson Chamisa to set that up. The MDC had been split apart by infiltration and clever tactics by Mnangagwa. Its headquarters were taken over and its state funding was gone. Chamisa’s energetic and inspiring leadership in rallying support for the Citizens Coalition for Change during the by-election campaigns, travelling up and down the country and addressing huge public assemblies of all ages and backgrounds who long for a better and brighter future for the nation of Zimbabwe, led to a great result. The worry, of course, is that this shows ZANU-PF that it could easily lose next year, and it will now begin to plot how to stop that.

I first met Nelson some 15 years ago in Harare, during one of my undercover fact-finding visits to Zimbabwe. I was immediately struck by his integrity, energy and brave commitment to serving and delivering for the well-being and progress of the people of Zimbabwe. In the award-winning film “President”, which I hope many of your Lordships will have seen, we see the horror of the fraud of the 2018 election: the army called in, shooting innocent, unarmed civilians in the back. It shows how the electoral commission sides with the men with guns. The judges do the same. There is despair at the stolen election, but then we see Nelson speaking out.

“Hope, hope, hope, is what we have,”


he says.

Here in your Lordships’ House, I hope that we honour the memory of all who have given their lives in this struggle and those who died never being able to return to the land they loved. By having this debate here, we are showing that we will not give up on the Zimbabwean people and their longing for their beautiful country to be restored to its rightful place as the breadbasket for Africa; a country where human rights and democracy are cherished. I ask the Government to do everything possible, in the next year, to help ensure free and fair elections in that wonderful country.

EU-UK Partnership Council

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My noble friend makes a hugely important point. I reiterate that our overall aim is to renegotiate the Northern Ireland protocol to resolve the undoubtedly significant issues that people in businesses in Northern Ireland face daily. The EU has recognised that the current arrangements do not work. Any solution must be underpinned by the commitments made in the Good Friday agreement.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, how will—

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, another—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

My Lords, we have not yet heard from a non-affiliated Member, so we will do so now.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, how will Her Majesty’s Government judge the success of this partnership and whether it is worth continuing in the future?

Vaccine Distribution

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

It is time for a non-affiliated question.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, will the Minister give an absolute assurance that in any new creation of vaccines and in all distributions, Northern Ireland will be treated as part of the United Kingdom’s distribution and not be subject to any EU disagreements over the protocol?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness will know, the FCDO has taken on the responsibility of the Brexit negotiations. The very point the noble Baroness raises will be paramount to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary.

International Day of Democracy

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, on the noble Lord’s point about the international development strategy, yes, that is being worked on and we are looking to publish it early next year. The points that the noble Lord raised about nutrition will be very much integrated into our strategy. The noble Lord talks about the important leadership we have given on the agenda for the summit on nutrition. I accept that, whereas previously we have been able to give quite specific financial support, on this occasion—due to some challenges that we faced with the reduction in ODA spending—we have not been able to provide support in the manner that we have done previously. However, that does not take away from the fact that nutrition will part and parcel of our integrated strategy on development across the world.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the rule of law must apply in a democratic country, along with the freedom of the press. That does not happen in Zimbabwe. Will the Minister and the Government condemn the fact that Covid is being deliberately used in many countries, particularly Zimbabwe, to stop by-elections and the normal democratic process?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I absolutely condemn such actions. The use of the Covid pandemic as an excuse to suppress human rights and democratic rights around the world is all too apparent. That is why we need the kind of alliances that I have just talked about and that my right honourable friend illustrated in her recent speech. Specific to Zimbabwe, as the noble Baroness will be aware, we have also used our new, autonomous sanctions regime to ensure that those who commit egregious abuses of human rights are held to account.

Smuggling: Kittens and Puppies

Baroness Hoey Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My noble friend might well be right. If he is, I hope that that will come clear as we go through all the responses that we have had to the consultation, but based on what we know now it does not seem to be right. We are not seeing the same issues with young kittens and pregnant cats being imported. In 2020, only 17 kittens under 15 weeks and zero pregnant cats were seized and detained. Overall, the number of movements of cats into Great Britain is far lower than for dogs, making up about 9% of the total commercial movements and around 12% of the total non-commercial movements into this country.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

Is it not time that we relooked at the idea of bringing back dog licence fees, as happens in other parts of the United Kingdom, which work very successfully, with some exceptions, of course, for some people?