China: Human Rights and Security
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(3 days, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, rather like Christmas, which seems to come around faster every year, so the opportunity to change British policy on China seems to come around rapidly. Under the coalition but particularly, one sensed, when George Osborne was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there was a great opening up to China and a great interest in having investment. We then saw a pivot to thinking that China was perhaps a threat and a country with which we should not necessarily work closely—although we never stopped doing business with it. We are waiting for His Majesty’s Government’s China audit, but at the moment we have the Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s three Cs: competition, challenge and co-operation.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Alton of Liverpool for bringing this very important debate this afternoon. It is indeed timely, not just because of the 40th anniversary of the Sino-British Hong Kong agreement, but precisely because there is an audit and we have very recently seen the Foreign Secretary meet his Chinese opposite number and the Prime Minister meet President Xi—the first time, as I understand it, that a British Minister met the president in six years.
In that time, many things have changed in the United Kingdom—Prime Ministers have changed almost as often as the calendar—but in China, very little has changed. If you have a president for life, long-term policy-making can be very different, so Chinese planning for security and Chinese actions against Tibetans and Uighurs persist. At this point I must briefly mention an interest, in that I have recently become a trustee of the Parliamentary Human Rights Trust. I do not think it directly affects this debate, but I thought I should mention it because clearly, one of the concerns that this House, the International Relations and Defence Committee and committees in the other place have long had is precisely human rights issues in Hong Kong, Tibet and Xinjiang.
What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the situation in Xinjiang? The excellent report from the House of Lords Library suggests that Ministers have been talking about possible forced labour in the supply chain. Shadow Minister Mike Wood responded:
“As we move forward, all UK businesses must conduct thorough due diligence to ensure that their supply chains are free from forced labour”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6 November 2024; col. 66WH.]”
Excellent, and that is exactly what should be happening, but what mechanism is there to ensure that it does? While we absolutely should be calling on the largest companies named in various reports—companies such as Rolls-Royce, which clearly have every opportunity to ask the right questions—what about the smaller companies? Do they really have the opportunity to engage in that due diligence, which is vital but also very difficult, and yet another imposition on small and medium-sized companies?
Apart from human rights concerns, which we have already heard thoroughly outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, there are significant security issues that are not necessarily talked about very frequently. What assessment are His Majesty’s Government making of Chinese interests in the Arctic and Antarctic? China sees itself as a near neighbour of the Arctic—one that clearly has business interests, in that, the more navigable the Arctic Sea region becomes, the greater the interest. President Xi suggested on meeting Prime Minister Starmer that we could co-operate and that there are areas of common interest in trade and investment. Where are those trade and investment interests coming from? Do they benefit the United Kingdom, or do they benefit only China?
There is a final question I want to ask, about higher education. I very briefly declare my other interest, as professor of European politics at Cambridge University. This is an issue that affects universities across this country and in the United States: the Chinese Students and Scholars Association. A quick internet search suggests that universities in the UK and the US have active Chinese Students and Scholars Associations. It is not entirely clear who funds them, but they appear to be intended partly to allow host communities to find out more about China and to allow Chinese students to have full feedback to China. Are His Majesty’s Government reassured that these are entirely neutral organisations simply serving the mutual benefit of the host university and the students; or are they also an opportunity for China to look for students to investigate, spy on—to use a word that is perhaps unfortunate—and feedback on fellow students, particularly students from Hong Kong, perhaps, who may feel vulnerable?
Ukraine: Military Support
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I invite my noble friend to read the National Audit Office report, which was very complimentary about the work that has been done and the support that has been provided for Ukraine. I am sure that he will agree that the defence of Ukraine against Russian aggression is the defence of Europe, yes, but of the UK also.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, following on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord West, it is right that we should be supporting Ukraine, and the Minister’s answer was right—the National Audit Office has complimented the UK on the support we have given. However, replenishing our stockpiles will cost significantly more. Therefore, to reiterate the noble Lord’s question, will His Majesty’s Government commit to replenishing those stockpiles and ensuring that the support for Ukraine is not at the expense of training British soldiers, sailors and aviators? The defence of Ukraine matters—and so does the defence of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, the defence of Ukraine is the defence of the United Kingdom. For two and a half years, Ukrainians have bravely and fiercely defended themselves against Russia’s full-scale invasion. Putin’s violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity began with the illegal annexation of Crimea 10 years ago. He did not stop there, and he will not stop until he leaves Ukraine. On the issue of funding, which the noble Baroness is right to raise, she will know that a strategic defence review is under way. Her comments are noted as part of that, but it would be wrong of me to pre-empt it. My noble friend Lord Robertson will be providing information at the appropriate time that will help answer her question.
Ukraine
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question but also for the work that she did in government on Ukraine. It is respected, and we wish to continue to support Ukraine both militarily and with non-military assistance. We have £242 million in bilateral, non-military assistance earmarked for 2024-25.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, in her initial Answer, the Minister mentioned the Blenheim discussions, which the Government hosted. That is a very welcome forum, but will His Majesty’s Government also move forward with closer co-operation with the European Union on security and defence? That would be another way for us to work effectively with our neighbours to support Ukraine, which Members around the House, with the exception of the noble Lord asking the Question, all support.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Baroness is correct to highlight the need for the United Kingdom to work closely with all our allies, and we do so particularly with our European neighbours and partners.
Global Combat Air Programme International Government Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2024
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, as the House knows, I had the privilege of being an RAF jet pilot. This programme is absolutely fundamental to air power, which, ultimately, in the modern world, is almost more important—some would say more important—than feet on the ground.
I will not repeat what my colleagues have said but will just say, “Well done”. It has been only two sitting days since we discussed defence issues. I took part in that really good debate, when it was made clear across the House that this particular project is fundamental to the future defence of our nation. I thank the noble Baroness on the Front Bench—and welcome her to that role—for moving with speed. I had the privilege of being a Deputy Speaker down the other end, so am willing to help with the proceedings on this important project.
I have worked with the Japanese in the past and believe that they are very efficient. That is a blessing in itself and I would not extend this programme beyond the three parties involved. I wish the Government all possible speed. We know that our friend, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, is very much behind this as well.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I have an advantage—or disadvantage—on these Benches because, as often with debates on defence, there is nobody behind me on the Back Benches to say anything different from what I may be or had been planning to say.
As other noble Lords have, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, to her place. I am speaking as the defence spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, even though this SI is being brought forward via the FCDO, precisely because we felt that this is a critical defence issue. Obviously, the interplay of defence and foreign policy is vital.
I listened to much of the debate in the other place about the GCAP arrangements. I think that GCAP has the huge advantage that we can probably all pronounce it, as opposed to GIGO and its alternative pronunciations. I will focus on GCAP.
I had the huge benefit of listening to the passion right across the other place for this commitment to the trilateral relationship with Japan and Italy. Much of the discussion here has been about the relationship with Japan, which is clearly very important to the Japanese. Over the last couple of years, the Japanese embassy has been regularly coming to Liberal Democrat conferences. Before other embassies remembered that we existed, the Japanese ambassador and his colleagues were coming to talk to us. The bilateral relationship with Japan and the relationship on this specifically are hugely important. Last week, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was keen to reiterate the commitment of His Majesty’s Government to GCAP, which was very reassuring to your Lordships’ House.
Today, we are obviously supposed to be focusing on the statutory instrument. I have a couple of very specific questions I want to raise. I note that there is no impact assessment, and the reason given for that is that no impact, or no significant impact, is foreseen on the private, voluntary or public sectors in the UK. I wonder why not. What would count as significant? Surely one of the benefits of the Tempest programme is precisely that it is intended to have a significant impact on our defence capability. Presumably, this is simply the language of a statutory instrument.
In particular, it was noted that there would not be a significant impact on small businesses or micro-businesses. I raised this in the humble Address debate last week, with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. The question was about the role of small and medium-sized enterprises. Clearly, if this is about defence investment and defence research and development, there is a potentially significant role for small, medium and even micro-businesses in the United Kingdom. What do His Majesty’s Government think are the possibilities for those small businesses and micro-businesses?
I declare an interest—not, unlike other noble Lords, an Anglo-Japanese interest—as I am a trustee of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust, which organises the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme. It is essentially funded by the defence industries and, given that some of the primes were mentioned by the Minister, I thought I should reflect that as a declaration of interest, although I do not benefit personally.
In addition to wanting a better understanding of the impact on our defence industrial base, I also want to ask a few questions related to those from the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, on the Labour Back Benches. This is not because I disagree in any way with the proposals here, but in order to get a little more information. Whether somebody was trying to tease the United Kingdom Government in drafting this convention, I am not sure. If we ever wanted to rejoin the European Union, we would be doing so under Article 49. It would appear that, if any country is looking to sign up to this convention, it is under Article 49. There are some provisions under Article 48 and 49 looking at the possibility of expansion. What is His Majesty’s Government’s thinking about the possibility of expansion? The wording seems to be slightly vague at the moment. It is down to the steering committee of the GIGO to decide whether other countries can discuss possible membership. If a third-party country decided it wished to join, would that have to come to the United Kingdom Parliament to be ratified, or is it down to the steering committee, which would not appear to be right? A greater understanding about that would be welcome.
Similarly, under Article 50, about defence exports, what are the mechanisms likely to be if one of the current parties has an arms export ban to a certain country? How is that going to work in terms of dealing with the GCAP?
Finally, there does not appear to be any provision for regular reporting, other than back to the MoD and the FCDO. Will there be a way for Parliament to be updated on these arrangements? These are very much by way of probing questions and not in any way speaking against the statutory instrument and the convention, which are most welcome.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I begin by saying that we fully support the measures before us. As the Minister said in her introductory remarks, it is necessary to deliver the appropriate instrument into law, but it is also about ensuring that UK military capability in the crucial area of air combat is ready. We do so with two great partners, Italy and Japan. Of course, we should not forget that Japan has challenges in its part of the world that many other countries do not face, not least the challenge posed by Russia.
Since the trilateral in September 2023, this project has already achieved significant goals, not least the signing of the international treaty last December that we are legislating for today. This is welcome.
The treaty establishes the legal basis for GIGO—and we need that abbreviation, otherwise we would be repeating “GCAP International Government Organisation” several times, which would extend any debate. The fact that the international headquarters of GIGO will be in the UK is in keeping with the spirit of equal partnership and underpins the importance of GCAP. The first chief executives of the GCAP agency and joint venture are from Italy and Japan—again, that underlines the important collaboration.
As such, the SI before us enables this international treaty to enter into effect, with important measures, as was said in the introduction, on immunity and privileges that are necessary for the effective operation of the GIGO. This SI is necessary to deliver GCAP’s governance arrangements, but in itself will not deliver a single aircraft. Therefore, it is important that we back GCAP to the hilt; the GCAP programme needs to be wholeheartedly supported, with the appropriate funding necessary to deliver our sixth-generation fighter capability.
As Parliament approves this SI, we welcome the remarks of the Minister, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, recently as well, about the Government’s support for GCAP. There has been a lot of speculation and it is important that that speculation is put to rest with wholehearted backing for GCAP. That was consistent across both the new Government and the previous Government during the election. I am sure the Minister will agree that clarity from government is important for Parliament, industry and our international partners. As we approach this SI, it is important that our commitment to GCAP is clear.
I assure the Minister that from these Benches His Majesty’s Official Opposition are clear that we support the SI on the basis that we are supporting GCAP as a whole, including by putting in place the funding necessary to deliver its requirements over the urgent timescale that all three member nations require. That is the key point for all three nations; GCAP is all about pace and timetable. For the United Kingdom and Italy, that means replacing the Typhoon before it is withdrawn from service towards 2040. For Japan, with equal urgency, it means replacing the Mitsubishi F2. That is why any delay or deferment, whether caused by the lack of a clear timetable or otherwise, is so critical.
Reflecting on the points made by my noble friends Lord Howell, Lord Lansley and Lord Trenchard, in 2020 PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that the Tempest programme alone would support an average of 20,000 jobs every year from 2026 until 2050. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also raised an important point about small businesses within the issue of jobs and the economic growth of the United Kingdom. These are well-paid jobs in every constituency up and down the country. Therefore, any notion of holding back on GCAP expenditure would hit our economy hard. Any sense of delaying or deferring GCAP expenditure would undermine our brilliant aerospace industry, and indeed cast doubt over the vast sums of private investment that are already waiting in the wings, from which hundreds of UK SMEs stand to benefit.
We all recognise that GCAP is important to our economy, our future war-fighting capability and our relations with our closest international partners; the Minister recognised that in her introduction. Therefore, we need to ensure that the Government embrace GCAP wholeheartedly and confirm, as I have before, their strong and steadfast support. That includes a clear timetable on 2.5%, so that we can ensure that this programme can be accelerated by investing not only in the core platform but in the associated technology of autonomous collaboration and a digital-system approach, enabling the mass and rapid absorption of battle space data.
As my noble friend Lord Naseby alluded to, it is important that we invest. People often talk of the next war, and I am sure the Minister agrees with me that the best way to win a war is to avoid it in the first place. That requires investment, and that is what GCAP is all about. Part of our overall deterrence posture is to signal to our adversaries that we stand with our allies and friends, and our preparedness to always be ready to out-compete their technology.
I conclude by saying that His Majesty’s Official Opposition fully support this statutory instrument and GCAP, and the powerful gains that it will give to the United Kingdom’s economic and military strength, along with our key partners, Italy and Japan.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this afternoon’s discussion, and will address some of the important questions raised. I am grateful to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and to hear his trenchant support for GCAP. That is noted, and I am sure it will also be noted by my noble friend Lord Robertson as he conducts his strategic defence review.
I know that the House has a keen interest in the UK’s work as part of GCAP. Together with our partners Japan and Italy we are working to deliver a next-generation combat aircraft with advanced survivability, sensors, weapons and data systems. As well as cutting-edge military technology, the programme is delivering significant economic benefits, with more than 3,500 people already working on GCAP across the UK.
The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about investment and opportunities for jobs, and in particular small businesses, was important and well made. I reassure her that there currently are over 600 organisations and academic institutions involved, including small businesses. I thank her for making that point.
I am not an MoD Minister, and my noble friend Lord Coaker would be unhappy with me if I started to give too many of my own opinions on defence issues. We are looking today at the privileges and immunities that will enable us to continue with the GIGO establishment. In doing so we will be able to better support GCAP’s programme aims and fulfilment of the Government’s objectives. We will also be better placed to work with international partners and influence the combat air industry as a result.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, urged us to handle this programme with sensitivity. He gave wise counsel and his speech was well received. I will keep his wise words in mind.
Just as my noble friend Lord Robertson will hear the support given to GCAP by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, I am equally sure that he will hear the argument made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and the words of support he shared with us.
I am aware of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about the International Agreements Committee. I will discuss this with our business managers. Obviously, there will be no desire to delay anything any further than necessary. He makes the exact point that I would have made, sitting where he is, but we want to make sure that we can proceed in a timely manner. There will be opportunities to scrutinise this, as noble Lords would expect. I also take the noble Lord’s point about the strategic defence review, and ask him to note that we have brought this here today in a timely way.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, asked an important question about where the location will be and when that announcement will be made—the answer is in due course. I am told that there are commercial sensitivities around this, which I am sure he will appreciate, but I am heartened to know that there would be considerable pride taken in hosting this organisation, wherever it ends up being established.
As a Government, we of course welcome the opportunity to work with the Indo-Pacific region. No reluctance should be interpreted in any way about the Government’s enthusiasm for working with Indo-Pacific nations. I speak as the new Minister for Latin America, so I am very keen that we take this approach.
My heart always sinks a little when I am challenged by my noble friend Lord Liddle. We do not enter these arrangements lightly. There are clear benefits for both defence capability and jobs and skills. My noble friend made a strong case for this strategic defence review. He is very well placed to make sure that his view is known to his noble friend Lord Robertson.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, for his offer of support and assistance. His experience in this and in the other place will be invaluable.
The issue of further partners was raised by my noble friend Lord Liddle and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. All three GCAP partners have highlighted our openness to working with other nations through this programme while supporting the objective of the core partners, delivering a successful programme and keeping us on course for a 2035 in-service date. Any decisions on wider partnering will be made together by the core partners.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, introduced her question by talking about membership of the EU and whether we might wish to rejoin. I am not sure if that is her party’s position currently—I may have missed it—but it is not currently the Government’s position.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
To clarify, I was merely speculating about where a country might wish to join—or rejoin under Article 49. I was not suggesting that noble Lords on any Benches are necessarily pushing for it at this stage.
Israel and Gaza
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Collins, we on these Benches have been making a set of points, essentially from early October, when the terrorist attacks against Israel started a cycle of violence and killing, and a situation that no one could have wished to see.
The first duty is surely for the Israeli Government and Hamas to come together and for Hamas to return the hostages. Like some other Members of your Lordships’ House, I have a small yellow lapel badge. Nobody has asked about it, but I was given it when I was in Israel before Easter, as declared in the register of interests. It basically calls for a return of the hostages. What are His Majesty’s Government doing to try to work further with the Israeli Government, and through other means, to get negotiations going again, to bring about a ceasefire and to discuss an appropriate way of bringing back the hostages? There are still over 100 hostages, some of whom we hope are still alive. What is going on? At the moment there seems to be very little discussion about a negotiated ceasefire, temporary or permanent, yet that is absolutely essential. And, again, we have long called for a two-state solution.
The Foreign Secretary, who I understand is due back in the UK—sadly not to repeat the Statement in your Lordships’ House but to be at a Cabinet meeting, I gather—has talked about recognition of Palestine “when the time is right”. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, pointed out, three countries have today recognised Palestine. Although I do not expect the Minister to say now whether there is likely to be an announcement from His Majesty’s Government, what is the British Government’s longer-term thinking about what a future settlement might look like?
Minister Mitchell in the other place was very clear that His Majesty’s Government cannot support an Israeli attack on Rafah without seeing a plan. He explicitly stated that the United Kingdom
“and 13 of our partners, including France, Germany, Italy and Australia, set out our concerns in a detailed letter to the Israeli Government”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/5/24; col. 646.]
What is the basis of that letter? Do His Majesty’s Government feel that they have any leverage? Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary ruled out a suspension of arms sales, pointing out that UK arms sales are very small in quantity compared with American sales of arms. But Germany is the second-largest exporter of arms to Israel—has it considered a suspension of arms sales? Is that being considered? Is there a position of saying that we do not support attacks on Rafah and that a way of leveraging might be to say that we would potentially suspend arms sales?
I will finish with questions about one brief mention of the ICC, because we have now heard that the prosecutor has put forward his recommendations and Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has clearly pointed out the importance of giving the ICC our full support to deliver justice. Clearly, that is the Lib Dem position, and surely it should be the United Kingdom’s position, because we are signatories to the Rome treaty. The problem is that Israel is not—nor is the United States. So what is the Government’s position on persuading Israel and the United States to take notice of the ICC?
Finally, Minister Mitchell pointed out that the Minister was in Qatar on Monday, looking at provision for health support for Palestinians. Is he able to elaborate on those discussions and whether it is now possible to evacuate some of the sickest children from Palestine?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their questions and their observations, many of which I agree with and, indeed, are reflective of the Government’s position. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that we continue to work with international partners. As he clearly outlined, that is exactly the focus of the Government: bringing the war in Gaza to an end; ensuring that hostages are returned after—as the noble Baroness pointed out—being held for so long; and ending the suffering of innocent Palestinian civilians in Gaza. That remains the number one priority of the United Kingdom Government, together with our key partners.
The noble Baroness mentioned Qatar; that was not just about a health partnership. We announced a new health partnership on psychosocial support, looking at each other’s equities, and how we are currently working with key partners in the Gulf states—again, noble Lords have raised this in your Lordships’ House before—on how to work practically to get people out, who are now receiving support. We are also, working with key partners, extending training not just to Qatar, which we have announced formally, but to other Arab states, including Kuwait. I will continue to update your Lordships’ House in that respect.
The hostages themselves were part of the discussions with Qatar, which continues to play an important role, together with Egypt. Earlier this morning, I convened a meeting with Arab ambassadors to gauge their updates. There was of course interest in the United Kingdom’s position on a number of issues that both the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, have raised. I will go through those in turn.
I stress that we remain very much focused on this. My noble friend Lord Cameron and I have been engaged in extensive diplomacy. On Sunday, I hope to be in Brussels for specific meetings to follow up recent engagements in Riyadh with Arab partners and—I know that noble Lords have raised this as well—with EU partners on how we work together. It is clear to me, from a number of meetings that we have had, that we need to ensure that this is not just about the current conflict, which must cease, but that we get the hostages out. Anyone who has met with hostage families realises that. I have met with Palestinians who have left Gaza and seen their predicament, and I have met with doctors who are treating Palestinian children and women in Qatar. We need to ensure that humanity prevails in all that we do. That is the guiding beacon—if I may put it that way—in all my engagements.
My noble friend Lord Cameron spoke to Minister Gantz yesterday and he has also spoken to Minister Dermer. The Prime Minister has also engaged at prime ministerial level with Prime Minister Netanyahu. In all these, the primary focus is on the humanitarian, as well as seeking a resolution on getting the conflict ended —and the long term.
I would add that, when you see certain statements from Defence Minister Gallant and Minister Gantz recently, there is a real question that Israel needs to answer on whether the option of Palestinian governance is a real one—recognised not just by us in your Lordships’ House or by the United Kingdom Government, but within Israel and its Cabinet. It is important that that point continues to be emphasised. We are pressing on the humanitarian issues that were raised and on the issue of getting the Erez crossing fully opened. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned the challenges there. He will be aware that I myself called out the attacks on those convoys. I am travelling to Jordan next week to see how we can enhance our partnership and get more through the Jordan corridor.
The issue of settlers was raised quite specifically by the noble Baroness. As she will know, earlier this month, the Foreign Secretary announced new sanctions on extremist groups and individuals for inciting and perpetrating settler violence in the West Bank. We will not hesitate to take further actions in this regard. I know that noble Lords across the House have been supportive of curbing those particular actions.
We are very much seized of the two-state solution, and I come on to the point of recognition. My noble friend Lord Cameron articulated very clearly the United Kingdom Government’s position. Of course, we have noted what has been announced today by Norway, Ireland and Spain, and we are engaging with those countries: I have done so. Our position is also different from that of the United States. We have said repeatedly, as the Foreign Secretary recently articulated, that Israel does not have a veto on Palestine coming into existence. We have also said that this is not something that should wait until the end of any given structured process for peace. We remain focused on that. But the first step must be, as I am sure that noble Lords will agree, bringing this current conflict in Gaza to an end for the sake of both Israelis and Palestinians, particularly the hostage families and those who are suffering in Gaza.
On the issue of IHL, questions were asked reflecting Minister Mitchell’s recent appearance before the Business and Trade Committee. I was very clear when I appeared before the Foreign Affairs Committee last week that the principle of law must prevail. I assure noble Lords that, both in the advice that I give and in the decisions that my noble friend the Foreign Secretary takes, those are the key principles that are considered in terms of the overall position when it comes to export licences. Noble Lords know of our very extensive and robust regime in that regard, but its application is also important. We are not a state supplier of weapons to Israel and, equally, the processes that are undertaken are well tested. Of course, the issue of the World Central Kitchen workers forms a big part of the assessment process which is currently being undertaken. I cannot give a specific or definitive date; what I can share with the noble Lord is that it is imminent, and I know it is being looked at specifically.
On starvation as a weapon of war, there is no way of holding back: of course, no one should use starvation as a weapon of war, and where it is seen, as I have said before, it brings serious questions. We rely on the strength of our relationship with Israel, which means that, as an ally and a friend, we continue to raise these issues, privately at times and quite directly. Equally, where we feel it necessary to take public action, we continue to do so.
The issue of the maritime port was raised. I pay tribute to those who worked to bring this into operation but, to be clear, what was delivered was a payload of only about 20 trucks. My noble friend Lord Clarke, who is in his place, asked me previously about British troops. The decision was taken to position no British troops, which then provides logistical challenges on the ground. We were able to deliver some of this, working with key partners such as the World Food Programme, but this is a desperate humanitarian situation on the ground, people are suffering and we need to alleviate that. That is why we are focused on land routes, on the situation in Rafah, on Kerem Shalom, and on the crossing in Erez, to get more aid in. The Ashdod port is also key. That is now operationalised but we now need that flow of aid. It was Israel that said quite publicly, “We need to flood Gaza with aid”. Yes, that is a good intent; it needs now to be seen in action.
Russia: Sanctions
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise this. As he knows, we have invested money in the Joint Maritime Security Centre, and that is making a difference. We have sanctioned Turkish and Emirati shipping company owners involved in facilitating this shadow fleet. We deploy our diplomatic network to deter third countries where we can, and we are working through the IMO. We are going to have the power to sanction individual vessels and their owners. However, the noble Lord is right to say that there is more we can do. Fundamentally, these are mostly uninsured, leaky, unsafe, environmentally unsound ships, and we should be going after them whenever and wherever we can. It is possible to do more, particularly when they potentially threaten environmental disasters in the countries they are going past. One of the things we want to do at the forthcoming European Political Community meeting is to work with partners to see what more we can do to take this weapon out of Putin’s hands.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, what assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the fact that oil is being sold through China and India and then being resold, so in many ways circumventing the sanctions? The fact that other ships having been sanctioned and subject to secondary sanctions does not seem to have stopped those oil sales. Is there a way of further strengthening sanctions so that they really bite?
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a good point. There has been an effect on Russian revenue because of the price cap, but a lot of sales are still going through, using shadow tankers, and into other markets. One thing we are trying to do here to make sure that refined product does not leak back into the UK is to make sure that all importers of oil and oil products into the UK provide proof of origin to relevant enforcement authorities to demonstrate that the goods are not of Russian origin. We will do that, but, as I said in my earlier answer, there is probably more we can do with other countries and allies to chase down this shadow fleet wherever we can.
NATO: French Nuclear Weapons
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords I fear that the noble Lord might be tempting the noble Lord, Lord West, to come in again. On his serious point, we need to be very clear that loose language is extremely dangerous in any context, and it is particularly dangerous at the current time. We need responsibility and real recognition—and the NPT treaty was signed by Russia in 2022, but it then went to war in Ukraine a month later. We must make sure those principles are upheld by all responsible powers across the world, and those who do not need to be challenged quite directly.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has just spoken about the importance of language, and that was clearly addressed to the President of Russia. When having conversations with the President of France, are His Majesty’s Government also mindful of the need to suggest, perhaps in private, that we need to be a little bit careful about the use of language about boots on the ground beyond Ukraine?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as a long-standing Minister at the Foreign Office, the brilliance of our British diplomacy is well known to me, and I assure the noble Baroness that we use those very terms in our engagements with all partners. I come back to the important point about language: it is key. Language matters, and every word that is uttered is monitored, reviewed and analysed very significantly. I say again that our relationship with France is extremely strong; we share many key priorities, including on the defence of Europe and standing together in unity against Russia when it comes to Ukraine.
Ukraine: Support
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton (Con)
At the NATO Foreign Ministers’ meeting last week, there was a very clear request from the Ukrainian Foreign Minister for two things: first, the artillery shells to make sure that Ukraine stays in the fight against Russia in the days ahead but, secondly and crucially, air defences, particularly Patriot missile systems, which have been so effective. I know that action is being taken by us and others on both those subjects to make sure that we do everything that we can. My noble friend is absolutely right to point out how effective the Israeli anti-missile system was, and it shows what can be done if you have the right resources in place.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, reminds us about the UK commitment to Ukraine, and it is absolutely right that we keep focused on that. However, events at the weekend, and the fact that those Iranian drones did not succeed, remind us that many of the drones sent towards Ukraine from Russia are actually Iranian. What are His Majesty’s Government doing with allies to look at the relationship between Iran and Russia, and whether there is something that we can do, because we should not look at these incidents in isolation?
Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. We do not look at these things in isolation; in the contacts I have had with the Iranian Foreign Minister, we repeatedly make the point that supplying weapons to Russia is unacceptable. Over and above that, we are putting sanctions in place on every country and company that we can which we find is supplying these weapons. I am about to spend time at the G7 Foreign Ministers’ meeting, where there are specific proposals to look at what we can do together to make clear to the Iranians that there will be consequences if they continue to supply drones and more substantial missiles to Russia. We are working together on this and recognise the importance of dealing with it.
Genocide (Prevention and Response) Bill [HL]
Baroness Smith of Newnham ExcerptsFriday 22nd March 2024
(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Genocide (Prevention and Response) Bill [HL] 2023-24 View all Genocide (Prevention and Response) Bill [HL] 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, it is pleasure to rise from these Benches to support the Private Member’s Bill in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. It is also something of a relief that the debate on this Private Member’s Bill has been somewhat more consensual than that on the previous Bill, in which I found myself in the unusual position as being on the opposite side from the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, which was a slightly uncomfortable position to be in.
This is a Private Member’s Bill to which we have heard no opposition from any part of your Lordships’ House. We heard the Minister’s noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth say that he hopes that the Minister will bring some words of comfort from His Majesty’s Government. I have been in your Lordships’ House for nearly a decade. I have rarely heard from the Government Front Bench words that lead us to think that a Private Member’s Bill is going to be warmly accepted, but on this topic, I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give some positive responses.
Over many years the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, have spent much of their time in your Lordships’ House, in ad hoc committees and in other places arguing that we need to take the crime of genocide seriously, calling on His Majesty’s Government to look at particular cases and acknowledge that they are, or could be considered, genocide. Although the present Bill is not about genocide determination, the House of Lords Library briefing for today reminds noble Lords of the words of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, in previous debates.
We have heard many times that the Government are not able to act because the issue of genocide is for courts to determine—yet, as the present Bill and the Library briefing both make clear, under the genocide convention the Government have a duty to prevent genocide. It is not simply that we need to say, “We are not happy with this”; we have a duty to prevent and punish the crime of genocide. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed out, parliamentarians cannot do that—we cannot individually prevent or punish genocide—but His Majesty’s Government and other sovereign Governments are in a much better place, precisely because of their embassies and high commissions, to understand what is going on on the ground. The Bill, which I suggest is not as modest as some Private Members’ Bills—it is very ambitious—would pave the way for the Government to be able to do what the UK needs to do in performing its duties under the convention.
We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Polak, a reminder that the Holocaust did not start with the gas chambers. The same has been true of other genocides. Something does not happen at the point where hundreds of thousands or millions of people are being killed or potentially fleeing for their lives; there is a much more insidious process. Recently, for our debate for Holocaust Memorial Day, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust reminded Members, in a very helpful briefing, of the stages of genocide.
By the time your Lordships’ House talks about genocide, it is usually at a point where we are saying that there already is or has been genocide—in Darfur, of the Uighurs or of the Yazidis. We need to raise issues and find a vehicle for exploring the potential for genocide before it happens—before it is too late. We heard from my noble friend Lord Hussain that His Majesty’s Government need to look at the situation in Kashmir, and maybe the Foreign Secretary, for example, should be talking to his opposite number in New Delhi. We need to be thinking and exploring issues ahead of time, and the Bill gives us and the Government the opportunity to do that.
We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about the situation in Darfur and how he has been told that there is further potential for a new genocide there. If one goes to Bosnia and Herzegovina, one finds that “remember Srebrenica” is not just a slogan; it is an everyday injunction. There is still concern there about Republika Srpska and concern on the ground about the situation. We should never be complacent as a Parliament or as a country.
The Bill offers His Majesty’s Government the opportunity to act, and it would hopefully empower the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, to do many of the things from the Front Bench that he has often said he wished he was able to do—but these things were for courts to decide and for other people to do. I am not sure I expect the Minister to accept the Bill as it is enshrined today, but perhaps he could give us some suggestion of the Government bringing forward their own proposals that would have the same purpose as this eminently welcome Private Member’s Bill.
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, obviously, from these Benches—or this Bench; it is just me—we welcome any extension of sanctions. As the noble Lord pointed out, since the illegal invasion of Ukraine, it has been necessary and appropriate to implement a wide range of sanctions, against both individuals and companies.
However, the Minister has already alluded to the fact that there is a degree of complexity with these particular sanctions. I therefore have a range of questions that are about not just sanctions with our G7 partners but looking more broadly at our European neighbours and Commonwealth countries, as well as at the impact on British companies in terms of how they deal with importing diamonds. Clearly, a sanction that says, “We’re not importing diamonds directly from Russia” is straightforward, but when diamonds have been processed in third countries, as the Minister has already suggested, it will not always be clear where they have originated from.
There is a very clear point in the regulations that says, under “Technical assistance”:
“A person who contravenes a prohibition … commits an offence, but it is a defence for a person charged with an offence of contravening paragraph (1) to show that the person did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that the technical assistance related to an import described in that paragraph”,
and the same is replicated for financial services and brokering services. How do His Majesty’s Government think they will be able to monitor this in practice? To what extent have the G7 countries, in proposing such sanctions, also talked to third countries that might be processing diamonds? For third countries processing Russian diamonds, which Russia is trying to export as a way of circumventing the existing sanctions, it is clearly essential that it should be incumbent on businesses processing diamonds to give clarity and reassurance about where the source diamonds have come from. I am not sufficiently expert in the diamond industry to know where else they might go; I assume that Russian diamonds are not going to South Africa, for example, to be processed, but that is obviously another country that will be exporting diamonds.
What conversations have His Majesty’s Government had with countries that might need support in order that such sanctions will be effective? What conversations have they had with the jewellers’ sector? Clearly, there will be new onuses on businesses which, while understandable, could prove prohibitive. None of this is to say that we disagree with the regulations, but I ask for some clarity about how they can be implemented in practice.
Finally, the Minister mentioned a couple of times that these sanctions are in conjunction with our G7 partners. Do the EU 27 have similar proposals? What opportunities are there to work with large countries, such as China and India, which are neither G7 nor EU countries but could circumvent sanctions, rather as is done with unrefined oil?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I want to pick up a number of points made in the other place, to which Anne-Marie Trevelyan responded, starting with the point about oil raised by my honourable friend Catherine West. I know that we have discussed before the reimportation and exportation of Russian-sourced oil. Anne-Marie Trevelyan described
“the challenges around the shadow and dark fleets of oil that we now see moving around the world”.
She said the Government were
“working with colleagues and allies across the G7 and more widely to continue to try to get ahead of the issue”
and to encourage our allies
“not to find themselves participating in shadow fleet activity”.—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 14/3/24; col. 6.]
Can the Minister give us a little more detail about how we are working? There have been suggestions about where this oil is going and where it is being reimported. We have talked about Commonwealth countries—the noble Baroness mentioned this—and it is really important that we get some idea of the specific discussions. Oil is the biggest element of funding Russia’s war machine, so it is really important that we get ahead of this issue and better understand what is going on.
I also have a small point to make about diamonds. Catherine West challenged the fact that we are starting with 1 carat and that the threshold will not drop until September, and Anne-Marie Trevelyan said that this was to ensure that it did not impact detrimentally on business. We have to get a better idea about the effectiveness of that and the timeframes. Again, the method of circumvention seems to be to hide this through a third country, which can then take ownership of these things, oil or diamonds, export them and raise funds that way. Anne-Marie Trevelyan was more concerned about non-Russian producer nations. Of course, we understand that, but the diamond trade is not huge in terms of the number of countries involved in it, so it would be good to have a better understanding about the timeframes.
The issue I really want to focus on—as the noble Lord knows, I have raised this before—is that it is one thing having sanctions, but it is their enforcement and the monitoring of their effectiveness that will deliver for us. Anne-Marie Trevelyan spoke about the additional funding going through, particularly in terms of the sanctions directorate in the FCDO, which produces the sanctions. Of course, we then have the Treasury with its enforcement arm and now we have the Department for Business, with the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation, to ensure that the policy sets out clear guidance on this.
The last time we discussed sanctions, I asked the Minister how quickly the Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation would be set up, what the timeframe would be and when we would be satisfied—because this stems from reports we have had of the number of breaches to sanctions. I would appreciate a much clearer update on that, because it is a vital issue.
On Russian diamonds, the SI also bans the provision of technical assistance, brokering and financial services in connection with the import of third country-processed Russian diamonds. Perhaps I could ask the Minister, on monitoring and enforcement, whether he is satisfied that officials will have the resources and technical knowledge needed to identify breaches in relation to the service side of this issue.
The Explanatory Memorandum also notes that the SI builds on the commitments made by the G7 leaders in May and December: the noble Lord referred to that. Another theme that he regularly repeats is that sanctions are effective only if we work in concert with others, including and especially our allies. The important thing for us is to better understand how these are being implemented by all our allies. Does the Minister have an update about the implementation of the measures by other G7 nations? Where do we rank in terms of speed of implementation? I do not wish to be critical, but it is good to have a better understanding. I am aware that the US and Canada always seem to be ahead of us in announcing sanctions; I am not so confident about their ability to monitor them or to enforce them. It would be good to have an idea of where the Minister thinks we are.
Another issue that I picked up from Sky News, but which has appeared on other channels, is something I raised in terms of how people are circumventing sanctions, in particular by moving oil through third countries. There was a report on Sky News that car exports to Azerbaijan over the past few years have gone through the roof: there has been a dramatic increase. I understand that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has said that there is no connection to Russia here and that the country is a flourishing market in its own right. It would be good to hear from the Minister whether there has been any sort of checking. Are the Government satisfied with those claims? It does seem rather odd that it coincides with the implementation of sanctions.
I did mention that, when I was last in Georgia, people raised the issue with me of the number of luxury cars that were being exported from Georgia to Russia. So, again, if these things are happening, we should be aware of them and we should be challenging them and working with allies to stop this circumvention.