Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Collins of Highbury

Tuesday 19th March 2024 Grand Committee

[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.

Israel and Gaza

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Collins of Highbury

Tuesday 27th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement; when I left the other place to come to the Chamber, the debate was continuing.

It is sad, but since the last Statement, there has been another month of intolerable conditions, civilian deaths, famine and disease in Gaza, and of course another month of hostages’ families in Israel living in complete anguish. The ICJ said that Israel must take measures to ensure humanitarian access; last week, the World Food Programme suspended its operations in northern Gaza; and MSF said:

“We no longer speak of a humanitarian scale-up; we speak of how to survive even without the bare minimum”,


and that bare minimum is having a disastrous effect, particularly, as the noble Lord said, on women and girls, and especially on children. Children are now suffering hugely from malnutrition, which has not only an immediate impact on their health but even much longer-term impacts, which will last throughout the rest of their lives.

Today, in the other place, in his response to Minister Mitchell’s Statement, David Lammy mentioned the report from the Association of International Development Agencies, which said that visas for 100 humanitarian workers in Gaza and the West Bank have expired or are about to expire, with no humanitarian visa renewals since the outbreak of the war, leaving many workers facing deportation at a time when Palestinian people need them most. Last week I met a worker from Action Against Hunger who had to leave Gaza. No NGO wants to break visa conditions. They will comply with regulations. They do not want to put their workers at risk. It leaves them particularly vulnerable.

Andrew Mitchell acknowledged the problem in his response today, but it is not clear what specific representations have been made to the Israeli authorities for an automatic extension of these visas on humanitarian grounds. They had been extended before, so why not now? I hope the Minister can reassure us that the Government will make the strongest possible representations to ensure that these visas are extended or renewed.

Minister Mitchell also mentioned, as the Statement did, the increase in aid, particularly this month—the air drops and more trucks going through—but what assessment have we made of that increase and what further increases are needed to meet the horrific conditions that are currently applying in Gaza? Can we assist in further air drops? Are there possible sea routes through? Can we use some of the Jordanian crossings as well as aerial routes?

I have said before that Israel must comply with all the measures set out by the ICJ—and must do so now. In the other place, Kit Malthouse asked what steps the Government are taking to enforce the ICJ’s interim ruling—not condemning or discussing but enforcing. He asked specifically about Rafah. Do His Majesty’s Government believe that a full-scale Rafah offensive would be consistent with the ICJ ruling? I do not believe that anyone in this House thinks that it would be, so I hope the Minister can respond to it. Minister Mitchell said that

“the rulings of the Court are binding and must therefore be respected”.

We need some clarity on the sorts of messages that we are giving to the Israeli Government with regard to a possible assault on Rafah.

Obviously, we are getting to a very delicate position, particularly with some of the talks that are going on the moment. David Lammy said in the other place that

“it is through diplomacy, not debate in Westminster, that we will ultimately secure an end to this war”.

The talks in Paris over the weekend appear to be making some progress. Minister Mitchell said that he was “neither optimistic nor pessimistic” but that the Government were completely committed to ensuring that the talks are successful. I hope the Minister can tell us exactly what we are doing and particularly what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, is doing, to ensure that we are working with our allies to do our utmost to ensure that those talks are successful.

I think that most people in this House agree that both sides should stop fighting now and all hostages should be released. We also agree, when talking about a two-state solution, that we need—as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said earlier this month—to work with our international partners to give hope to that process and to move towards recognising a Palestinian state—not wait for the end of the process but give hope so that talks and negotiations can succeed. Does the Minister agree—because David Lammy made this call—that there is an opportunity for the Government and the Opposition to work together to support that diplomatic process to deliver a two-state solution?

I suspect that the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, agree with many of the things that I have said. I hope that in the debate next Tuesday we can focus on some of these issues. I believe that this is a time when, for once, we should put politics aside, and I hope that the Government and the Official Opposition, who genuinely share the same aspirations and positions, can work together, so that we can—as David Lammy called for—put out a joint statement calling for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. I hope the Minister agrees with that.

In terms of the talks that are currently ongoing, I hope that we will be able to have some positive news when we debate this issue next Tuesday, but I know the Minister is not in a position to give definite answers. I hope that he will remain committed, and I know that he has been working tirelessly on this issue, to ensuring that we can achieve peace and security in the Middle East.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, does not wish this to become partisan, but I remind the House that in these Statements there are not just His Majesty’s Government and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition; the Liberal Democrats also have an opportunity to raise a few questions. In the absence of my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed, I will raise some questions on aid and will press a little more on the question of a two-state solution and the international context.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, has talked a lot about aid, but I wonder whether the Minister could say a little more about what tripling aid means. Tripling sounds great, but what does that mean in practice? What does

“Four tonnes of vital supplies”


actually mean? What percentage of people who have been displaced in Gaza are actually being fed through the aid that is coming through? What percentage of people in Gaza are without food and clean water at the moment? Getting a sense of the real numbers is important.

Clearly, we support the Government in trying to get as much aid in as possible, but, like the Official Opposition, we are calling for a ceasefire. Can the Minister say a little more about why His Majesty’s Government seem so reluctant to say that there should be a bilateral ceasefire, which would appear to be the most effective way of ensuring that aid can get through and providing an opportunity to negotiate for the return of all the hostages?

In particular, I note that Minister Mitchell in the other place talked about a two-state solution and said that His Majesty’s Government’s position is that

“we will recognise a Palestinian state at a time that is most conducive to the peace process”.

Can the Minister tell us how the Government will know when it is most conducive to the peace process? Is there some thinking in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about what that would actually mean? Can the Minister tell us a little more about His Majesty’s Government’s sense of a pathway towards a two-state solution, and what he, and particularly the Foreign Secretary, will be saying to Israel and to the Palestinian Authority about ways towards that?

Finally, in all the penumbra of the situation in Israel and Gaza there is the spectre of Iran in Yemen, Iraq and Syria and on the border with Lebanon. Have His Majesty’s Government given any further thought to proscribing the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and what assessment have they made of the wider security situation, particularly on Israel’s northern border with Lebanon?

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Collins of Highbury

Committee stage
Monday 14th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches share the view that we do not need the Bill, as held by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and, I believe, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington—I apologise if I have taken his name in vain.

In order not to engage in Second Reading again, I will start with the point from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack: with any piece of legislation, ask yourself whether it is necessary. There seems to be a strong sense that there are serious questions about Clause 4 among all speakers across your Lordships’ House, from noble and learned Lords to academics to retired politicians—or rather retired MPs: people in your Lordships’ House may or may not think of themselves as politicians; on the Cross Benches they probably do not, but on some other Benches “retired MPs” may be the appropriate phrase. But there is almost unanimity across your Lordships’ House in opposition to Clause 4, or at least in doubt about it. The only Member who seemed keen to try to support Clause 4 was the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, but she did not seem to have been quite persuaded by it. Could the Minister be persuaded to think again? As noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, have eloquently pointed out, this clause is not fit for purpose or desirable.

It is not clear that the clause will even work in its own terms. The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, sought to point out that academics are particularly mischievous and that they can debate until the cows come home. However, whether you hang a portrait or how you design your gardens in an Oxbridge college are not things that we would normally take to litigation. That might be the sort of activity that engages academics, but this debate is much more profound. Here I declare my interest as a Cambridge academic; I declared it at the start of Committee stage, but I reiterate it on the record as we are currently in the main Chamber. What we are talking about here is not the sort of debate that people might have over dinner, or in the Oxford Union or the Cambridge Union; these debates are about very serious issues of freedom of speech. Yet it is not clear how Clause 4 will, in any way, strengthen freedom of speech, because, as we have heard from several noble Lords—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Willetts—there is a danger of a chilling effect. The Government have not adequately thought this through, including the law of unintended consequences. Already, with something like the Prevent requirements, academics or students considering whether they will invite people to speak will think, “Is it worth the effort? Is it worth going through all these procedures to invite a controversial speaker?” Very often, the answer will be no. Bringing in the civil tort will only make that danger even more severe.

Yes, we need a way of ensuring that free speech can be guaranteed, but as the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Marylebone, suggested, surely that is the job for the regulator. Trying to bring in lawyers is a recipe for even more hours of debate than an economics faculty or the synagogue of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, might engage in. It will be costly, but will it benefit anybody apart from the pockets of the lawyers? It is not clear that it will.

This clause seems to be deeply unwelcome, and it is unclear that it is necessary. Can the Government think again and consider removing it by Report stage?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by saying that this has been an excellent debate. One of the excellent things about this House is that the debate has not been partisan at all—and certainly my contribution this afternoon will not be partisan.

I will share some thoughts about lawyers and courts. As a lifelong trade unionist, I have of course tried to resist courts intervening in industrial relations. This is for good reason, because when Governments have tried to use courts in industrial relations, it often ends in failure. The biggest change over the years—certainly in my experience—has come from the adoption of best practice, codes of practice and the introduction of a regulator. That has resulted in far more progressive and better change than when the courts were used as a weapon. I think that this clause is exactly about that.

The noble Lord, Lord Johnson, is quite right. Whatever we think about whether this provision will resolve some of those vitally important issues, the fact is that we have a well-established regulator, and this Bill proposes to strengthen that regulator. As I was listening to the debate, I thought about the one that we had on the Trade Union Bill. The Government at that time, when highlighting the problems in industrial relations, decided that the main focus—although I opposed that Bill at the time—should be on how we strengthened the regulator. Certainly, in terms of the certification officer, those powers were strengthened.

It is a fundamental question. If the Bill has a purpose, it is about change, and its main focus has been on how we make the regulator more effective. What the debate has clearly established is that this clause will have the opposite effect: it undermines the regulator and the changes that we are trying to make. The words that kept coming to my mind in Committee and at Second Reading are those of the Minister, who said that the provisions of Clause 4 were a backstop. I fear that it will be the first step and will result in very well-funded litigation, not to put right a wrong, change a practice or improve the situation, but simply to have a go and make a point. We call it “vexatious”, but that is the climate that we are in danger of empowering, if we are not careful.

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Collins of Highbury

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Does the noble Baroness not wish to speak?

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I think I have said everything that needed to be said from these Benches.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I was tempted to declare my own interest as an assistant general secretary of a trade union that used to commission research. Once I knew the question and its answer, I would commission the research. There is that political side; social science is often involved in that sort of thing.

This has been a worthwhile debate. I am pretty certain that this Bill, or even this debate, is not the right place for these amendments.

The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, raised some fundamental points. One of my responsibilities is as the shadow FCDO Minister. In global research, how research—particularly medical research—can be innovative, and who controls and pays for it, is an interesting question. I certainly do not relate that to academic freedom; that is a different, commercial issue.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, made the excellent point that, if you are going to do research in a particular medical area, you are not going to be bound by employing someone who has no interest in pursuing that line of inquiry. For me, whenever these sorts of questions come up, the interesting thing about the sort of research done by my noble friend Lord Sikka is that the key is always transparency. Whenever a piece of research is published, I want to know who has funded it. I want to know who is ultimately responsible. To me, that is absolutely the key to this issue.

I was going to ask the Minister about impact; the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raised this. Students Organising for Sustainability asked whether these duties would present a conflict between some universities’ health departments—at Imperial, for example—that have funding conditional on not recommending big tobacco in their careers service? That relates to advisers and freedom of speech. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s view on that in relation to the debate on these amendments.

I have promoted debates in the Chamber on the broader issue of commercial research, particularly about who at the end of the day owns and controls the—I have a mental block.

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Collins of Highbury

Committee stage
Monday 31st October 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to speak briefly in my own right, as opposed to speaking for my noble friend Lord Wallace, apart from one point about Amendment 1. The point of adding “within the law” is to fit with new Section A3, but that would be subsumed by the amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. The idea of defining freedom of speech is highly desirable, and that amendment appears to do the job.

I have some difficulties with Amendment 28, and it would be interesting to understand what the movers of that amendment mean in proposed new subsection (2). The relationships between this legislation and the Equality Act, and this legislation and other pieces of existing legislation, need to be thought about. I have some concerns about what the ramifications of proposed new subsection (2) would be.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate, and one we could continue for some time, because it is about trying to reach a consensus about concepts—I have my name down to Amendments 3, 11 and 30—but it is also about how we talk about free speech in universities and about academic freedom. There has been confusion in the debate about those two things. One of my amendments tries to say that we should not forget academic freedom and how important it is to university life, and asks about the constraints on it, which are not necessarily all the things that we have been talking about. In my experience, academic freedom can be constrained by economic factors and income streams that universities might have. Research can be restrained for those sorts of reasons, and academics who followed a particular route of research have been constrained by those other pressures.

The noble Lord, Lord Mann, is absolutely right. He and I have shared the same experience: political views can be unpopular, and some of the demonstrations that we have faced have been quite violent. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has sadly left the Room, but we had a debate on Friday on his genocide Bill, as well as a debate on Thursday about Ugandan Asians. I remember standing up and defending the need to protect Ugandan Asians and facing a quite violent reaction from people. It was not limited to the streets; it was in other institutions, even in my own trade union and my own party.

As a lifelong trade unionist—I am not making a Second Reading speech, but talking specifically about my amendments—I have long experience of how politicians want laws to change culture, which is impossible. The most successful progress in industrial relations has been made not by legislation but by consensus, agreement and discussion.

Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Collins of Highbury

Thursday 24th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, like other Peers, I welcome the introductory remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad. Clearly, from these Benches, we stand in solidarity with the people of Ukraine. Like the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, I intend to focus my remarks almost exclusively on the question of sanctions and the statutory instrument before us. However, I also want to touch very briefly on the issue of the Council of Europe.

These Benches support the views of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and his amendment because, while the passing of the statutory instrument is necessary today for sanctions to be effective, there is a very real question about whether the sanctions go far enough. In his opening remarks, the Minister said that the Prime Minister is proposing to give a Statement this afternoon and he will go further, so the Minister cannot pre-empt that. This is fully understood. However, if your Lordships’ House were to support the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, then it might be the quickest time in history when the House of Lords has voted on something. If we hear the Prime Minister doing something rather more effective and expansive, we might all be able to celebrate the fact that swift action has been taken.

Overnight, we received the letter from the Minister which has been referred to and in which he says:

“Since announcing the package on Tuesday, both the speed and level of co-ordination between the UK and its allies on these sanctions has taken the Russian elite by surprise.”


If the Russian elite were taken so much by surprise, and we went from potential mobilisation to full-scale invasion of Ukraine, what does that tell us about the way that they have responded? Do the Government really think that the elite have been taken so much by surprise that they have acted precipitately, or have they not really been taken by surprise? The sanctions proposed so far by the United Kingdom seem very limited. Other countries have done far more; as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, pointed out, the European Union imposed much wider sanctions overnight.

Yesterday, at Questions, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, stressed that the UK was acting

“in lockstep with our allies”.—[Official Report, 23/2/21; col. 218.]

If that is the case—without pre-empting what the Prime Minister will say this afternoon—could the Minister reassure the House that the UK will indeed work with our European Union allies to ensure that our sanctions are at least as broad and deep as theirs?

Could the Minister perhaps reflect on the question of Russian membership of the Council of Europe? Some of the criteria for Council of Europe membership relate to human rights and the rule of law. What on earth is Russia doing in the Council of Europe? Should we not be at least considering suspension of its membership? It might not be a sanction which falls within the statutory instrument, but it would be a sanction. Have the Government thought about it?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, of course these sanctions were laid in a different context. Earlier today, I said that the Opposition fully support the Government and will continue to support them in all their actions against Russia. We should be in no doubt, as the Minister said, that this is an assault on a democratic and sovereign European nation. It is an act of war in no one’s interests. We will fully support all the necessary action.

Afghanistan: FCDO Update

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Collins of Highbury

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, the events in Afghanistan have shown the absolute best of United Kingdom diplomatic staff and British forces. We can all take immense pride in what they have achieved, especially in their efforts as part of Operation Pitting, yet, as my noble friend highlighted earlier, the Government’s mismanagement has meant that many Brits and Afghans who have worked alongside us have been left behind.

Our focus now must be on two priorities: first and most immediately, helping and protecting the people who remain in Afghanistan and those who have been able to escape, and, secondly, protecting the gains of the past 20 years, particularly those relating to women and girls and education.

The first priority means helping those who are stranded in Afghanistan to leave via a viable and safe route and—as I mentioned earlier today—focusing support for those who are at most risk of persecution, such as women and LGBT people as well as the Hazara Shias. Can the Minister clarify exactly how many British nationals remain in Afghanistan? For the Afghan nationals who have made it to the United Kingdom, there must now be long-term support for those rebuilding their lives and engagement with local authorities to agree a long-term strategy. Details for the Afghan refugee resettlement programme have been incomplete and delayed, and the Government must urgently clarify how they will help fund the scheme and what the overarching strategy is.

The Minister will be aware that Members of both Houses have taken up the cases of Afghans and British nationals who have been desperate to leave. I know the Minister has personally intervened in many of these cases, but the response of both the Foreign Office and the Home Office has been slow, with many MPs’ emails remaining unanswered. The Prime Minister promised that all emails would be responded to by the close of play yesterday, so can the Minister explain why this deadline has now been missed, with hundreds—I repeat, hundreds—of emails still not being replied to?

As we heard earlier in the debate on the previous Statement, there is a very real prospect of a humanitarian crisis in a country of almost 40 million people, and the consequences could be catastrophic. The country is already experiencing its second drought in three years. One in three Afghans is now facing severe hunger, and almost half of children under five are in need of life-saving nutritional support over the next 12 months—something I have constantly raised in this House, particularly as a consequence of the terrible cuts to development support.

The Government must use multilateral institutions in conjunction with aid agencies to monitor the situation and deliver aid directly to those in need. Steps must also be taken to keep land routes open for the safe delivery of food, medicine, water and other supplies, and preparations need to be made for the people being displaced. UN agencies such as the World Food Programme are planning for this possibility, with responses being explored in Pakistan, Tajikistan and Iran. The Foreign Secretary said he had spoken to Jean Arnault, the special representative on Afghanistan, acknowledging that the relationship with the United Nations will be one of the critical factors we consider in shaping the resettlement scheme. What other discussions have taken place to plan support for these UN agencies?

The second priority must be to protect the gains of the last 20 years, and the only way we can do this is with a clear diplomatic road map for the way ahead. We must use every lever we have to prevent Afghanistan becoming, once again, a safe haven for international terrorism. The United Nations Security Council Resolution 2593 is a welcome first step in affirming the international community’s expectation and requirement that the Taliban should follow through on the assurances they have given. The Foreign Secretary said that the UK is pressing for further discussions with the UN Security Council P5. Will these discussions also explore the means to hold the Taliban to their word?

Regional partners will also be central to preventing security threats arising from Afghanistan, and I am pleased that the Government have been engaging with Pakistan. Yesterday the Foreign Secretary claimed to have engaged with all relevant partners. Can the Minister confirm which states the Foreign Secretary was referring to? Can he set out the steps which were agreed during the Foreign Secretary’s meeting with Pakistan’s Foreign Minister on combating terrorism?

Given the importance of protecting human rights when exerting pressure on the Taliban regime, can the Minister detail the steps we are taking multilaterally, including at the UN Human Rights Council? The Leader of the House and the Foreign Secretary said that the UK plans to host an event at the UN General Assembly later this month. Can the Minister tell us what the objectives of this meeting are? The noble Baroness failed to give us an answer on that; I hope the Minister can set out a better context for it. I believe it is the right thing to do, but we must have very clear objectives.

The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan poses a threat to us all, not only from its past relationship with international terrorism but from the conditions it is now creating in the region. It is in everyone’s interest that the United Kingdom step up and support the people of Afghanistan.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Collins, I pay tribute to the service men and women, the diplomats and indeed the Minister himself for the huge efforts put into place under Operation Pitting and in the weeks following the end of the evacuation. But as we heard during the previous Statement, there are some serious questions to be asked about the nature of the evacuation and why we needed to evacuate when we did. A longer-term inquiry may be the time for those questions.

In the shorter term, there are questions about how many people we have left behind. There is clearly the question of how many British nationals who want to leave are still in Afghanistan. My understanding is that all were encouraged to leave back in April; some have chosen not to. If British nationals have chosen to stay, that is their choice, but do the Government have a sense of how many individuals want to leave? Is there a difficulty for people with dual nationality? Will the Taliban make it difficult for people with British and Afghan citizenship to leave? If so, are the Government seeking assurances that people with British passports will have the opportunity for safe passage?

What are the Government realistically able to offer those who have been offered a place under ARAP but have not yet been able to leave the country? The Statements suggest that everyone who has currently been offered a place under ARAP will be able to leave. Is that realistic? Should those of us who are trying to support the British Council and others on individual cases say that, yes, those people will be got out, or do we have to say that realistically we cannot guarantee that?

Beyond those who have already been offered a place under ARAP, what about those second-tier contractors—for example, for the British Council—who have not yet been given the right to come? What hope is there for them? Beyond that, for interpreters and others who worked for the MoD, my understanding is that the MoD has done a great job of getting the interpreters out now, but many others worked alongside our service personnel: the cooks and the people who did the laundry—a whole set of people whose lives are very vulnerable. Where do they feature in the Government’s thinking? Can they be assured of safe passage?

What sort of support will the Government be able to offer, directly or indirectly, to those who are currently away from their homes because they moved towards Kabul hoping to be able to get to the Baron hotel and on to a flight, and who now find themselves without food, shelter or money because they cannot access their bank accounts?

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Collins of Highbury

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I do not want to detain the Committee for long. I am aware that the last two evenings I have said I would be brief but then was not; this evening, I really do want to be brief. As for Amendment 61, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has said, the assumption is that we will hear the results by region and possibly by constituency. Therefore, including in the Bill the idea of counting by nation, rather than state or region, is unnecessary—although we will all be delighted to know what the result is in Gibraltar, given that we have spent so much time talking about it. So many of the amendments and briefings seem to talk about Gibraltar.

Amendment 61C is the more substantive. Although it is clearly important that we listen to the views of all four nations—I suspect the Cornish, if they were standing here, would be saying that they wanted to be heard too—and that all parts of the United Kingdom are heard, in practice, as we have heard from most parts of the Chamber, if not from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, this is a vote by the United Kingdom. Amendment 61C seems, in that sense, inappropriate.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

My Lords, I begin by saying just how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. The question is about the United Kingdom’s membership—there is no other question being asked and therefore the answer will be that we remain or that we leave. There is no doubt about that, but I will pick up just one point.

No matter how tempting it would be for me to enter into a long discussion about the history and politics of Scotland, I will resist that. However, I think the first amendment, tabled by my noble friend Lord Liddle, is unnecessary. I cannot be certain about the exact process, but what we all want is a very clear, transparent declaration of a result. I can assure all noble Lords that nobody would be satisfied with a computer output saying, “In the United Kingdom, X million voted this way”. We must have transparency: every voting area must declare and we must be able to see how that result is made up. That is how we have always done things and I cannot see any reason for changing that. I therefore think my noble friend Lord Liddle’s amendment is a bit unnecessary. However, this still does not avoid the point that whatever the result, it must be the result for the United Kingdom. One possible scenario is that England will vote, potentially by a small minority, to leave, while the rest of the United Kingdom will vote by large majorities to stay. That could happen, but it would not change the result. The result would be very clear: if we vote that way, even by a majority of one, we leave the European Union.