Bahrain

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Excerpts

Wednesday 6th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My noble friend is talking about a particular case and it is quite difficult to talk about the details of an individual case where permission has not been given by the individual for it to be discussed. However, if, as I suspect, he is referring to the case of Mr Al-Hisabi, who has been detained and about whom a lot of allegations have been made, this matter was indeed raised at very high levels—whether by telephone or face to face. Consular access has been offered to the individual because he has dual nationality. In the future, there could be further consular access. I am advised that there will be no problem at all about further access and about the issue that my noble friend raised on the position of the families and their support.

As to visits from outside bodies to examine the situation, I agree that this is possibly a worthwhile idea. I am advised that the Bahraini authorities would not be averse to the right kind of inspection or visit from outside authorities to monitor the truth of the allegations—some of which may have a basis and some of which may be false—and to present the Bahraini authorities’ case, which is that there is no real evidence of torture.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, I am sure that we all agree that wherever torture occurs it should be condemned in the unequivocal way that the Minister has done, and we welcome that. But Bahrain is a relatively liberal Gulf state: its elections have been inclusive of women; there have been women at senior levels in the Bahraini Government and it is inclusive of different religious groupings. Given that history and the excellent relationship to which the Minister referred, does he believe that now really is the moment to approach the Bahrainis on inspections of their prisons and places of detention, because, like the Minister, I believe that that sort of approach might be well received?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I agree with the noble Baroness. This may now be an idea that we are certainly prepared to consider and, as I said earlier, my impression is that the Bahraini authorities themselves would be favourable towards some proposition of this kind. It is certainly something that we will consider putting to them.

Russia

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Excerpts

Monday 26th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My noble friend is quite right. At present Russia is not complying with its commitment to evacuate Georgia, where it still has troops, as well as South Ossetia and Abkhazia. We are all the time raising this issue and pressing the Russians to get into a more acceptable and positive position but progress is slow. At the moment they are not moving.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned the economy and the important issues between Russia and us. He will know that the UK-Russia intergovernmental steering committee on trade was successfully relaunched in 2008 and last met last November. Are there any plans for that steering committee to meet again this year and, if so, will it be touching on some of the thorny issues such as international banking standards, concerns about corruption and corporate governance taxation?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I cannot answer the noble Baroness on her precise question about the meeting at this moment, but I will check. On corruption, she puts her finger on one of the central problems. There is no doubt that there is a very great deal of corruption still in Russia today and some of it at alarmingly high levels. President Medvedev has highlighted this and says he wants to tackle it. We will do everything to support him but we would like to see more results in certain cases than we have seen so far. Corruption is the cancer that could undermine the whole Russian progress.

Kabul Conference

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am grateful to my noble friend. On her second point, William Patey, a very able ambassador, is appointed to be our man in Kabul and fulfils that role. I had the pleasure of meeting him only two or three days ago when he was here. I was enormously impressed by his experience and grasp of the complexities. This is, in effect, not quite the replacement but the development of the role that Sherard Cowper-Coles had previously. He has now completed his assignment there.

Pakistan’s role is vital—my noble friend is completely correct. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has visited Pakistan and discussed in detail with the Pakistani leadership how we can work more closely together, how we can support them, and how in particular they can achieve their twin aims: to defeat—that is a strong word—the Taliban elements on their own territories and their side of the border; and to help contain—that is perhaps not quite such a strong word—the Taliban activities on the other side of the border in the Pashtun-related areas. This dialogue is crucial. Without sensible progress on that front, there will be no stabilisation in Afghanistan. That is why we place the highest priority on a very close dialogue with our Pakistan colleagues.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

I agree with every word that the Minister said about William Patey. He is an excellent diplomat, one in whom we can have the utmost confidence. Perhaps I may remind the Minister that, on a recent occasion when we discussed this issue, he assured the House that the 2015 date was not a “deadline”. It now seems that it is a firm date. It is a bit hard to discriminate between a firm date and a deadline. The problem is the implied comfort that it gives to the Taliban.

Can the Minister tell us what action is being taken in relation to Yemen? There is a genuine fear that the Taliban are melting away in the way that Osama bin Laden has evaded all capture over recent years, however hard the allied forces have tried. The Taliban will melt away into Yemen and will simply re-emerge after 2015. What can the Minister tell us about that?

I return to the point made by my noble friend Lady Kinnock. She did not say that there were no women at the conference. She said that the women at the conference did not feel that their concerns were being taken seriously. I can understand that. There are 10 important commitments in the Statement, but there is not a single mention of women, although the noble Lord in answering the question said that the issue was immensely important. If it is immensely important, why is it not mentioned properly and prominently in the Statement?

Women had a terrible time under the Taliban. We all remember those terrible newsreels of women being shot in the football stadium. The Government have to do better on bringing women’s points more to the fore. I would suggest that, among the many able women I see on the government Benches, it might be sensible to ensure that there is an envoy on women for Afghanistan so that we can be assured that women’s rights are being properly dealt with.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Baroness again raises a vital point and perhaps I may reassure her. The communiqué also develops and strengthens commitments made initially at the London conference in January to implement the national action plan for women and the elimination of violence against women in law. The noble Baroness probably took part in that very constructive conference. Certainly, I would be the first to recognise the valuable work done by the previous Government in creating that conference and in providing a foundation on which to build.

We welcome the Afghan Government’s continuing commitment to protect the human rights of the Afghan people, which is enshrined in the Afghan constitution and the national action plan for women. If it was not in the 10 commitments in my right honourable friend’s Statement, I will note that and see that it is pointed out in my department. It is certainly plumb in the middle of the communiqué, which is valuable.

As to what women’s organisations felt, I am sorry if I got that slightly wrong. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, was saying that they were not represented, but she did not say that; she said that they were not satisfied. I obviously cannot comment on the state of satisfaction except to say that the endeavour was there and the realisation is there, as is the central importance of women’s role in all this. Given the horrors of women’s treatment in the past and the evil viciousness with which under Taliban rule girls’ schools were closed, women were abused and so on, this issue could not be other than absolutely central to the future. I emphasise that and I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, raised it again.

On the date by which combat troops will be withdrawn, I think that I said the other day—I am always ready for correction—that it was an aspiration. Perhaps that word was a little weak, because of course it remains an objective. However, one cannot in a thousand years be sure that everything will work exactly to plan. We just do not know. I think that the Deputy Prime Minister in another place made a point about it not necessarily being crystal clear or carved in concrete or whatever. That is our plan and our intention; it is the firm Kabul process and what it leads to.

As to the Taliban melting away and the old story that the Taliban disappears by day and comes back by night, one would not want to underestimate the fact that in the next five years—five years is a long time—there will not be a free ride for the Taliban. The combat troops—our marvellous troops—will continue to fight and to carry on their operations. The American surge army is still not complete. There are another 30,000 American troops to come. The Taliban will have a very hard time. If it thinks that at the end of five years it will be intact, it will have another think coming. I hope that that will reassure the noble Baroness to some extent on the important points that she raised.

Foreign Policy

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, for introducing the debate today and for speaking with his customary thoughtfulness about a wide range of countries and topics. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Maples, on a clever and amusing speech that was at times quite trenchant. We look forward to hearing from him again, when he will not have to compromise at all in what he says.

I have read the Foreign Secretary's speech in full and I heard him on the radio this morning. I will address some of what he said, because it speaks to this debate. He talked about changing hazards and opportunities, and about the objectives of the coalition in dealing with them. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, I agreed with much of what he said today, and I am bound to say that it is not surprising. It bore a strong resemblance to the speech made by my late former boss, Robin Cook, when he became Foreign Secretary in 1997. Robin Cook said then that the first goal of British foreign policy should be the security of this country and the prosperity of its people. He stressed the importance of trade, and said that he wanted to work more with British business abroad to further the trade links that Mr Hague stressed this morning.

What the Foreign Secretary said today on the radio—namely, that a successful foreign policy and a successful economic policy were inextricably linked—is common ground. I nearly cheered—that is, until I remembered that this Government have yet to appoint a Minister dedicated to the trade effort, as most of the recent Trade Ministers on the Labour side were, and as they must be if they are to deliver on Mr Hague's commitments on trade, and on Mr Cameron's G20 Statement that was repeated in the House earlier this week.

Mr Hague made a strong point about the joint responsibilities that he has with the Secretary of State at DBIS, Mr Cable, to use our global diplomatic network to support UK business around the world in an interventionist and active manner. At this point I declare an interest as chairman-elect of the Arab-British Chamber of Commerce. The Foreign Secretary cited a joint task force launched today, which was mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Williams and Lady Morris. It is a joint task force with the UAE. This, too, bore a strong resemblance to the past—in this case, the more recent past—because an initiative was launched only last autumn involving UKTI, the Foreign Office and Somerset House. There was a week of meetings with our friends from the UAE under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Mandelson. We set up workstreams on education, health, IT and financial services, which led to the launch only last month of the City GCC, a terrific initiative to make financial services between the City of London and the GCC more accessible. I applaud the Government’s position, but not their attempts to rewrite recent history. The noble Lord may also like to know that a similar initiative is going on at the moment, with similar workstreams, in conjunction with Saudi Arabia, where I also have an interest as chair of the business council.

I was very glad to hear and read what the Foreign Secretary said about our relationship with the US, France and Germany, and I was very, very glad to hear what he said, in a tone very different from his former speeches, about the EU. He has, like all Foreign Secretaries before him since 1997, rightly prioritised these relationships. I was also pleased to hear what he said about developing relationships with Russia, China, India, Brazil and Turkey. He also stressed the crucial importance of finding a lasting peace settlement in the Middle East, and that was echoed by the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Wright of Richmond. These policies are sensible and, if we are honest, not so very different from those of the Labour Government.

My noble friends Lord Desai and Lady Taylor spoke about the relationship of the MoD to foreign policy. The Prime Minister has said that our troops will be out of Afghanistan by May 2015, but this morning on the radio the Foreign Secretary seemed oddly reluctant to confirm that date. Therefore, can the Minister say whether May 2015 is a deadline? Personally, I hope that it is not. May 2015 will simply become a target date for the Taliban and al-Qaeda to outsit the withdrawal—to regroup, rearm and re-emerge after that date. Surely in our goal to deal with terrorism at home, we should make sure that this incubator of terrorism is properly dealt with once and for all. The answer to the question “How long?” has to be “When we know that the job is done”.

I turn now to what Mr Hague did not mention quite so fulsomely this morning—the document that he published on Tuesday this week about FCO cuts. The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, spoke knowledgeably and passionately about education in the Middle East. Although Mr Hague has said that he wants to enhance educational links with the developing world—the networks across the world, as he called them this morning—he has in fact decided to cut this year’s programme of scholarships in the FCO by £10 million and has declared that there will be a smaller programme in the future. Can the noble Lord tell us what will happen to the Chevening scholarships and what will happen to those who have already given up jobs to take up those scholarships this year?

The Secretary of State told the Foreign Office audience that he wanted ties with the Commonwealth to be stronger, and I know that that is a very strong point for the Minister himself. However, how can it be right to say that in public and then publish elsewhere a projected 10 per cent cut for the countries for which we have real responsibility—our overseas territories? The Secretary of State accused the former Government of neglecting responsibilities to the Commonwealth. Many will be watching how he now discharges his responsibilities to the small and very vulnerable territories for which we are wholly responsible.

The Foreign Secretary spoke about ingraining foreign policy in domestic departments. That was a very strong point and one that I think we should take very seriously. However, presumably that includes the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office, so why has Mr Hague decided to cut the FCO’s interdiction efforts on drugs by £1 million this year? How will that affect our joint action in the Caribbean with the countries of the Caribbean and our co-operation with the United States, or indeed with Afghanistan, where the trade flourishes and adversely affects young people in this country?

The coalition says in its document that climate change is one of the greatest threats that we face and that it wants to increase EU emission reductions by 30 per cent by 2020. However, we now hear that the Foreign Office wants to cut its climate change budget by £3 million this year. We are told that diplomats will stay fully engaged but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, that department and our diplomats are already at full stretch—they cannot do more, or even the same, with fewer resources. Therefore, can the noble Lord say what part will be cut?

This morning, the Foreign Secretary was very persuasive about networking. We heard all about his twittering and about modern communications. What he did not say was that two days ago he cut the public diplomacy programme in the Foreign Office by £1.6 billion for this year. Can the noble Lord tell us precisely which programmes will be cut?

Again, on human rights and democracy, the Secretary of State said this morning that the coalition was “raising its sights”. He said that it was looking to the longer term, looking at the promotion of British interests, and living up to its responsibilities. Can the Minister explain why those fine words have been met with a 10 per cent cut in the FCO’s programme on human rights of some £560,000 this year and—this is a really sad cut—a cut of almost £400,000 this year to the budget of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which is a terrific organisation. I thought that human rights and democracy were keystones for all of us in regard to foreign policy and I was very disappointed to hear those cuts announced.

The Minister may say that all departments must take a little pain. That really is not so, as we all know. The cuts in the FCO at the moment amount to some £18 million. For example, there is no cut to the DfID budget of more than £178 million for China. I share that concern with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. We were told explicitly that it was not possible to cut the budget for this year and yet budgets have been cut in the FCO for this year and potentially in a very damaging way. It is uncomfortable to hear one set of priorities announced so enthusiastically on camera and to hear another set of cuts quietly announced elsewhere.

We are promised more speeches and more cuts. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will read the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, as it was an excellent speech which I warmly support. He may want to spend a little more time in advance of making his cuts and his speeches on getting some real consistency between the two.

Commonwealth Games: Delhi

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Yes, my Lords, we were disturbed, and indeed the Secretary of State launched an immediate inquiry when some of these statements and allegations appeared in the media. However, although the noble and right reverend Lord is correct about the likely overrun of costs—which were estimated to be £250 million but are probably going to be considerably more than that—from our examination we are satisfied and have full confidence that the Games will be properly financed and that there will be no diversion from the very important funds that go via the Indian Government and DfID to the scheduled castes, slum clearance and other crucial issues. Therefore, we have full confidence in India’s commitment to deliver a secure and successful Commonwealth Games and to avoid the very problems that have been raised.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, the noble Lord used the word “examination” in relation to what was happening over the costs but he also said that a statement had been made on behalf of the organising authority that the costs were being drawn in the way that he described. When he used the word “examination”, did he mean that he and the Secretary of State have had the opportunity for independent verification or are they proceeding on the basis of an assurance?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The latter.

Zimbabwe

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, for introducing this debate and for doing it so very well. It was a real tour de force. Like him and so many noble Lords who have spoken today, I regret the sad loss of Lady Park and Lord Blaker, who made such well informed contributions to our debates on Zimbabwe in the past.

Zimbabwe has been of particular concern, especially in your Lordships' House, for many years. The opportunity to discuss the current situation there and how it may develop is therefore very welcome, because, as we have heard from so many who have contributed to the debate, there are some signs that change is under way. That creates an opportunity for a better future for the people of Zimbabwe, and indeed for the British relationship with Zimbabwe. There are obvious political changes in Zimbabwe with the formation of the Government of National Unity, as well as changes in the leadership of Zimbabwe’s most influential neighbour, South Africa. In the United Kingdom’s relationship with Zimbabwe, too, we must consider the implications of the change of government in this country. New Governments anywhere can, if they are sufficiently imaginative, create real opportunities for change if the circumstances merit it, and the British coalition now has the challenge of how it will respond to some of the changes that we have been discussing and begin to make a real step change in the way in which Zimbabwe relates to the United Kingdom.

In all the years that I have been part of the debates on Zimbabwe in this House, concern has centred on four main destructive and interrelated crises. First, there has been the economic crisis. Secondly, there has been political deterioration in the country and in its relationships with many countries overseas. Thirdly, there has been the HIV/AIDS crisis. Finally, there has been the humanitarian crisis, which has been the inevitable consequence of the first three crises.

As we have heard today so graphically from the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, for years Zimbabwe’s economic and social indicators painted a really alarming picture. Over half the country required emergency food aid and other humanitarian aid simply to survive. The contrast with the former years of plenty as the breadbasket of Africa was indeed stark. The United States aid department calculated that over that period more than a third of the adult population of Zimbabwe was HIV positive, and that more than 10,000 people were dying every month from AIDS. Meanwhile, the GDP was in an unstoppable downward spiral, and inflation was way out of control. Official figures for unemployment were in excess of 60 per cent, and shortages in medicines and fuel as well as in food were evident everywhere.

Most people with marketable skills left the country as soon as they could in the early years of this century. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, there were teachers, health workers and many with professional skills who simply moved away and did not return. The noble Lord, Lord Luce, emphasised the importance of the diaspora and asked how they might now be encouraged to return to Zimbabwe. This is a scarred and miserable story with which we are all only too familiar. The analysis of why this happened has varied. From Mr Mugabe’s point of view, the blame is placed squarely on Britain’s shoulders as the former colonial power, although Zimbabwe never had a colonial civil service; it had its own internal service. Meanwhile from the point of view of many commentators outside the country, the blame lies with ZANU-PF for running a regime that totally failed its own people in terms of economic competence, political inclusion and social cohesion. Others, notably South Africa, have been for many years very ambivalent. They have been unable to criticise the self-evident shortcomings of Mr Mugabe’s Government and have impeded some of the efforts of the international community to deal with human rights abuses and disease control, not only in terms of HIV/AIDS but also, latterly, in terms of the cholera outbreaks.

As we have heard from many noble Lords in this debate, there have been real changes in the economy. I am sure that all of us welcome the fact that at long last there is real improvement in what the IMF has to say about the Zimbabwean economy. In its announcement on 26 May, it recorded that for the first time in more than a decade there has been economic growth. The gross domestic product rose by 4 per cent last year, which was the first expansion for 11 years. At the same time, prices rose by 6.5 per cent. In previous years, as we have often remarked in this House, inflation was measured in millions of per cent and the economy regularly shrunk year on year by 5 per cent to 10 per cent.

The IMF attributed the improvements to strong taxation policy and strong administrative measures following implementation of its own advice. It went on to stress the importance of further strengthening of financial management with the World Bank’s assistance and noted that, sadly, many social programmes in Zimbabwe are still grossly underfunded and in danger of failing completely. I agree with my noble friend Lord Triesman that years of neglect cannot be righted without a huge effort within Zimbabwe and from its friends.

What is the British Government’s assessment of the IMF report? Is the UK coalition now able, or willing, to give bilateral advice to the Zimbabwean Government on the future strengthening of such things as their manufacturing and service industries, and very particularly on the budgetary messages that need to be put in place in the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe?

I am sure we can all express pleasure that Zimbabwe’s eligibility to use the resources of the IMF’s general resource account have been restored, which is good news and significant. What does the Minister think the practical impact of the restoration of such eligibility will be? It is clear that the economic policies have improved significantly, but what assessment have the British Government made about the way in which the improvements are sustainable or whether the recovery is too fragile to survive without further important policy changes in the economic outlook in Zimbabwe?

I turn to what I described as the political crisis. The continuation of the Government of National Unity is the bedrock of providing the stability necessary for any continued economic improvement. The IMF was pleased that during its visit in March its meetings with Prime Minister Tsvangirai and other Ministers were matched by access to representatives from the diplomatic and business communities, and, very significantly, in its meetings with civil society organisations as well as trade unions. The IMF noted the improved respect—its own words—for property rights and for the strengthening of labour markets. Today we have heard about the welcome licensing of the newspaper industry, which is another significant move.

The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, about the recent acquittal of one of Prime Minister Tsvangirai’s allies, the former white farmer, Roy Bennett, also need to be noted. I think that we all hope that this acquittal will ease some of the self-evident tensions in the Government in Zimbabwe. On the charges of terrorism against him, Mr Bennett said that,

“the judgment gives hope that we are returning to justice and the rule of law”.

Can the Minister give us the British Government’s assessment of the current state of stability in the coalition; that is to say, whether Mr Bennett’s judgment that this was a significant move in consolidating the coalition is one with which they can agree? Also, is he able to tell us whether Mr Bennett has now been installed as the Deputy Minister for Agriculture, as was originally mooted?

Can the Minister comment on the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, regarding the new law requiring all companies owned by foreigners and racial minorities to cede 51 per cent of their shares to indigenous people? There seems to be genuine confusion on this point. Some Zimbabwean Cabinet Ministers have said that the law is still firmly in place, but of course the Prime Minister’s own spokesman has given a very different point of view, saying that the whole of that law is now under revision.

I turn to the AIDS/HIV epidemic, a matter that was not raised by many noble Lords during the debate, but which nonetheless plays an important part in achieving stability in Zimbabwe. Is the Minister able to give us up-to-date figures for mortality rates? The figures were very high a few years ago and I wonder how they have changed, or indeed whether they have changed at all. Further, is he able to tell us what the United Kingdom is currently doing in terms of providing aid to combat AIDS and HIV in Zimbabwe? Clearly we are not alone in this: Japan, Sweden and the Netherlands have also made significant contributions, but in recent years there has been some reluctance on the part of other Governments to deal with the issue.

The humanitarian climate seems to have improved at least in some measure, although I was concerned by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, regarding the points made by the Friends of Zimbabwe and about what the Zimbabwean churches have had to say. I am sure that many of us were pleased to see the ban on all diamond exports until senior politicians accused of human rights abuses are cleared of any wrongdoing. In its assessment made on 17 May this year, the IMF said that the humanitarian situation had improved, with schools and hospitals opening, better food security and a declining rate of cholera around the country. But the IMF continued to emphasise the importance of the enforcement of property rights and the maintenance of the rule of law. As the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, pointed out, the abuse of gay people is absolutely unacceptable and needs to be addressed urgently.

The fact is that these are all bedrock issues. Democracy without the rule of law tends to become the licensed tyranny of the majority over the minority, and human rights are the hallmark of any decent and civilised government. As the noble Lord, Lord St John, remarked, the drawing up of the new constitution will be a key element, but as many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, many questions are being raised in relation to whether the constitution will indeed get a fair hearing and whether in the end there will be a fair vote on it.

The Minister has a terrific record on his support of the Commonwealth, and as the noble Lord, Lord Luce, said, in the past he has been a persuasive supporter of it. Given that, is he able to say anything about how he sees the future role of the Commonwealth in relation to Zimbabwe? In short, can he tell us how the UK Government intend to respond to all these changes? As my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside pointed out, the coalition document supports better trade with Africa. Is the Minister able to tell us in what ways this might be done? Would it be through, for example, help with small businesses and for entrepreneurship, and programmes of assistance such as those that were provided by British Executive Services Overseas? In particular, do the Government have any practical ideas for ways in which to help Zimbabweans in this country return to their homeland in the way suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Luce?

We have had a wide-ranging debate. The question I leave with the Minister is whether he believes in the picture that has been painted by the IMF, taking into account all the difficulties raised by noble Lords in terms of human rights? Does he believe that the future of Zimbabwe is now set on the right course and that it has a sustainable and secure future planned ahead for its people?

Queen's Speech

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, I, too, warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, on his appointment and on his opening speech. Of course I wish my party were still in government; but given that we are not, it is a real pleasure to see him at the government Dispatch Box and to know that his experience and wisdom will be brought to bear on the coalition’s policies. He is a sensible and good man with a real gift for insightful observation.

I also look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, at the end of the debate. He has demonstrated great commitment to the Armed Forces and was a very faithful opposition spokesman. The original omission of a Lords defence Minister in the government list of Ministers appears to have been remedied, but the coalition’s apparent reluctance to appoint a Lords Minister for defence was unfortunate, especially given the unequivocal statement in the coalition document that, “We”—

that is, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister—

“are agreed that the first duty of government is to safeguard our national security and support our troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere”.

I note, too, that so far there is no Lords Minister for the Department for International Development. Perhaps that is another omission that is later to be remedied. I hope so. DfID has a huge budget that is ring-fenced and, we are told, likely to grow, unlike that of most other government departments. Ministers have to be accountable, and the fact is that there is greater expertise and greater experience in international development across all parties in your Lordships' House than in another place, and we can if necessary hold Ministers to account every day at Question Time.

I will make one other point about the ministerial composition across the FCO, defence and DfID. There are six Ministers in the FCO, five now in the Ministry of Defence and three in DfID: 14 in all, and not a single woman. That is a record to outstrip even the Senior Salaries Review Body, but it has far more serious implications. There will be no single woman Minister talking on these subjects to our interlocutors overseas. For a Government who want to lead by example, this is really appalling.

The coalition document says on page 22:

“We will recognise the vital role of women in development, promote gender equality and focus on the rights of women, children and disabled people to access services”.

Those are very fine words, but by their actions we shall know them, and promoting gender equality abroad rings very hollow indeed when we do not practise it at home.

We know that work is already under way to review the defence and security policies, and we look forward to hearing of progress there. We also know from the coalition document that Tory plans for Trident have survived and that Liberal Democrat plans for reinvigorating wider Franco-British defence co-operation have disappeared. There are no surprises there, but the defence passage of the document says nothing at all about NATO. NATO is mentioned once, and only then in a very short list of organisations with which the Government want to work over foreign affairs. Will the noble Lord, Lord Astor, when he answers this debate, tell us whether NATO will continue to be the cornerstone of our defence policy?

Will the noble Lord also tell us whether we will continue to deploy our service men and women to common security and defence policy missions? There have of course been 23 so far. Finally, will we continue to act independently in matters of defence procurement in delivering the 25 per cent cut in MoD running costs that is provided for in the document? I am really not asking him about Typhoon, the A400M, the Joint Strike Fighter, the aircraft carriers or anything else. I accept that those are matters for the defence review, but the points that I have raised here are points of principle that should underlie the way in which the defence review is carried out.

I will say a word or two about security as it appears in the foreign policy parts of the document. Will the Government continue to be committed to building strong national institutions in countries of concern to target al-Qaeda’s activities in, for example, Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and the Middle East? Dr Liam Fox may think that the education of girls in Afghanistan has nothing to do with security in the United Kingdom, but the unbridled and unchecked message of hatred and extremism that lies at the heart of the al-Qaeda movement manifests itself in killing defenceless, uneducated and unprotected Afghan women as much as it does in killing our own soldiers in Afghanistan and our own nationals on our streets at home. The opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, certainly show that he understands that very well, and I hope that there is some straight talking with his less experienced colleagues in another place.

People want our Government and our security forces to be vigilant and to keep them safe, and they want their children to go to school in safety and to be able to go shopping in safety, but the same people also want the freedom to live their lives as they wish: to travel, to meet their friends and to have access to the media and international communications. They want government to be transparent about how security is dealt with, and they want government to be accountable for what actions are taken to protect them. That is a potent and contradictory mix of expectations and it lies at the heart of the unavoidable dilemma that the Government, like all Governments, face in balancing security and civil liberties. It is all the more difficult for coalition government. It is a real dilemma and at times a personal one.

Frankly, another piece of advice which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Howell, will give to his less experienced colleagues is on personal security. The Prime Minister’s no doubt well-intentioned decision to do away with his personal security is completely misguided. It is wrong both for him and for the country he leads. It will enhance the chances of his becoming a terrorist target and, as importantly, may put in jeopardy those who are meant to protect him and others around him.

My noble friend Lady Kinnock has dealt with a number of questions on Europe. However, I hope that the coalition will address the huge issues on stability, peace and justice that the coalition document says it wants to address. I hope that very particularly in relation to the Middle East. As the House of Lords Select Committee clearly demonstrated, Europe has a role in the Middle East peace process. The Conservative Party has signed up to that role, as the Liberal Democrats have done a trifle more willingly. American foreign policy is, of course, the crucial cornerstone in this conflict. However there is a toxic mixture of security challenges in which we, the British, as Europeans, have a real political role to play, in effect to establish a worthwhile Middle East peace process.

This conflict remains one of the most potentially dangerous for the security of all of us, complicated as it is by Iranian aggression and, to a lesser extent, by Syrian uncertainty. It is too important to be left to a US-Israel or US-Palestinian axis. We in the United Kingdom have a key voice in this European mix. I hope we will encourage more European-Arab dialogue as well as pursue our bilateral relationships, and that we will engage in real political relationships with Saudi Arabia, Libya, the Maghreb countries and, yes, even Syria.

We all know that both parties opposite are on a bit of a tightrope over Europe; their original manifestos demonstrate that very clearly. Europe runs like a golden thread through the Liberal Democrat manifesto whereas the Conservative manifesto seems to demonstrate a desire to put it in a box and shut the lid very tightly. Will the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, tell us whether Mr Cameron will now break the relationship with the partners his now deputy described as,

“a bunch of nutters, anti-Semites, people who deny climate change exists and homophobes”?

He went on to say that it does not help Britain, and he was right. Will David Cameron change his friends or will Nick Clegg change his mind? I would also be interested to know from the noble Lord what is likely to happen over aid to China—a country which is much richer than us, which has an enormous sovereign wealth fund and to which we are giving aid that could well be deployed elsewhere.

I wish noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite, who now have to shoulder some very awesome responsibilities, well. I hope and believe that they will keep this House well informed and that we will have many more opportunities to discuss these issues.