Sanctions (EU Exit) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Revocations) Regulations 2024

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Friday 24th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly, but I certainly welcome the regulations. I want to reflect on a couple of things before asking the noble Lord to confirm something.

First, I will reflect on the cycle of sanctions. The cycle is that there needs to be a co-ordinated approach between various nations which are thinking of doing some sanctioning, and then after that there is the putting down of the sanction mechanisms. It is important to realise that it is very complicated to put these down, particularly when there are names of either people or legal entities using the letters of other alphabets—even the G7, which I will come on to in a moment, includes a country that uses an alphabet different from ours. Most importantly, then, is the monitoring for effectiveness, which in turn starts the cycle again, with a co-ordinated approach and the putting down of any changes, et cetera.

Secondly, the sanctions are effective with a co-ordinated approach. The European Affairs Committee, like the European Union Committee before it, has written very often about the importance of having a co-ordinated approach, particularly with the European Union. I am not going to rehearse the reasoning behind that because we have written about it in many reports that were debated in the House. It was always a unanimous decision of each committee that co-ordination is important.

Thirdly, and finally, I think that has been superseded by the importance of co-ordination with the G7. In February 2023, the G7 started up the G7 enforcement co-ordination mechanism. From a G7 point of view, with the its great command of the productive capacity and GDP of the world, it is extremely important that there is now a G7 method of making sure that sanctions work.

My question for the noble Lord is therefore this. Can he confirm that, as I think is the case, these regulations build on that international regulation by making us more flexible and more able to reflect an agreement to carry out sanctions on somebody or something?

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the careful way my noble friend explained the purpose of the regulations. He touched on aluminium exports from Belarus. As I understand it, Russia exports large amounts of aluminium—though I may be wrong. Have we stopped that? Are we able to stop those exports? If we did stop them, it might have a serious effect on the price of aluminium. It is worth remembering that aluminium and other raw materials such as steel are produced to international engineering standards, so they are homogeneous.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earls, Lord Kinnoull and Lord Attlee. I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing these amendments to the various sanctions regulations so comprehensively. As he outlined, the regulations introduce a new power to make it unlawful for a designated person to act as a director of a UK company. They also clarify the responsibilities of HMRC in relation to the enforcement of trade sanctions—a step we on these Benches welcome.

We also welcome the provisions relating to Belarus in the light of the country’s continued support for Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. The extension of the prohibition on the import of aluminium to Belarus is significant, as noted in paragraph 5.16 of the Explanatory Memorandum. This is a key part of the economy, and it is vital that we extend the sanction.

Taken together, we hope that these measures will help to crack down on the circumvention of Russian sanctions—a topic that was discussed earlier this week during Questions to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, the Foreign Secretary. The Minister will know that the Opposition have supported the Government in their approach to Russia-related sanctions. We are glad that the measure can be passed before Parliament is prorogued.

I ask for noble Lords’ indulgence for a moment, as this is my last contribution of this Parliament. I thank your Lordships’ House for being so welcoming to a new Member. I thank those on the Government Front Bench for their constructive approach to working together during my time on the Opposition Front Bench. I wish everyone a safe and fruitful general election campaign in the months ahead. I look forward to seeing all noble Lords in six weeks.

Ukraine Conflict

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure the noble Baroness has noticed that there is a change in the Polish leadership. We have also seen, when it comes to issues of the defence of Europe, the importance of our advocacy within NATO. It is very clear in the discussions we are having, particularly through that organisation, that Europe stands together, and stands with Ukraine.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, will the UK persist with merely doing enough to prevent Ukraine being defeated, rather than any more than that?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point. We need to ensure that Ukraine has what it needs to defend its sovereign territory. Let us go back in time. Since we saw the invasion and annexation of Crimea, the UK’s position has been consistent—indeed, it is a position shared by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Loyalty is an important word here—loyalty to each other but also to Ukraine. We will stand steadfast in ensuring that the defensive capability that Ukraine needs is fully supported.

Ukraine

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Friday 26th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I have become aware of an interesting quote from Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis from 22 January:

“Nobody knows the exact timeline of Russia’s madness, but we know Ukraine is buying us time and paying for it with blood. If Ukraine wins, Russia’s expansionism will be halted. If not, we will be wishing we had used the bought time more efficiently”.


As noble Lords have observed, we are in exceptionally perilous times. We need to avoid unnecessary and out-of-control escalation, as the noble and gallant Lord has just told us, and get off that track of doom, but we must not be too timid either.

I have been going through my paternal grandfather’s library, which is now mine, and it is interesting to see what he kept from the 1930s and read many times. Obviously there are several Liddell Harts, but also a most interesting book by JR Kennedy. These books all drew attention to our then poorly equipped Army and its recruiting difficulties. Most importantly, the Army was configured only for bush warfare and protection of the home base—as the noble and gallant Lord was saying about our current situation—and there was a lack of large-scale exercises that properly tested commanders and supporting logistics. We left rearming far too late. We know what happened next: we were regularly defeated for quite some time and, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, appeasement did not work.

That is why I have asked on numerous occasions when the British Army last deployed a largely fully formed and supported division for manoeuvre and deployment training. The answer is more than 30 years ago. Ministers sometimes got muddled up between just exercising a divisional headquarters and the staff term “largely fully formed and supported division”. That is why I am so pleased to hear about Exercise Steadfast Defender, which is really good news.

The Government have done very well in responding to the invasion of Ukraine and have usually been on the front foot. However, as many noble Lords have observed, especially the noble and gallant Lord, we and our allies have done enough only to prevent Ukraine being defeated, not enough or quickly enough to enable the Ukrainian forces to eject Russian forces from their territory. It was very helpful for the noble and gallant Lord to explain why that might be. Furthermore, we have been sending the wrong signals of deterrence from at least 2014, and possibly 2010, by running down the British Army to meet voter aspirations—spending their money elsewhere while not educating the public about the consequences of a 100% debt to GDP ratio.

I note what noble Lords, especially the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, have said about the situation in the US and the need for us, in Europe, to find a solution to the problem. As I have said before, and as my noble friend the Minister explained today, in Europe we have vastly more economic and industrial capability than the Russians. With the Americans otherwise engaged, it will be difficult and painful, but we now have to rearm ourselves, especially but not exclusively in the land component. What systems we invest in is a matter for the capability managers in the Ministry of Defence. However, I envisage having the military effect equivalent to at least two armoured divisions with full logistic support back to the home bank. That would still be less than what we had in the old BAOR days.

In answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, hitherto the minimal increases in defence expenditure have not been detectable by the general public—that will change. We have maxed out our national credit card by having a good time, and many believe that we have reached the limit of our taxation capacity. To deter by rearming, the necessary cutbacks elsewhere will be unbelievably tough and there will be howls of pain. It will be extremely difficult to convince the public of the necessity—and, by the way, 3% might not be enough—but it will always be more cost effective to ramp up now than later and, in doing so, avoid a war by means of deterring further military activity by the Russians. We must not fritter away the time bought by the Ukrainians at such high costs. The difficulty is that we cannot ramp up defence expenditure and hard capability quickly—and we will not directly intervene in Ukraine in any case. Any new capability would be only to meet our Article 5 commitments and provide deterrence.

On munitions, my understanding is that we are still pussyfooting around, trying to determine by when we should have our stocks replenished. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and my noble friend Lord Vaizey indicated, at European NATO level we need to co-ordinate which country makes what defence materiel for Ukraine—and fast. For example, if it were agreed that we made 155-millimetre and even 152-millimetre artillery natures, we should build a new, fully integrated Royal Ordnance factory and task it with making at least 100,000 rounds per month, commencing production within a few months. To do that, as a minimum Ministers would need to take drastic powers to disregard all planning laws, to direct industrial production and to requisition existing machine tools from the rest of industry. If all European states were to do something similar for other capabilities, it is just possible that Putin might feel the ground shifting under him, in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, described. The alternative is too dreadful to think about.

Outcome of the European Union Referendum

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I am Eurosceptic at best. Although I was very pleased to have the opportunity to vote on this matter, I decided to vote remain. This was, first, because we have enough on our international plate now, without having to manage a Brexit. Secondly, it was for our long-term, grand strategic interests. We need to have a locus at the centre of Europe, not just to ensure that we can have curved bananas, but so that, when Europe has some problems—which it will—we can be there to hold it together and stop matters from becoming very much worse. Finally, it was because Mr Putin would dearly love us to leave the EU and thus destabilise it.

While I support the Government’s course of action, it is important to analyse how we got to this position, if only to inform our domestic policy. I always enjoy listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. Yesterday, she did not disappoint when she explained the benefits of workers’ rights provided by the EU. The problem, though, is that artisan workers simply do not care about them. If their employer is unsatisfactory, they simply leave and find another. By artisan, I mean someone who has reasonable proficiency in a trade or skill, which can be acquired within about 12 months with a bit of effort and only moderate academic qualifications. Worse still, an older and educated Brexiteer will see this as an undemocratic way of putting in place something that the House of Commons would not.

At home, our decorator is a young Brit, an artisan worker with a young wife and child. On 15 June, we told him that we were going to vote remain. He told us that no one he knew was going to do that. I was then sure that the leave campaign would win because, unfortunately, the remain campaign had lost the artisan vote. We know that there are some very unfortunate reasons why that occurred.

Much has been made of the fact that big business very much supports the EU project. They would, wouldn’t they? On things that matter, they have one main point of contact and that is the Commission. The Commission does not put out a manifesto to the electorate which the electorate then convert into a mandate. They do not have to deal with pesky national parliamentarians, some of whom understand the issues at play. One only has to think of the motor industry’s block exemption from the competition policy to understand that. Yes, there are MEPs but, if I do not have the foggiest clue who my MEP is, or what their agenda is, it is hardly surprising when the rest of the population does not either.

The electorate cannot vote against the Commission if they do not like the cut of its jib. They certainly cannot sack the Commission. In other words, the EU is totally undemocratic. This is what concerns so many of the older, well-educated voters. Moreover, in economic terms the EU is wonderful for big business because free movement of labour means that you can increase demand in the economy without running out of labour or its cost increasing. Effectively, there is an inexhaustible supply of good-quality and highly motivated unskilled and artisan labour available.

I accept that EU labour is fiscally neutral and beneficial for the size of the economy. The trouble is that an artisan does not know what fiscally neutral means, while the benefits argument is a red herring because most EU migrants come here to work. Worse still, our larger economy does not mean more GDP per capita and, for the artisan, that translates into being no better off despite the growth. I am no economist but it seems to me that an economy needs knowledge, infrastructure, capital and labour. We provide as much knowledge as possible but the infrastructure can be improved only slowly. We carefully regulate the supply of money but do nothing to regulate the supply of labour under the free movement arrangements. I am sure that all noble Lords recognise the benefits of free movement of labour within the EU and I will not weary your Lordships by rehearsing them.

Yet another problem is growing the economy by increasing the population when the infrastructure is fixed or is only growing slowly. I think in particular of commuter transport systems and housing. Since we cannot increase the capacity of either as fast as the population is increasing, it is not surprising that we have overcrowded trains and unaffordable house prices. So what is to be done?

Our EU partners are still in the phase of being cross and in denial. I am sure that the Government’s policy as laid out by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is absolutely the right one, with one exception, and in accordance with the mandate from the electorate. The policy of not invoking Article 50 at least until the autumn buys everyone time. However, if we cannot convince our EU staff in your Lordships’ House that they have nothing to worry about regarding their own position, then HMG must be guilty of unnecessary cruelty to all EU citizens working in the UK. This is a perfectly useless so-called bargaining chip. We should start with being generous where we can.

Although a bitter rearguard action in the UK is doomed to failure, there are some grounds for hope for the remain camp. When the EU elites get over being cross and in denial, perhaps they will do some hard thinking with a wet towel wrapped around their head. They might be able to come up with a totally new proposal for regulating the flow of labour from accession states to more fully developed states. They also need to find a way to deal with the democratic deficit, or at least to recognise the problem. I was very interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, on that issue. If that could be done, with a new deal on migration coupled with a new and effective leader of the Labour Party, then something genuinely new could be offered to our electorate in a further referendum with a reasonable chance of it being accepted. But in the absence of this, the Government should carry on with their policy.

Building Stability Overseas Strategy

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

I agree with the implication behind the noble Lord’s supplementary that Governments have to be responsive to change. He outlines significant events that have taken their toll on life and security. The principles within the Building Stability Overseas Strategy—early warning, rapid response and upstream prevention—remain as valid now as they were then. However, it is right that the Government focus more carefully on how one then delivers the aid in that strategy. That is why we have formed the new Conflict, Stability and Security Fund with £1.033 billion, and the National Security Council will be looking very carefully at how that money is best spent.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will recognise that budgets are never limited, so on what basis has the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund decided to prioritise some regions and plans over others?

Commonwealth

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Luce]

That this House takes note of the future of the Commonwealth, in the light of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka in November.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, the timings on this debate are very short indeed. Noble Lords have only four minutes, and I remind them that when the clock says,“4” their time is up.

[Lord Luce (CB)]

In just a month’s time the leaders of 53 Commonwealth countries will meet in Sri Lanka. It is an opportunity which Commonwealth Governments must take to add value and momentum to this very special group of nations. It is a British interest to strengthen ties with the Commonwealth and an opportunity for this Parliament to influence progress. I am grateful to all noble Lords who are taking part in this debate and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Despite centuries of human achievement, we still see endless conflict, death and cruelty, starvation and poverty in so many parts of the world. Yet we in Britain are fortunate to be equal members of a unique group of nations which covers one-fifth of the land of this world and includes more than 2 billion people. It embraces a complete cross-section of the globe, from the Pacific to Africa to the Caribbean, big states such as India and small states such as Trinidad, rich and poor, following many religions and beliefs. We share a common history stemming from our empire, a common language and shared aspirations for good governance, the rule of law, respect for human rights and increased prosperity. Many of us in this Chamber have witnessed in our lifetime the transition from empire to this Commonwealth of equal nations.

Throughout the Commonwealth’s history the Queen has given us the inspiration and the ability to stick together through numerous crises, from apartheid to Rhodesia. During her reign she has made 150 Commonwealth visits. Indeed, she has been the unifying figure of the Commonwealth. The new Diamond Jubilee Trust recognises her special role. We could not invent the Commonwealth today. It stems from our shared history and experience. At its heart is contact between people as much as contact between Governments—links which cover every facet of our lives. The 750,000 Commonwealth immigrants who arrived in this country between 1950 and 1960 symbolised the end of empire and are now an integrated part of our lives in Britain. This Commonwealth migration applies to many other countries as well. Furthermore, the links that have been forged by more than 90 Commonwealth professional bodies cover every aspect of life, from medicine and universities to forestry and the media. Many other noble Lords will demonstrate today as wide a range of Commonwealth links and interests as I have.

All this gives us an opportunity which we either discard or seize—the opportunity to use this organisation to improve the quality of life for all of us, if it is grasped more fully by people and Governments. The British Empire has long since gone but we can still punch above our weight. For example, soft diplomacy is becoming increasingly important. Modern technology gives us the means to use this vast network to our mutual benefit. The Commonwealth is unique. Membership is not a substitute, but complements our membership of NATO, the European Union, or our natural relationship with the United States. Because it is so comprehensive in its range, the Commonwealth does not create a day-to-day impact on people’s lives or headlines in the media, unless there is a crisis, but its significance should not be underestimated.

The main purpose of this debate is to explore how we can all achieve added value from our membership and strengthen the Commonwealth to benefit all members. Let me comment first on intergovernmental co-operation and then people-to-people contact. First, we need to face up to the significance of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka in November. Together with Gambia’s recent withdrawal, the spotlight is indeed on the core values, highlighted in the new charter of the Commonwealth. Sri Lanka’s human rights record in recent times has been disappointing. Our Government have made it clear that we expect to see at CHOGM concrete progress on human rights, judicial independence, free and fair regional elections and proper access and freedom of movement for civil society and the media. The Prime Minister has decided to participate in this conference, while Canada’s Prime Minister will not attend and is reviewing Canada’s funding programme for the Commonwealth. I understand that the Commonwealth has been active in working for reconciliation and improvements in human rights in Sri Lanka. Is there a lesson to be learnt here from South Africa’s successful Truth and Reconciliation Commission? Can the Minister report to the House on the progress that is being made? The reputation of the Commonwealth is at stake.

While on human rights, I ask the Minister to accept that our arguments are likely to be more persuasive if we demonstrate that we are making our own improvements. For example, it would be helpful for our Government to state at CHOGM that we plan to restore the right of return to the British Indian Ocean Territory to those Chagossians who, in the late 1960s, were expelled by us from their homeland to make way for Diego Garcia. This remains a blot on our copybook which we must rectify.

The most important aspect of CHOGM is to pursue the implementation of a series of recommendations from the previous meeting in Perth. These ranged from ways to improve governance, human rights and the rule of law to economic and commercial development and cultural collaboration. If Governments are to get more advantage from this, it is worth stressing how important it is for Ministers in virtually every department to think in Commonwealth terms and to work collectively to that end. One of the agreed recommendations was to strengthen the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group to deal with a full range of serious or persistent violations of Commonwealth values. The Commonwealth’s ability to deal effectively with conflict resolution could act as a model to the rest of the world. Intervention in the past with countries that have flouted Commonwealth standards, such as Fiji, Sierra Leone, Nigeria and Pakistan, demonstrate its value. Other areas include strengthening democracy through the newly-established Commonwealth Network of Election Management Bodies and the monitoring of elections.

The other side of the coin is what we are doing to strengthen development and to help small states with their economies. We need to know, for example, what progress is being made to implement the millennium development goals, universal access to healthcare, plans to eradicate polio and to address malaria, malnutrition, diarrhoea and respiratory infections. More widely, there is the question of the empowerment of women, who are vital to economic development, and broad issues such as smuggling, human trafficking, piracy and climate change, which we are all committed to tackle. The Commonwealth ought also to be removing remittance transfer barriers and encouraging the skilled diaspora living in the West to contribute to their countries of origin. In all this, what contribution is DfID making to Commonwealth countries and what form does it take?

Of course, trade and investment is a crucial aspect of development and this year’s theme is “opportunity through enterprise”. The combined GDP of the Commonwealth is more than £6 trillion and it contributes more than 20% of the world’s trade and investment. We have the advantage of common language and some regulatory frameworks which should facilitate trade. However, we could be doing far more in the Commonwealth. Growth rates in many African and Asian countries are improving. Trade opportunities are there to take.

There is of course overlap between the government and non-governmental sectors. I must highlight the role of the Commonwealth Foundation, which deals with the private side of the Commonwealth, of which I had the privilege of being the chair in the 1990s. The purpose of this organisation is to stimulate the role of non-governmental bodies in development. It has embarked on a strategy to facilitate a dialogue between civil society and government. Civil society becomes more robust as the newly educated and professional middle classes emerge and aspire to play a part in the development of their countries. At the same time, there are citizens that remain outside the realm of the policy-making processes. The foundation is there to help strengthen the capacity of organisations that work in these diverse contexts to support Commonwealth principles and values.

Beyond all this there is a whole kaleidoscope of connections between individuals and organisations in the Commonwealth. Much of it is known only to those involved. The Royal Over-Seas League, of which I am president, supports educational projects in Namibia, Botswana and Kenya. The Association of Commonwealth Universities is shortly to mark its centenary. As a former university vice-chancellor, I know the value of meeting with academics in the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Press Union meets to exchange views about how to maintain and build a free press. The Council for Education in the Commonwealth, of which I am a vice-patron, meets to stimulate discussion on furthering educational collaboration. The new Commonwealth Youth Orchestra is beginning to unite people through music.

Education is one of the most important areas. The Commonwealth of Learning, 25 years old and based in Vancouver, uses distance learning to promote education and training. For example, it has a Lifelong Learning for Farmers programme and a Virtual University for Small States.

Another remarkable project has been the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Scheme. In 53 years, some 27,000 people have benefited from this. Many Commonwealth leaders in all spheres were Commonwealth scholars. Mr Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, is one such example. I am glad that the Government have invested £87 million in the scheme over four years to 2015. It is good that there is now an additional Commonwealth-wide endowment scheme, to which we have contributed and which marked Her Majesty’s Diamond Jubilee. Moreover, in 2012, there were 117,000 Commonwealth students in higher education in the United Kingdom.

The important thing is the future. Fifty per cent of Commonwealth citizens are under the age of 25. The Commonwealth will mean something to them only if they have a knowledge and understanding of its value. If our young people are taught about our history and our contemporary Commonwealth, and if it is made a reality for them, then the opportunities are enormous and the benefits immeasurable. Much can be done in a practical way to twin schools and to arrange youth exchanges. I welcome the fact that the Royal Commonwealth Society is this month launching a Commonwealth youth leadership scheme. It is exciting that the BBC and the British Council are playing a leading part in the Commonwealth class project, where Commonwealth identity will be promoted to seven to 14 year-olds by linking no fewer than 100,000 Commonwealth schools online.

The Perth summit also agreed to give priority to youth unemployment, to encourage new entrepreneurial business and adequate vocational training. Will the Minister tell us what action has been taken to encourage and support young people, and what is being done in schools to make the Commonwealth alive for them?

Last week the Queen launched the Commonwealth Games relay baton, which will tour every Commonwealth country before arriving at the Games in Glasgow next summer. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association has more than 16,000 members, who exchange visits and meet regularly to discuss global issues or to give practical advice about their parliamentary experiences. It is heart-warming to learn, too, that every local authority in the UK is committed to fly the Commonwealth flag between Commonwealth Observance Day next March and the Commonwealth Games in the summer.

Recently, the Royal Commonwealth Society carried out a Commonwealth conversation which demonstrated that the level of interest and knowledge of the Commonwealth is stronger in small as opposed to larger states. It concludes that by 2050 the Commonwealth might either be a total irrelevance or a vibrant global entity. At the moment, the Commonwealth profile is too low. We need all those who believe in the Commonwealth, from the secretary-general to other leaders, to speak up for the Commonwealth.

Next year we will mark the beginning of the catastrophic First World War. It would be right to remind ourselves that there were 1.5 million Indian volunteers and thousands of servicemen from West and East Africa, the West Indies, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa who fought alongside us, sacrificing their lives in defence of the free world. The tradition continues, for today we have many Commonwealth citizens in our Armed Forces.

The Indian leader Nehru said that the Commonwealth can deal with problems “with a touch of feeling”. Is that not exactly what this world needs? In an exchange with President Nasser of Egypt, Nasser said, “I put my extremists in prison. What do you do with yours?”. Nehru said, “I put mine in Parliament”. This surely is what the Commonwealth is all about.

However, as Don McKinnon, the former secretary-general, said in his recent book, In the Ring:

“The true role of the Commonwealth is to create more and better democracies”—

not modelled on some liberal western template but where all adult people have a say about who governs them and are able to exercise influence over policies of the governing body. The Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh, has stressed the link between democracy and development. He said:

“The more democracy you have the more development you’ll get”.

I regard the future of the Commonwealth as one of the most exciting challenges of our time. We have an instrument to hand to make the quality of life better for us all. To take up the challenge requires leadership, inspiration, a strategy from Governments and active participation by our citizens. It is all about people. This Parliament must now give a lead. I look forward to the Minister’s assessment of the strategy. I beg to move.

Syria

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I thank the noble Lord for his very robust support and expert analysis of the overview of the situation, which is very welcome. To take his last point first, I would be very prepared to keep the House as fully informed as possible, as I know my colleagues would in both Houses, on the unfolding tragedy and situation. I will, if I may, take his questions in order. On the number of those who have been killed, we have the figure of 6,000, which seems to be a fairly widely accepted estimate, but of course I cannot possibly guarantee that that is the precise number in the blood, smoke and horror of what is going on. There may be many more; there may be cover-ups or hideous atrocities going on at this moment that are not recorded. We just have to accept that as the figure for the moment, but it could be larger.

The noble Lord’s next question was about how we engage with Russia and China and bring home to those great powers and to the policy-makers in Moscow and Beijing that they have misjudged the situation. It is now a global order, brought together by the miracle of modern communication—a transformed world in which the upkeep of certain basic standards must be supported by all responsible nations. If they want to be in that category they must take a responsible position. We know that Russia has its interests, such as its huge naval base at Tartus, and its long-standing commitment to Syria. We know that China has its interests, which are rather different but broadly in sympathy with the Syria of the past. I believe that the time has come for them to rethink their position and we will remain in constant contact, indeed almost every day, with Russian and Chinese officials and Ministers to bring home to them the inadequacy—more than inadequacy: the unacceptable nature—of the position into which they have driven themselves in opposing the Security Council resolution.

Meanwhile, given that opposition, we have to operate outside the United Nations. We have to look for every possible means of mobilising pressure outside the UN framework for the time being in the hope of getting the process back there some day. The noble Lord raised the question of a joint summit with the Arab League and the European Union. Our thinking is that any such summit should be wider than that. I repeat that this is a global issue and that all responsible nations are ready to step up to the plate, as it were, and voice their views in favour of increased pressure on the Syrian regime and the need for the present killer authorities to go. My right honourable friend would certainly look for wider participation than just the Arab League and the European Union.

The next meeting on 27 February, mentioned in the Statement, is an opportunity to turn the screws further. Of course, an enormous range of sanctions has already been introduced. There are targeted sanctions and every kind of detailed sanction on the Syrian regime. There is a ban on imports of Syrian oil, of course, and on any investment in the Syrian oil industry; a ban on European Union investment construction of new power stations in Syria; and a whole range of other financial and detailed embargos on the export of Syrian banknotes, coinage, and so on. It is possible that there could be more, and we will constantly search for more, and tighter, sanctions, but we must bear in mind the enormous range already in place. A no-fly zone is possibly a read-across from Libya, which may not be entirely relevant at this point because the Syrian air force is not flying. These horrors are being conducted without aircraft overhead adding to the strafing and the killing. There are no operations in the sky to be checked at this stage.

On the Syrian opposition, my right honourable friend met leaders of the Syrian oppositions—in the plural—in November. We are in touch with them, and we are constantly urging them to become more united and to formulate a coherent position, but we are not yet there. The opposition in Syria is many sided and does not yet have the coherence and organisational power to give it the semblance of an alternative, replacement Government. However, we shall continue to work on that.

On safe zones, this would be difficult given that it is not the policy to work for any kind of detailed military intervention. Of course, our Turkish colleagues and allies have considered that idea in view of their position right up against the Syrian border. However, that is not in our catalogue at the moment.

My right honourable friend described how the Syrian ambassador had been brought into the Foreign Office to see officials very recently—this morning, I think. His status is something we keep under review. On the whole, at the moment he is a line of contact and a line to pass through to the Syrian regime should it be prepared to listen for a moment to just how strongly the world feels and to just how determined we are to increase the pressure.

Finally, the noble Lord rightly praised the Metropolitan Police for their action in protecting the Syrian embassy. I make it absolutely clear that it is our policy always to protect foreign embassies in accordance with the highest diplomatic standards, and of course—as my right honourable friend said in his Statement—we expect that the Syrian authorities will do the same. I think that that covers all his points. I thank him again for his and Her Majesty’s Opposition’s strong and reassuring support in reaching a point at which we are all united.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I remind the House of the benefit of short questions to the Minister in order that my noble friend can answer as many as possible.

[Lord Alderdice]

My Lords, this is a serious, sensitive and solemn Statement from my noble friend, and I welcome it very strongly. As we have seen the standing of the Arab League rising in recent times, it is particularly disappointing that the standing of the UN Security Council has fallen because of the actions of Russia and China. Can my noble friend reassure me that while we cannot depend on the United Nations for the present, we will use our good offices within the General Assembly to help Russia and China understand the gravity of their mistake?

My noble friend mentioned co-operation with other European countries and with the Arab League, and I welcome that. However, we of course have our ally in Turkey right on the front line—as he has said. While I do not advocate any military adventures from us at this stage, can I be reassured that we will co-operate, in whatever way we can, with our allies in Turkey, directly as well as perhaps through the auspices of NATO? Can I also be reassured that members of President al-Assad’s family will not be permitted to use their close relationship with this country either to protect themselves or their assets at this time, or indeed for anything they might plan for the future? This is something for which our own Government can perhaps take some responsibility, and on which they can act.

Intelligence and Security Committee Annual Report for 2010-11

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Grand Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Marquess. The Committee is now in session.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, it will be for the convenience of the House and the Committee if we adjourn the Committee until a point three minutes after the conclusion of the Statement in the Chamber.

European Union Bill

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I concur with everything that has been said by the three previous speakers—an unusual event in itself, I think. Perhaps I may press the Government on a rumour that another so-called day in Committee may be offered next Wednesday, 25 May, when the President of the United States will be paying a visit. I cannot believe that that is a suitable time to hold another half-day or whatever on the Bill, and I look forward to the Government’s reply.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, all noble Lords know that business is organised by the usual channels. I agree that the House is working very hard at present and I can think of few noble Lords who work harder than the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. However, we have plenty of time to undertake valuable work on the Bill. In fact, we still have an hour and three-quarters, and it is not an unusual time of day to be considering such legislation. I do not believe that the House or the general public would understand if we went home an hour and 45 minutes early, especially if they worked out the cost of doing so. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will agree to go into Committee.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

We have an hour and three-quarters. Is this to be considered a day of Committee?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I very much doubt that the usual channels would consider an hour and three-quarters to be a whole day. However, I shall pass on noble Lords’ views to my noble friend the Chief Whip, who is not too far from me, and I am sure that she will take that into consideration in her discussions with the usual channels. However, I strongly suggest that we go into Committee on the Bill.

Motion agreed.

BBC World Service

Earl Attlee Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

My Lords—

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, we have plenty of time. Let us hear from the Labour Benches and then from my noble and learned friend.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in many parts of the world, there is a serious struggle going on for the hearts and minds of people in order to persuade them to see our democratic values and the freedom that we cherish? Is he so certain that the technological changes that make him suggest that the radio is no longer important have spread into those countries where this battle for hearts and minds is going on most seriously? Turkey is only one of the many examples. Is there not a danger that the technological argument that some of the more affluent people in these countries can get television and the internet ignores the fact that there are many people who cannot and who rely on the radio? Might that not mean that we are losing the battle for their hearts and minds?