Syria
Earl of Courtown Excerpts(6 days, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for producing the Statement for this House.
The previous Conservative Government had called for Assad to go over 10 years ago. There are moments in history when moral clarity is essential and, in refusing to re-engage with a dictator who has brought untold suffering to his own people, this Government made the right choice. We believe that Britain must stand firm against tyranny and in support of freedom, democracy, and the dignity and rights of the individual. The fall of Assad is a moment of profound change, not just for Syria but for the whole region. The announcement of additional funding for humanitarian aid, including support for the White Helmets, underscores this Government’s commitment to the Syrian people, and I welcome it.
I will follow up on a couple of questions that were asked by my right honourable friend the shadow Foreign Secretary in the other place. First, as we have seen, Assad has fled to Russia and claimed asylum. Can the Minister confirm that no asylum claims will be accepted in this country from former members of the Assad regime, many of whom will be associated with human rights abuses?
Secondly, there are concerns about the status of minority faith and ethnic groups under the new regime. Syria is a rich tapestry of faith groups and ethnic groups, and we must ensure that Druze, Alawites, Christians, Kurds and other minority groups must be protected. The Minister’s ministerial colleague the Member of Parliament for Lincoln had conversations with civil society representatives yesterday. Can the Minister update us on which parties these talks were with? Can he also tell the House what assurances the Government are making to these minority groups?
Finally, I am sure that many Syrians will be delighted to return to their country, now that Assad is no longer in charge. On the issue of Syrian resettlement, the Foreign Secretary said that the issue was “premature”. Can the Minister expand on what his right honourable friend meant by that?
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, I welcome the Minister coming to this House to repeat the Statement on Syria. In the past two weeks the changes in Syria have been momentous, and even in the three days since the Statement was given in the other place a lot has happened. As my honourable friend Calum Miller said in the other place, the fall of the Assad regime is momentous for millions of Syrians who have suffered under his brutal rule. The al-Assad dynasty was a family of despots who used chemical weapons against their own people, so its fall is clearly welcome, but there is now potentially a period of great uncertainty and there are a lot of questions for Syria, for the Middle East as a region and for British foreign policy.
As the noble Earl pointed out, the previous Government and His Majesty’s current Government have not had diplomatic relations with Damascus for some time. What are His Majesty’s Government now thinking about beginning to at least have some conversations with Damascus, if not diplomatic relations? We are in a period of flux where it is entirely appropriate for the people of Syria to determine their own future, but there will be consequences for British foreign policy, as the Foreign Secretary said in his Statement, both for the situation in the Middle East and the potential flow of people out of Syria. Are there proposals for some behind-the-scenes conversations with people on the ground in Syria?
Also, what conversations are His Majesty’s Government having with our partners in Turkey, or Türkiye? Because clearly there is significant involvement of the Government of Türkiye in Syria with their concern about the Kurds. That raises a lot of questions about relations between Syria and the wider region that it would be important to understand. There are clearly short-term concerns about instability and minority rights, which we obviously need to stand behind, because although the groups that have toppled the Assad regime have so far said that they are going to look after the minorities, do His Majesty’s Government think that is the case and what support are they hoping to give to minorities in Syria?
There is also an immediate question about aid. Clearly, the £11 million that has just been given to Syria, announced by the Foreign Secretary on Monday, is welcome, but the Foreign Secretary said in his Statement that there are 17 million Syrians in humanitarian need. The quantum that has been given is £11 million; that is about 67 pence per person in need. It does not sound the most generous of offers. Given that we have seen cuts to ODA over recent years, could the Minister tell the House whether there is the opportunity for further funding to go to Syria? At the moment the aid seems to be de minimis.
In the medium to longer term the people of Syria will clearly want justice and it is vital that Assad and his closest allies face justice but, having claimed asylum in Russia, it is quite difficult to see how that can be brought about. Have His Majesty’s Government thought about ways in which those who have perpetrated the worst atrocities in Syria might be brought to justice? What support are His Majesty’s Government planning to offer to assist Syrians in rebuilding and revitalising their own institutions, ideally helping them pave the way to democracy? As I said earlier, this must obviously be done according to their own preferences, because what we clearly should not be doing at this time is saying that we have a blueprint for what people in Syria should be doing. It needs to be led by the Syrians but, as supporters of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, presumably His Majesty’s Government wish to support those in Syria who want to rebuild relations in an appropriate way.
Women, Peace and Security Bill [HL]
Earl of Courtown ExcerptsFriday 15th November 2024
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Women, Peace and Security Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Women, Peace and Security Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Women, Peace and Security Bill, and join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger on bringing forward this Private Member’s Bill. As Conservatives, we recognise that national security and prosperity hinge not only on a robust defence but on the empowerment and protection of those who bear the heaviest burdens in conflict: women and girls.
The aim of the Bill, as so ably explained by my noble friend, is to secure and promote the essential role of women in peace processes, humanitarian efforts and post-conflict reconstruction. That is a noble aim and, as we have heard, noble Lords on all sides of the House support its objectives.
While it is an open question whether primary legislation in UK law is the best way to pursue these goals—a question that we look forward to addressing and supporting during the passage of the Bill—we are wholeheartedly behind my noble friend’s Bill and the principles at its core. Indeed, I take this opportunity to ask the Minister what steps His Majesty’s Government are taking to ensure the role of women in these processes.
Today, the global stage presents us with challenges, as mentioned by many noble Lords, in various conflicts around the world that seem to grow in complexity. We witness persistent conflict, mass displacement and threats to fundamental freedoms. Many of the regions where these conflicts occur are precisely those where women are most oppressed and excluded. For this reason, I understand my noble friend’s reasons for bringing this Bill forward to the House. In an increasingly dangerous world, it is important to empower and protect those who suffer most in conflict scenarios. I support my noble friend’s Bill and look forward to the response of the Minister, particularly to my noble friends Lady Anelay and Lord Ahmad.
Volunteering Abroad
Earl of Courtown Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Just to reassure my noble friend, I will do that. In my first three months in post, I have visited seven African countries to ensure that we develop a very strong partnership that delivers on the sorts of things he highlighted. I certainly agree about the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award. Sadly, I reached only the bronze level; I failed on my orienteering skills. I suspect I would be more successful now.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
I thank the Minister for expanding on his orienteering skills. In all seriousness, this is an important area of soft power that can be used. Has the Minister considered the positive diplomatic impact of a volunteering scheme? Does he have any ideas on how this scheme might support good will towards the United Kingdom and maintain our strong international standing overseas?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for that question. The point I was trying to make to my noble friend Lord Boateng is that this is what our diplomatic engagement is about. I hesitate to use “soft power” because listening to other countries, developing a partnership model and understanding each other’s priorities are the most important message we can give. Certainly, I encourage volunteering and civil society action wherever I go, because the most important ingredient of a healthy democracy is an active civil society.
Taiwan
Earl of Courtown Excerpts(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Well, I think I understand the point of the noble and gallant Lord’s question. The fact is that Taiwan’s biggest trading partner is the People’s Republic. Trading across the globe with China is huge; it is its second biggest economy. It is also vital in terms of addressing those challenges that we face on climate. We therefore need to ensure that we have dialogue and co-operation. But we understand the other issues that the noble and gallant Lord has raised, which is why we committed to in opposition—and will deliver in government—a complete audit of our relationship with China as a bilateral and global actor to improve our ability to understand and respond to not only the opportunities but the challenges that China poses.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the importance of dialogue in this relationship. Does he also recognise that supporting Taiwan’s democratic self-governance is essential for peace and security in the region? Following on from the increased Chinese military war-games in the Taiwan Strait, can His Majesty’s Government confirm whether they have further plans for freedom of navigation exercises in the South China Sea?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think I have addressed these issues. The increased tensions are concerning and we are increasingly concerned about the consequences should peace and stability fail the in Taiwan Straits, including, as I mentioned, for global supply chains. It is incredibly important that we focus on ensuring that there is dialogue and not aggression, and these things need to be resolved by the two parties in proper dialogue and consultation. That has been the position of this Government and the Opposition as well as the previous Government, and we will maintain that position as we move forward.
Action Against Houthi Maritime Attacks
Earl of Courtown Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, the RAF operations have been widely publicised, and they have come from Cyprus. Are the Government absolutely satisfied that any necessary defence of our facilities in Cyprus is in hand and will continue to be in hand as long as we operate against the Houthis?
Israel and Gaza
Earl of Courtown Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I can add little to what was said in the Statement, but I of course express the fullest solidarity that we—I am sure I speak for all Members of this House—have with members of the families who have been caught up in this dreadful affair. I express that freely.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
We have only three and a half more minutes. Can people be as quick as they can with their questions?
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, after that fine prayer, I have just one question. While it is clear that the Hamas butchers should be hunted down for their revolting crimes against humanity and made to pay for them, and while we somehow have to get out those hostages who have not been executed in cold blood by Hamas in the meantime, does the Minister agree that minds should begin to turn, for the longer term, to revisiting the two-state process and combining it with the best features of the Oslo accords and the Abraham accords, into which great thought was put? In the future, they are the key to Israel’s sustainability, survivability and the stability of the whole region.
Arrangement of Business
Earl of Courtown Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True)
My Lords, if I may, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, sought to rise to ask whether a Motion for an humble Address is debatable. It is a debatable matter, but a First Reading is not a debatable matter, I am afraid. The point I would have made then is that I did not think the sense of the House was that we wished to have a debate on a matter where a Bill was about to come before your Lordships’ House in an expedited way, by agreement in the usual channels.
The Deputy Chief Whip will now make a statement, which I think it would be helpful for noble Lords to hear, on the way in which this legislation will be dealt with. It will be dealt with in a way that will give noble Lords the maximum latitude to make their opinions felt, including the laying of amendments before Second Reading. I hope that we can hear what the Deputy Chief Whip is going to suggest, after agreement in the usual channels, as to how we should deal with this matter. Your Lordships will have ample and normal opportunities to discuss these matters as the Bill proceeds.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal for his comments. I want to take this opportunity to briefly set out the approach to considering the Counsellors of State Bill, following its introduction today. Second Reading will take place next Monday, on 21 November. Noble Lords can now sign up to speak on the Government Whips’ Office website; the speakers’ list will close at 4 pm this Friday. Committee and all other remaining stages will be taken on Wednesday 23 November. Once the Bill is published later today, Members will be able to table amendments for Committee. The deadline for the Marshalled List will be 30 minutes after the conclusion of Second Reading on Monday 21 November. Any amendments should be tabled in the usual way with the Public Bill Office. The Government Whips’ Office and the Public Bill Office can offer further advice.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the King for his Message yesterday and for his recognition of public interest and concern in the matter raised by the Deputy Chief Whip. In view of the expeditious way in which the King has suggested a solution to the question that arises, can the noble Earl confirm that the arrangements for this Bill, here and in another place, will be conducted with such equal expeditiousness that the Bill can reach the statute book in good time to be of practical use to the monarch?
Business of the House
Earl of Courtown Excerpts(5 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Noakes
I cannot promise the noble Lord something extremely brief, as I am sure he is aware. To be clear, this is about ensuring that the Motion is framed in wholly honest terms.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the House, but there is a great deal of noise as Peers leave the Chamber and I ask them to be quiet.
Baroness Noakes
I thank my noble friend the Deputy Chief Whip for that, though I did not really mind talking over noble Lords leaving the Chamber.
The Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, refers to the 28 January resolution that focused on the desirability of achieving a deal and then the need for the timely passage of legislation for a deal that commanded the support of the other place. I hope it has never been in dispute that the Government wanted to achieve a deal with the EU. My right honourable friend the previous Prime Minister spent nearly three years wrestling with that and her failure to do it brought about the demise of her political career. The current Prime Minister has said that he wants a deal and is committed to achieving one. He has been clear about that and I hope nobody will challenge his integrity on it. This should not be an issue about dealing with a resolution of the House focused on the achievability of the deal. We should be clear about the motives of those who originally supported the Motion on 28 January this year and those who continue to put obstacles in the way of achieving a deal.
Taking no deal off the table, as this current exercise aims to do, simply weakens the Government’s hand in negotiating with the EU. There is no doubt about that. Ask anyone in the business world. Donald Trump, who might not be admired by all as a President, nevertheless had a highly successful business career, for which he is entitled to respect. He has been clear that no deal is an essential part of the negotiating armoury: nobody in business goes into negotiations with their hands tied behind their back or having given away their negotiating cards.
It is very clear that most, though not all, noble Lords who proclaim their opposition to no deal are in fact disputing the result of the referendum and are against Brexit in its entirety. I believe that they cynically use the difficulties of achieving a satisfactory deal with the EU—it certainly is difficult—as cover for their real aim, which is to defeat Brexit. The Liberal Democrats have been admirably honest about their intentions. While they have railed against exiting without a deal at regular intervals, we should be under no illusion that their real aim is to reverse the outcome of the 2016 referendum. Their EU Parliament election campaign earlier this year was explicit on this. Indeed, their MEPs proudly, if that is the correct term, wear those vulgar T-shirts with “Bollocks to Brexit” printed on them as a badge of honour—not an attractive advertisement for the UK at the opening of the European Parliament.
The position of the Labour Party is much less clear. It is not a united party on this issue, but its true colours have been emerging as another champion of remain. Whether they call it a confirmatory referendum or some other euphemism, they want to remain and are talking about campaigning for remain. There may well be a few honourable souls left in the Labour Party who respect the clear message from the referendum, particularly those in Labour seats where the leave vote was strong; they are likely to be the minority. I shall say nothing today about my noble friends on these Benches who share the views held on the Benches opposite. I regret that if they continue to hold their views, they will not support this Government in seeking a deal on the best possible terms. I hope that, despite their reservations on Brexit, they will see that the Motion before us puts the Government in an impossible position, and I hope to see them voting in our Lobbies again. I hope that they are not simply trying to undermine the results of the referendum. I will similarly say nothing about those on the Cross Benches who have been in similar opposition to the Government in their attempts to get the best possible deal on Brexit, because I hope that they too will see, if for no other reason, that this business Motion is no way for us to work as a successful revising Chamber.
Rejecting no deal is about first putting off the day of our exit again and then again. We have done it twice so far. How many more times? Of course, the ultimate objective for those who reject the referendum result is to end up eventually revoking Article 50. That has been the explicit aim of some who align themselves with this and some of those shadowy organisations outside Parliament—
Role of the Lord Speaker
Earl of Courtown Excerpts(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I think I do have a role here: that the House do now adjourn.
European Council
Earl of Courtown Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, it is time for the Cross Benches, and then we will come to the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
The Earl of Courtown
I apologise to the noble Baroness. We have had 20 minutes of Back-Bench debate on this and we will now move on to the next Statement.
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? The whole House is perfectly aware of his thoughts on this matter but, in this instance, we are moving on to the other Statement now.