The Ukraine Effect (European Affairs Committee Report)

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, I start my comments by identifying with the tribute and appreciation paid by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, to the noble Lord, Lord Levene of Portsoken. He has been a great public servant, and that is the best that can be said of any of us in your Lordships’ House. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, and his impressively experienced committee and welcome this report as a thoughtful and informed contribution to a crucial conversation about relations with our nearest neighbours in the context of the Russia-Ukraine war. However, as he and others have rightly said, the situation has moved on considerably since the completion of the report, and even in the past couple of days.

I am not sanguine about sanctions, the defence capacity of the EU and a geopolitical transition that is disadvantageous for the UK. Paragraph 86 of the report says that that one of the witnesses noted

“that sanctions are a coercive measure, and their primary aim is to change behaviour”.

In paragraph 104, the Foreign Secretary of the time, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, is noted as having suggested

“that the arrangements for cooperation between the UK, the EU and other allies on sanctions … have been effective in responding to the crisis in Ukraine”.

One measure of effectiveness is how well the UK and the EU have co-operated on developing a sanctions regime. There has been some progress, although in response to the acute crisis of a war it seems to go at a rather sluggish pace more suited to a time of peace. A different measure of effectiveness would be how far it has modified Russian behaviour. If the purpose was to bring the war to an end in Ukraine’s favour, it seems that sanctions have not been very effective, but they have deepened the global division between the G7 and our other allies and the growing community of BRICS and their allies. The global economic landscape has shifted dramatically in recent years. In 1992 the G7 accounted for some 45% of global GDP against the BRICS countries’ less than 17%. However, by 2023, the BRICS bloc accounted for 37% of global GDP, compared to the G7’s 29%. This is not a development likely to impact President Putin’s behaviour in ways that are helpful to us and Ukraine.

On the more immediate defence issues, the picture is perhaps even more troubling. As noted in paragraph 117, we can take some pride that the UK has been important in

“normalising the provision of certain weapons systems early on”,

pushing out

“the boundaries of what is possible”

and providing

“some leadership in allowing a debate to be had about particular weapons systems”.

While eventually and belatedly President Biden has permitted ATACMS to be used directly in Russian territory against Russian aggression, our German friends remain resistant to provide the Taurus missiles that could make a significant difference.

The report points out that the EU, with its population and resources, ought to have the potential to produce and sustain a substantial defence against Russian aggression. However, even after years of our US ally—and some of us in this House—warning of the imperative for Europe to shoulder the burden of its own defence, there is an almost universal recognition that the EU is not a sufficient defence pillar, as evidenced by the PESCO initiative, for example, being so slow to get up and running despite having been on the agenda for years.

In truth, our defence at this point remains dependent not on our EU relations but on NATO. Without an enthusiastically committed US pillar to NATO, we would not be able to sustain the resourcing for Ukraine and, as the report says, Europe is

“lagging behind Russia’s ongoing efforts to prepare and provide for the long war that is probably ahead of us”.

Concerns about the incoming Trump presidency and a likely

“dramatic change of US policy”

have resulted in many meetings and press column inches in Europe, but they do not yet seem to have galvanised the EU into sufficient production and action, and while the UK has taken the lead in some senses, recent reports about £0.5 billion of savings being demanded by the Treasury send the wrong signal to Russia and her allies. It all seems to show a lack of appreciation of the gravity of the situation we face, quite possibly for much of the lifetime of those participating in this debate. I ask the Minister to clarify for us as much as she can what the situation is with these reports of cuts.

I have not said anything about reconstruction because I cannot see how Governments, never mind the private sector, can be persuaded to espouse in practice the injunction in paragraph 192 of the report that:

“Reconstruction cannot wait until the war has finished”.


Many will take the view that it is unwise to spend resources on reconstruction that will be destroyed, rather than on the weapons needed to bring the war to a satisfactory end. In addition, as noted in paragraph 215, reconstruction is expected to be linked closely to Ukraine’s candidacy for EU membership, and it is difficult to see how this country is able to do much to facilitate this long-term ambition for Ukraine when we have so recently departed the EU ourselves and are not at the table. Perhaps even more significantly, our departure hardly makes us the best people to recommend and facilitate Ukraine’s entry into the EU.

In any case, as the report says, NATO is the critical actor in providing Ukraine with long-term security, not so much the EU, and that should perhaps be our focus from a security and indeed a foreign policy perspective. NATO membership is more likely to be the solution to the defence of Ukraine and will ultimately provide the context for its reconstruction, as the EU remains divided over aspects of its response to the conflict, not least the impact of the decisions of Hungary and Slovakia.

More widely, the EU’s problems in establishing a clear agreed geopolitical role, whether in response to the conflict in Israel, Gaza and the wider Middle East or relations with China, reflect additional divisions between EU member states compared to their response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. At this stage in the Russia-Ukraine war, one could have hoped for and expected a more impressive and impactful response from our relationship with the EU. I am disappointed that we still seem to await such a development and I look to the Minister to give us some encouragement that we can expect more in the upcoming year.

Foreign Affairs

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interests in the register, especially as executive chairman of the Changing Character of War Centre at Pembroke College, Oxford, and as founding chairman of the Concord Foundation, an independent peacebuilding organisation.

As others have commented, our world is spinning into increasing turmoil. It is not just the spreading violence and war; people across the globe believe that they can no longer trust the institutions they depended on for stability. They see widespread corruption and incompetence in their political, faith, intellectual, and even sporting and cultural elites. They see the galloping extension of disruptive technologies they do not understand, and they believe that their leaders neither understand them nor know how to control them. They fear the existential threats of climate catastrophe and global, perhaps even nuclear, war. Addressing these complex issues meaningfully in five minutes is not possible, so I will focus on just three questions for the Foreign Secretary.

First, on the Russia-Ukraine war, I am rather proud of the role our country has played to date in the war effort, going back long before the February 2022 invasion. While our military, intelligence and political contributions have been—and continue to be—very significant, we need to realise that we have a real problem of replacement of our stocks of weapons and ammunition, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, has pointed out. However, whatever the outcome of the war, and we do not know what it will be yet, there will come a stage—I fully recognise that now is not the time—for negotiations that bring it all to a political conclusion. Do His Majesty’s Government agree that, in the meantime, it is important to ensure that there are some protected channels of communication with Russia, which can be of use when the time comes?

Secondly, on Israel-Gaza, we all agree that the Hamas attacks of 7 October were utterly appalling and unforgivable, but that the problems between Israel and the Palestinians did not start in 2023. The military actions taken by Israel after the immediate response are not defending Israel but harming Israel. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, is a wonderful Minister and representative of our country at home and abroad, but I disagree with any suggestion that the international community is united in support of Israel. On the contrary, the actions of the IDF, with the deaths of thousands on thousands of women, children and babies, sick people in hospitals and elderly people, starving and terrified as they are caged in and unable to escape the horrors, have undermined the moral standing of Israel. Outside western Europe and North America, the perspective is completely different from what it is here. Indeed, our own standing as a country is being affected.

In any situation of violent political conflict—I am fairly familiar with them—however tempting it may be to back one side or the other, when you do that, you simply become part of the conflict. Sometimes there is absolutely nothing else that you can do, and you have to back one side, but the consequence is a very limited role in brokering peace. If and when this war ends, there will need to be someone to ensure the security of Gaza and, despite what the Israeli Prime Minister says, that is not a role that can be undertaken by Israel. I rather doubt that our own country or our US ally can undertake it either. Are His Majesty’s Government taking seriously, as I believe they should, the offer from President Erdoğan of Turkey for his country to play a significant role, with others, in providing some security to all sides in that context?

Finally, I turn to Tunisia, a country that triggered the so-called Arab spring, which gave us such hope for democracy in the MENA region. How are His Majesty’s Government responding to the suspension of democratic structures and the imprisonment by current President Saied of many elected representatives, including the former assembly speaker, Sheikh Rached Ghannouchi, who had been working against the odds to build a pluralist and Muslim democracy? I emphasise “Muslim” democracy, not Islamist. What are His Majesty’s Government doing to press the President of Tunisia to release the democratic politicians of all parties and allow them to build a new pluralist and democratic Tunisia, which can give hope again to all of us for democracy in that region?

Israel/Gaza

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, I start by declaring my interests in the register, particularly as executive chairman and director of the Changing Character of War Centre at Pembroke College, Oxford.

It is very difficult to approach this debate calmly. One might argue that there is no reason to be calm. Horrible, frightening things have been happening in Israel and Gaza and it is natural to rage and wish for vengeance and to identify more with one side of the conflict than the other. Like other noble Lords, I condemn without reservation the horrible terrorism of Hamas. I appreciate how, for Jewish people, the Hamas atrocity means more than even the awful killing that has just taken place, because it reflects memories of the Holocaust and historic anti-Semitic pogroms.

I also identify very strongly with my Christian co-religionists, who hoped to be safe when they sheltered in the third oldest Christian church in the world but found no sanctuary there. Dozens of them were killed by an IDF missile. Are those Christians simply to be regarded as collateral damage? Are they not human beings too? Surely ordinary people, old and young, living in their own place, whether in Israel or Gaza, should be able to enjoy peace, freedom and security, be they Jewish Israelis, Palestinian Muslims or Christians. Communities should not be imprisoned behind fences, starved of food, medicines and water, and subject to collective punishment. This is not only wrong but not a defence of Israel and the values of Israel.

One of the lessons of recent times is that armies with massive military capability less often win wars than they did in the past, whether in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, or Syria. Hamas more closely resembles the Taliban than al-Qaeda or ISIS because it is a governing authority that has run a defined territory for some years. That should give us pause for thought. Some 20 years after US troops entered Kabul, the Taliban were back in charge of Afghanistan and getting the full support of China. Many billions of US dollars were spent in Afghanistan, many lives were lost on all sides and the standing of America was severely damaged in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Israel is in an even more difficult situation—a small country in a dangerous neighbourhood embarking on a ground invasion of Gaza that will not only result in the deaths of many ordinary Palestinian people and Israeli soldiers but will likely open up a war on other fronts, notably in the north with Hezbollah, backed by Iran.

One of the first IDF soldiers to die was Ido, the son-in-law of my old friends, Robi and Charlotte Friedman. He left a young wife, Noga, and three young children. The proposed ground offensive will be a death mission for many hundreds or perhaps thousands of other young Israeli soldiers, and its aims are unachievable. Even if every Hamas operative in Gaza was killed, it would not address the membership of Hamas and other extremist groups in the West Bank, Lebanon and Jordan. Indeed, it is already acting as a recruiting sergeant for extremist groups across the world, including—as colleagues have noted—in this country, where we are seeing increasing anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.

Is there a considered Israeli plan? Has there been serious consideration of the consequences? The US military does not think so. As the noble Lord, Lord Reid, said, going in to deal with well-armed terrorists occupying 300 miles of tunnels is one thing; how to get out again is another. Even before the ground offensive starts, the United States and the United Kingdom are finding that European allies are asking questions about the strategy and calling on Israel to hold back, not only to protect the hostages and provide humanitarian aid, but to give time for reflection about the wisdom of such an attack.

I have been warning for years in your Lordships’ House that we are sliding into a third global conflict, and this development in Israel and Gaza is not hermetically sealed from the Russia-Ukraine war, where Iran also plays a background role. The causes and consequences of this conflict are not just local; they are international.

While I was, like everyone else, shocked by the savagery of the Hamas attack and disturbed by the indiscriminate nature of the IDF bombing, I was not surprised. I have visited Israel frequently over many years, and in recent times I could see how the ill treatment of Palestinians was creating a powder keg. Do we really think that there is no relationship at all between the replacement in 2022 of the most broad-based Government in the history of Israel with the most hard-line Government ever and the worst terrorist attack in the history of the State of Israel the following year? Understanding consequences is absolutely not justifying them, but not only have we seen hundreds of thousands of Israelis coming out week after week, month after month, to protest against the Netanyahu/Smotrich/Ben-Gvir coalition, but we know that now more than 80% of Israelis themselves blame that Government for their contribution to the current catastrophe.

That is why I was somewhat dismayed that our Prime Minister and President Biden initially appeared, while rightly responding with support for Israeli people in the face of the Hamas atrocity, to offer support to Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu whatever he decided to do. They may well have said different things in private and may well have exerted much-needed pressure, but that is not how it looked in public. The demeanour of the two foreign secretaries, Blinken and Cleverly, seemed to find a much more balanced and wiser narrative and one that has made some progress in recent days. I hope from what he said earlier today that we will continue to hear that more thoughtful narrative reflected in the interventions of the Minister we are fortunate to have in this place, not only today but as we move forward.

Moving forward must mean finding a political settlement. There is no military solution and no political solution that does not take account of the needs of Palestinians. I have been involved with this region for many years and no proposal that fails to take account of the political need of the Palestinians will work. I ask His Majesty’s Government to commit themselves in this very difficult circumstance to work for peace. Those who work for peace are often attacked by both sides, but working for peace is the only way to provide a future for our children and grandchildren.

Western Balkans: Dayton Peace Agreement

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, during a meeting earlier this year in Sarajevo, I stood with some colleagues at the spot where the Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated, triggering a series of events that resulted in the First World War. It was a moving and troubling reminder of how things can deteriorate quickly and catastrophically. I remember being there in the city many years previously, in 2002—actually, at an event organised by the OSCE, which we were talking about just now, and the Human Rights Committee of the BiH Parliament in Sarajevo.

At that time, my old, much-missed friend Paddy Ashdown was the governor. He was there from 2002 to 2006 and, when he left and came back to London, he gave an important lecture later in 2006 at the LSE. He was able to give a remarkable list of achievements during those years of governorship. It is worth reflecting for a few minutes in this important debate, which we owe to the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, that progress was possible but did not happen without important contributions.

The first of those, of course, was the Dayton agreement itself. I have to say that I have always had some reservations about the process by which it came into being and, indeed, some of the content, but the fact that an agreement is there is important. No agreement or process is perfect, but having an agreement makes it easier to make progress than moving from a context of violent political conflict, and it is there to be worked with, so at least there is something on which to base progress.

The second lesson that I think emerged in listening to him speak was the vital element of leadership. Paddy was a leader. Some might argue, and some in the region argued at the time, that he was a bit authoritarian as a leader. In fact, I remember having a conversation with him when I was criticising another leader and said that he was a control freak, and Paddy said, “Well, what’s wrong with that?”

Of course, in truth, you must be careful about the form of your leadership. However, no progress is possible in such contexts without real leadership, courageous leadership and leadership that will undoubtedly be criticised by some who do not want to see it happening. One of the great dangers of the current crisis-ridden agenda—Russia-Ukraine, Israel-Gaza, China-Taiwan and so much more—is that it is a challenge for the western Balkans to retain European attention, never mind European leadership. It is crucial that we do not allow other pressures to obscure our view of what is happening in the western Balkans and that there is real leadership from outside, as well as hoping for leadership from inside.

Earlier today, a colleague from the region explained to me how there was now profound frustration that the promises of EU membership seemed continually to slip into the future, to the point where many there have no sense that it is ever going to come around. Each time the promise is made of process, it makes people more angry and more frustrated, and so some are turning to Russia and China. The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, outlined very clearly with her particular and personal knowledge of the situation how these many conflicts in the area are re-emerging in a way that is extremely dangerous. She spoke of the western approach being one of baseless optimism that no one wants to return to violent conflict. I am sure that she is right to be concerned about that.

Sadly, however, for some, it may be even more like another comment that Paddy made in that lecture. He recalled going to see the then British Foreign Secretary when the Bosnian war was at its height, in about 1993, and pleading for the intervention which was not to come for nearly two more years and after countless tens of thousands more deaths. His response was, “But they’ve always been like this, Paddy. The best thing to do is build a firebreak around the region and let it burn itself out”. Whatever might be said privately like that, that is no stance for a Government of this country to take.

Whatever the reason, the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, is certainly right to say that simply ignoring the problem and hoping for the best is not enough. Can the Minister not only assure us that the re-emergence of conflict in the western Balkans is something that concerns His Majesty’s Government but let us know what His Majesty’s Government are doing in collaboration with our European colleagues? We certainly cannot do it without collaboration but what is being done with them to pay attention to the deterioration and to do what we can to arrest it?

Ukraine and Neighbouring Countries: ODA

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a key point and although I cannot guarantee that the figures he cited are correct—I will have to put that on the record after this discussion to be sure that I get it right—I believe those are the figures I was presented with this morning. I think what he said is correct in terms of numbers, but he is certainly correct about the narrative. Russia is the only cause of the food security crisis that has resulted from this conflict. There is no other possible answer. The Russians have targeted food reserves—including yesterday when a very large grain store was destroyed, we believe deliberately —as part of an effort to throw the world, particularly its poorest countries, into turmoil. This is a very clear strategy on the part of President Putin and the noble Lord is absolutely right to call him out on it, as do the UK Government.

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, can I return the Minister to the matter of funding, which was the original Question? How far is the funding going to Ukraine, which I entirely support, being taken from the budget for poorer countries, and how much is it additional to the funds we would normally give? As has been pointed out by a number of questioners, the secondary consequences for poorer countries are catastrophic. Can we have an assurance that the funding to Ukraine is additional, or is it being taken away from others in desperate need?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

The financial humanitarian support that is being provided comes from our ODA budget, but I do not believe that we are facing the choice the noble Lord has presented to the House. Effective action on this conflict in Ukraine has massive implications for some of the countries the noble Lord alluded to, which are really on the front line when it comes to dealing with food insecurity and so many other issues. Dealing with this issue effectively has massive humanitarian impacts way beyond the borders of Ukraine.

Zimbabwe: Elections

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

Like the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, I thank and congratulate my noble friend Lord Oates on not only obtaining this debate but flying the flag for a better Zimbabwe. He does so not only in the Chamber but in the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Zimbabwe.

My first engagement with the name “Zimbabwe” was in Liverpool in 1973, when I was attending an ecumenical religious event. I came away sporting a “Free Zimbabwe” badge, and for an idealistic young outsider like me the situation seemed a relatively simple story of good guys and bad guys. For us as liberals, Ian Smith and his regime were clearly the bad guys, so those who replaced them were the good guys—until it became clear when they took over that they were not. It was increasingly apparent that Robert Mugabe and his party were not just “not the good guys” but really rather bad guys, and so Morgan Tsvangirai and his people must be the good guys. But when they ran into difficulties in ousting Mugabe, relations within the party deteriorated and there was an unpleasant split, which was obviously going to make it more difficult to defeat Mugabe—divided oppositions are always at a disadvantage.

In 2006, I was asked to meet in South Africa leading figures in the two MDC groups that were led by Arthur Mutambara and Morgan Tsvangirai. That is when it became clear to me that it was not a simple picture at all, for although I was able to negotiate an agreement between the two MDC factions on how they would manage their relationship in the future, when they took it back to Morgan, he rejected it. He went on to become Prime Minister but that did not resolve relationships within the country. If it had, we would not be having this debate this afternoon. I now take the view that it is generally unwise in the context of a political division in another country to address the problem as a simple matter of bad guys who should be punished and good guys who should be assisted. When a full-scale war breaks out, a new dynamic emerges and one is often forced to take sides but, in the context of political divisions, it is often better to address the problem of the disturbed relationship between the two or more partisan groups rather than simply back one side against the other.

Britain’s policy approach towards Zimbabwe has largely been driven for many years by sanctions whose purpose, laudable enough, has been to change behaviour away from all the kinds of gross abuses so clearly and ably set out in his speech by my noble friend Lord Oates. There have been and currently are gross abuses, with the illegal undermining of the opposition through abductions, torture and indeed murder, abuse of the legal system and corruption of the political system—not just at a lower level but, as my noble friend pointed out with his quotations, even from the vice-president—and dehumanisation and incitement at the highest level.

After these very many years I ask myself, as I ask the Minister, what is the purpose of our sanctions now? If all these abuses which have been described are continuing, do Her Majesty’s Government believe that the sanctions are going to resolve the problems we are discussing? I think not. Do they have a downside? Yes, they do. They portray Britain as an old colonial power that, decades on, remains insistent on sanctions that have not worked to change things for the better but which are seen, rightly or wrongly, by many—not only among supporters of the Zimbabwean Government—as contributing to the disastrous state of the Zimbabwean economy. At the same time it is clear that Russia, and even more especially China, have been engaging with countries in sub-Saharan Africa, such as Zimbabwe, and picking up support from them with no questions asked.

Partly as a result of that, and because of its own experience of sanctions, last month at the United Nations General Assembly we saw Zimbabwe refusing to back western sanctions against President Putin’s Russia, saying that it was opposed to them because they make complex situations worse. Instead of globalisation having broadened and deepened relationships across the world, we are now splitting into those who support Russia and China, which are the majority of states in the UN, versus those who support the United States and Europe, who may control the larger part of the global economy, at least for the present, but not necessarily the majority of the people or of the UN member states.

It seems that this requires post-Brexit Britain to review its approach to policy with Zimbabwe and other countries with which we have difficult historic relationships. In the context of Zimbabwe in particular, I would be grateful if the Minister and his colleagues would begin to review the effectiveness and value of sanctions and see whether there are other, better ways of bringing about the changes we all want to see. I appreciate that this would be a major shift of policy, and timing is of course a sensitive question too in all these things. So in addition, perhaps instead of excluding Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth we should be inviting it back, at least as a guest initially, perhaps to a CHOGM meeting, in the hope that rebuilding relationships within the Commonwealth might bring some positive peer pressure to bear and perhaps a better outcome than the sanctions, which to date have not achieved what we want.

Environment Bill

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th July 2021 Lords Chamber

Amendment 286 withdrawn.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 287. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 287

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Clauses 140 and 141 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

That concludes the Committee’s proceedings on the Bill. The House will now resume.

House resumed.

Environment Bill

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Lords Chamber

I think I have reached the end of the amendments, so I will end by simply saying, as I have before, that I hope this reassures all noble Lords, and I ask them to withdraw or not press their amendments.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. I call the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.

[Lord Lucas (Con) [V]]

My Lords, may I press the Minister a bit further on the local nature of pollution, particularly air and water? To pick another example, phosphate in rivers can be a problem, but in the southern Hampshire rivers it is a particular problem because of the sensitivity of the estuarine ecologies to excess phosphate, whereas it might not be such a problem in another ecology. In that circumstance, it becomes crucial to know where the phosphate is coming from; how much comes from agriculture and sewage; which particular bits of land it comes off; and what practices are available to reduce it and are effective in reducing it in those circumstances. That needs a local level of focus and research, and I did not hear anything in his answer—and indeed there was a good deal to worry about in what the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said—which gave me a clue about where that evidence can come from.

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 2: Environmental targets: particulate matter

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 20. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 20

Moved by

Environment Bill

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 21st June 2021 Lords Chamber

Amendment 3 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 4. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 4

Moved by

British Council

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My noble and learned friend again draws attention to the proposed closure of certain offices. I assure him that we are looking at and working through the implications for the services within each country but, equally, ensuring that we can plug the gap through an innovator model, including a hub-and-spoke model for a particular country, or through technology enablement.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of the APPG on Modern Languages. This is supported by the British Council, which last year used £30 million of its income from English language schools to supplement its grant in aid. Covid has wiped out this commercial income. Between five and 20 country programmes are at risk for the sake of £10 million, including the Five Eyes countries, risking trade and cultural benefits, and Afghanistan, which could see the end of valuable work with women and girls that would be hard to digitalise. How is this compatible with global Britain?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

First, I hope that the noble Baroness passed her exam—as I am sure that she did, based on her very able and notable contributions in your Lordships’ House. On supporting the British Council, I share what she outlined: the importance of the relationships that the British Council has, and the nature of our partnerships with key universities. She mentioned the University of Leicester. I have already alluded to the scholarship programmes, in addition to the work that we do with the British Council, which underline our commitment to education.

Just for clarity, I mentioned the £609 million over the past year that we have secured to ensure the British Council’s future. We have provided £26 million of emergency funding and loan provision facilities to the British Council of another £145 million, and we are currently finalising another £100 million loan facility. So far, the British Council has, I believe, drawn down £50-odd million of that loan facility. Overall, in addition to those loans, we are providing £189 million of grant in aid funding to the council for 2021-22, of which £150 million is ODA.

I hope that that gives a degree of reassurance—although not to the total satisfaction of all noble Lords, I am sure—that we are committed to the British Council. We support it, notwithstanding challenging times and notwithstanding the pandemic. We have stood by the British Council and will continue to do so.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice)]

I am grateful to the Minister and Members that, through their being concise, all supplementary questions, of which there were nine, were able to be asked and answered.