Hong Kong National Security Legislation

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for their support for my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary’s Statement. As my right honourable friend has said previously, we delivered on what we hoped we would not have to deliver, as a consequence of the decision taken to impose this new law on the people of Hong Kong. As both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness acknowledged, this is a breach, and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have both been clear, during Prime Minister’s Questions and the Statement yesterday in the other place, that this does represent a breach of the “one country, two systems” agreement, which has been signed. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, reminded us, it has status because it has been deposited within the context and the confines of the United Nations. Moreover, it is also a breach of China’s own Basic Law for Hong Kong, as it contravenes the scope of Article 23.

I turn now to some of the specific questions, points and observations made by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. I say first to the noble Lord, Lord Collins —I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, agrees with this, as do we all—that China has an important role to play in our current international system and in the context of the United Nations. Further, as I have acknowledged from this Dispatch Box, it is also playing an important role in meeting the challenge of the Covid-19 pandemic. It has assisted many countries in procuring, for example, ventilators and PPE equipment. We acknowledge that, and I know that that view is shared by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, alluded to the importance of addressing climate change. China will be hosting an important conference next year, as will we at COP 26. It is important that we work together, because while the focus of the world has rightly been on the Covid-19 pandemic, one should not forget for a moment the challenges posed by climate change. Addressing these issues without China’s direct engagement will not result in the success from a global perspective that we all seek. However, I repeat what I have said previously: we are clear-eyed in our Statement, and regarding our relationship with China. China is a key partner for us in many areas. However, as this issue, on which we disagree very strongly, has illustrated, we carry a special responsibility when it comes to Hong Kong, as yesterday’s announcement again confirmed.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked who will be eligible under the announcement that has been made. As I mentioned in your Lordships’ House a few days ago, we estimate that some 2.9 million people will be eligible. That includes those who currently have BNO status, those who would qualify for BNO status if they applied for it and, of course, their dependants. That will be applied universally.

The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked about other young people. Looking at the media reports and current reporting, it was deeply concerning that only yesterday, as soon as the law came into effect, a number of individuals were detained under its provisions. We have already relayed these concerns: yesterday the Chinese ambassador to the UK was summoned to the Foreign Office and met the PUS, and we asked specifically about China’s intent in terms of the implementation of the new law, particularly under certain key sections. We will continue to keep that very closely monitored and under review. Of course, if people seek to apply for asylum in the United Kingdom, their applications will continue to be looked at on their merits.

I speak as a Minister but also in a role which both noble Lords know that I take very seriously—that of a human rights Minister. In our country’s history we have long been supportive of those who have spoken out against oppression around the world. That should be the case today—and I am proud to say that it is—and it should be the case in the future as well.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, both touched on the important issue of the Magnitsky global human rights regime and sanctions regime. I wish I could provide a specific answer to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, but I reassure him once again that we are looking to introduce the new regime very shortly. There are procedures and timings to go through but, as I have said to the House, it will certainly be before the Summer Recess and, as a sanctions Minister, I have been closely involved in progress in this respect. I pay tribute to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, who I know has taken a very personal interest in this particular issue and is seeking to bring it forward at the earliest opportunity.

The noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked about work within the UN. As a human rights Minister, I was directly involved in working with the 27 countries, including the United Kingdom, which signed and supported the statement that our ambassador delivered at the UN Human Rights Council. It covered—as the noble Baroness rightly acknowledged—not only the situation in Hong Kong but the appalling situation suffered in particular by the Uighurs in Xinjiang. We will continue to raise that issue with partners.

The noble Baroness asked about key partners. I have just come from a virtual meeting of the UN Security Council, which looked specifically at the importance of peace and securing peace in the context of the Covid crisis. The meeting was chaired by our German partners, and I was pleased to attend on behalf of the United Kingdom. We continue to work with our European partners, as well as others, in support of human rights, the rule of law, standing up for obligations and media freedom—again, a point mentioned by noble Lords.

The noble Baroness rightly mentioned her concerns about working through the context of the Commonwealth and other alliances. We continue to do so and need to do more; I fully acknowledge that. We need to make a very strong case on the premise of human rights and continue to make the case for upholding and strengthening the international rules-based system.

Coming back to my original point about the relationship with China today, China has, and is playing, an important role on the world stage. It also has international obligations on the world stage. We will continue to remind China of those obligations and to work together where our interests are aligned positively, in areas such as Covid-19 and climate change. However, this will not prevent us raising our deep concerns about the human rights situation in mainland China and, of course, the recent announcement made by the Chinese authorities on the new law for Hong Kong.

We therefore again appeal to the Chinese authorities to reconsider their approach, but in the interim we have now embarked on a particular route, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will be coming forward with further details of the announcements and operation of the new scheme. I am sure both noble Lords have seen the details of what we have announced thus far, and that will ultimately lead to a pathway to citizenship.

The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, also asked about British judges. That is an important point because, under this law, the appointment of those judges has switched. It has gone from the Chief Justice to the Chief Executive. We believe that that upholds neither the principles of China’s basic Hong Kong law nor the spirit and details of the agreements that we have signed, including the joint declaration. That is therefore a worrying development; we will look at it closely because other announcements have been made as part of it, including on setting up local committees to look at the enforcement of the law. Again, we believe that that goes directly against both elements of the joint agreement and China’s basic law for Hong Kong.

I assure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that we will continue to work actively on the world stage. They asked about the UN rapporteur. In that regard, let me assure them that my right honourable friend has very much led from the front on this issue. I pay tribute to his efforts, particularly at the G7. As I said, we have worked closely on securing support with 26 other countries that, like us, are on the Human Rights Council. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said, if we need to explore further diplomatic routes, we will continue to do so.

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

We now come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.

China

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that I am cognisant of his continued interest in this respect. To quote the Prime Minister: “Watch this space.”

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

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.

Food and Drink: Waste Prevention

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park [V]]

The noble Lord is absolutely right to identify those as useful alternatives. There are big markets for anaerobic digestion and animal feed, so there is no reason why the repurposing of spoiled beer cannot be managed on an industrial scale. Clearly, this took us by storm almost overnight and is a problem we have not had to deal with in the past. I will absolutely take his suggestion back to my department and the Treasury, which ultimately makes these decisions, and ensure that it is properly looked at.

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

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, we got through only six supplementary questions on that Question, so I ask all noble Lords and Ministers to be as brief as possible. They can still be relevant and cogent.

Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) (Amendment) Regulations 2020

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, to his position. Having been in another place for the last seven years, he cannot be held to account for anything that has gone wrong. But I am surprised that there appear to be no value for money reports on the one project that has come forward to demonstrate that these regulations have been successful. That appears rather lacking, or certainly not visible. I trust that there is one, and that it could be made more publicly available.

The consultation and debate around the 2013 regulations seem to concentrate an awful lot on the powers and the potential for Ofwat to refer disputes over price determinations to the Competition and Markets Authority. The Minister did not mention any such referrals—have there been any? That appeared a key facet of the argument for bringing in these regulations. My biggest concern is whether they are doing the job they are meant to be doing.

The Palace of Westminster is a good example of a building underneath which sits a sewerage system that is defunct, not fit for purpose and extraordinarily expensive to put right. One could take London, Manchester and many other big cities, particularly those that expanded rapidly in the Victorian era, underneath which we have sewerage systems not fit for purpose. Yet no proposals at all have come forward for projects impacting this critical issue. That is not a reason to reject the Minister’s proposals, but it seems to me that it is not succeeding in terms of those major projects. The finance is not coming forward, so a rethink about where it will come from is a top priority. Does the Minister not agree with me, that he should tease this out from officials, from industry and from wherever else he is capable of doing so?

Every time it floods, one sees how the seepage of the system implodes into devastation for communities. Old systems, built 100 or 150 years ago, were added to by new developments—major tower blocks and new estates—all over the country. These were tacked on because nobody at any level, not least in local government, was at all concerned about what was underground and could not be seen—until it flooded and until the sewage, rainwater and surface water combined, causing devastating damage. This has to be a top priority.

These regulations relate to major projects—for example, in Manchester and London, where underground work will be extensive—and to more modest projects in towns or villages, where expansion has taken place. In some places, the underground sewerage systems are not fit for purpose but more consumers have been tapped into them, often willy-nilly. I hope that, in responding, the Minister can say a word about his wider vision of his remit, perhaps going beyond this measure. On that basis, I have no objection to his proposal.

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

I call the next speaker on the list, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. There is a problem with the noble Baroness unmuting her microphone. I am afraid that we are not hearing her, so we will have to move on to the next speaker on the list. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. We cannot hear her either, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. We are unable to hear her either.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

I am here. Can noble Lords hear me?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Please continue.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]]

Thank you. My Lords, I too am grateful to the Minister for his extensive introduction to this statutory instrument. It is a great pity that we have not been able to hear from the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Altmann.

I feel certain that in 2013, when this instrument was first introduced and approved, it was envisaged that all relevant infrastructure projects would have been completed by the time we reached the sunset clause date. However, as we all know, an awful lot has gone on in the intervening years and infrastructure projects are not the fastest to be delivered.

Like my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, I would like to know why the sunset clause was introduced in the first place. As the Minister said, the SI introduced in 2013 was due to expire after seven years, on 27 June this year, with a five-year review period. It was to operate across the English/Welsh border, with customers in Wales being provided for by an English undertaker. I accept entirely that the devolved Administrations are able to deal with their own water infrastructure projects, but that was not always the case. There are large reservoirs in Wales—Lake Vyrnwy for one—which provide water to English authorities, and I know that Birmingham is grateful to Wales for providing its water.

In 2013, large and complex water projects were overseen by Ofwat, and that will be the case be in the future. I note that in future there will be no sunset clause, and I ask the Minister whether that is wise. As others have said, during the period since 2013, only one large and complex high-risk water or sewerage infrastructure project has been delivered—the Thames Tideway Tunnel project, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—and this has not been without its problems.

As the Minister stated, during the five-year review in 2018, eight stakeholders were consulted and five responded: Ofwat, Thames Water, Bazalgette Tunnel Limited, BTL investors and the Consumer Council for Water. As a result of their positive responses, Defra decided to extend the 2013 regulations. The five-year review found that the legislation was effective and should continue. The protection of the capital investment of the undertakers has been seen to be effective and has reduced risk and costs, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.

The March 2020 consultation again included Ofwat, Thomas Water, BTL and the Consumer Council for Water, and, in addition, Water UK, the Environment Agency and the Drinking Water Inspectorate, plus sewerage and water companies informed via Water UK. This time, four responded: Ofwat, the Environment Agency, Thames Water and Affinity Water.

Future decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis. I am grateful to the Minister for listing the locations of the four major schemes likely to be considered in the coming years under this SI. That is extremely helpful, but it would also be helpful to know the timeframe for each scheme. Is he able to give us that information?

Water conservation is extremely important and reducing leakages is key to it. Like the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I am not sure that a 50% target for leakages is sufficiently ambitious. Likewise, I am unclear whether water meters help to save water. I am not convinced that the one I have does that for me. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that in future schemes rainwater run-off should be separated from sewerage and that better use should be made of this valuable resource. Avoiding some of the unpleasant aspects of the horrendous flooding that many areas have experienced is absolutely key.

Given that the last five-year review took place in 2018, when will the next review be? Will it be in 2023 or will it be five years from today’s date? Given that the SI consists of two lines, I congratulate the Minister and all speakers on their comments in this debate—I have been impressed by the level of detail. I am happy to support the removal of the sunset clause and to support this SI. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these amended regulations, and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken.

As the Minister said, this is a fairly straightforward change, removing the sunset clause from the original regulations agreed in 2013. We should welcome the approach taken back then, as it seems a model of good government, and the inclusion of the sunset clause has given us the opportunity to debate the issues today. At the time, it was an innovative approach to funding large infrastructure projects. It provided for a timely review and an end date, which would force us to consider whether the approach was working. That is exactly what we are doing today, and we should not take this responsibility lightly. I agree with noble Lords who queried whether a further sunset clause might be appropriate. I shall be interested to hear the answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, about whether there will be further reviews. We do not want the response to this to be open-ended when the sunset clause comes to an end.

Clearly, the fact that other funding options were considered at the time is an indication that the Government saw this as an experimental approach which might not be successful. However, the one model that we have before us today—the Thames Tideway Tunnel project—seems to have made a success of the powers enabled by the regulations. As noble Lords have said, this is a huge and impressive engineering project. It has generated thousands of jobs and is bringing significant environmental benefits by protecting the Thames from sewage overflows. Like many noble Lords, I have had a chance to visit the construction site along the Thames and have been hugely impressed by it. I am very pleased to report that it appears to be on target for completion by 2024 and largely on budget.

In this case, the creation of an infrastructure provider separate from Thames Water, which was allocated to Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd after a competitive process, seems to have worked well. Of course, there continue to be risks with both the funding and timescale. Can the Minister explain what continued monitoring and regulation of the project will be in place to ensure that customers will be protected from footing the bill if the private funding falls short in future? He will be all too aware that the privatised water industry does not have a good record of putting customers’ interests first. Recently, we have seen customers left without water for days and trillions of litres of water lost through leakages, while those at the very top have been rewarding themselves with huge bonuses. It remains important that we have robust oversight of multi-million-pound projects such as this.

In addition, the post-implementation review, which took place in 2018, mainly received responses from stakeholders with a financial interest in the project. Not surprisingly, they said that everything was going really well. However, as noble Lords have pointed out, the Consumer Council for Water’s response was more circumspect. It said that the arrangements for

“the handling of customer complaints and queries presented greater challenges … a significant amount of proactive communications was required to educate and inform customers … This activity … was not originally accurately priced”.

Meanwhile, Ofwat reported that the “initial delivery” of the regulatory

“framework was significantly more complex and time consuming than originally anticipated”.

What steps have now been put in place to ensure that these concerns are addressed and not replicated in future projects that would operate under these regulations?

Finally, the removal of the sunset clause opens the door to other complex water infrastructure projects to be funded via this route. So far, it has applied only to Thames tideway, but the Explanatory Notes make reference to a number of new high-risk infrastructure projects that might benefit from these regulations in future. I am grateful to the Minister for his outlining the four projects being considered under that reference. How will the Government ensure that this funding model is appropriate for each of those four new projects? How will they ensure that lessons are learned from the Thames tideway experience so that a more responsive and accountable system of oversight and delivery is applied in future?

I look forward to the Minister’s response to my noble friend Lord Adonis’s question on whether a future national natural water network is being considered. That certainly seems a hugely sensible option for a country that suffers both flooding and drought. I also agree very much with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, about separating rainwater from sewerage. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister could address that point. Other than that, I welcome the proposals and look forward to his response.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Unfortunately, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, ran into a technical problem earlier. I think that we have time so I would like to see whether we can bring her in now.

Hong Kong: Human Rights

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

My Lords, this is patently a very serious moment, both for the people of Hong Kong and of course more widely for many people and countries throughout the world. I completely support Her Majesty’s Government in the statements they have made, as it is of the utmost importance that democracy and human rights are upheld in Hong Kong. This has to be achieved with as many other countries as possible around the world.

I want to raise two important events that are coming up where China has a crucial role. I hope the Chinese Government recognise that that role and influence worldwide will be tarnished if matters are not resolved satisfactorily in Hong Kong. The Convention on Biological Diversity, due to be held in Kunming later this year—although I am not sure whether it will go ahead on time—is somewhere where the great strides forward in protecting and enhancing biodiversity in China could be highlighted and showcased. They have created vast new wetlands and offered enhanced protection to wildlife in the country, which is to be applauded. The COP in 2021 in Glasgow is another opportunity to show China that it is a key player in the future of our planet. What is Her Majesty’s Government’s view of the prospects for those two events at the moment?

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

I call the noble Lord, Lord Luce. The noble Lord is not responding. I therefore call the noble Lord, Lord Rennard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goudie]

Okay. Can I continue or not?

[The Deputy Speaker]

I call the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer.

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

My Lords, I have only three points to make. First, the UK has a moral and political responsibility for the future of Hong Kong. Secondly, I warmly welcome the Government’s initiative to offer the possibility of full citizenship to BNO passport holders. Thirdly, we now need a coalition of the like-minded to come up with a common China strategy. Even in the days of the Cold War, there were agreed rules of the road to avoid miscalculations and nuclear war. That is wholly missing from our relationship with today’s increasingly aggressive China. Does the Minister agree that the G7 meeting will be an opportunity to forge such a coalition, and that the UK must play a leading part?

[The Deputy Speaker]

The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, does not seem to be responding. I call the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury. Oh, we seem to be having a little problem with the system here. Is that the noble Baroness, Lady Northover?

Hong Kong

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, not just because of his distinguished governorship of Hong Kong but because of the time he spent in Northern Ireland, a place beloved by both him and me, and his distinguished chancellorship of Oxford University, where I find great intellectual nourishment and run a small centre dealing with intractable conflict. It is also always a great pleasure to participate in debates led and hosted by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who brings not only all his passion and enthusiasm but a thoroughly well-grounded and well-informed speech to start us off. I ask myself what I can usefully contribute after such valuable, insightful and experienced contributions. I will pick up where the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, left off: what can we do?

Can the Minister say whether there is any preparedness on the part of Her Majesty’s Government seriously to review the whole approach that has been taken to engagement with China over the last 20 years? I think it was largely informed by a view that, if markets were opened and there was economic engagement with China, a more liberal, democratic approach would, if not inevitably, most likely follow. There is a great vogue for evidence-based medicine. If there was any such thing as evidence-based politics, the evidence is clear that economic openings have not led to liberal democracy. On the contrary, the situation is getting much worse.

The Minister has freedom of religion or belief as one of his many responsibilities in government. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed out, the situation on freedom of religion or belief in China itself is deteriorating in a quite extraordinary way. The Chinese Government do not make any apology for it or try to hide it; it is absolutely up front as part of their policy that, unless you follow the beliefs, culture and approach of the Chinese Government and the Communist Party, you are to be squeezed out. I read phrases such as “their bones will be crushed and thrown aside”. These are incredibly dangerous, as well as obnoxious, words from anyone, but from a Head of State and Government they are unforgivable. Are Her Majesty’s Government therefore prepared to review the approach that we have taken?

When Mr Blair was in government, he was very much of the belief that this was the way to engage. Resources were taken away from many other parts of the world and put into engagement with China because this was the way forward and we could not do without it. If China believes that that is the case, anything we say about Hong Kong or any of the other abuses in China will simply be brushed aside. What does this require? I make one specific proposition: that when it comes to business, our approach to human rights becomes an important agenda item. One reason why Hong Kong was allowed to continue as it was, at least for a period, was that it was the jewel in the crown of China’s economic prospects.

It is absolutely clear that many businesses are now reassessing whether Hong Kong is the place to be; some are moving to Singapore, others elsewhere. However, it will not do what is necessary if they simply quietly slip away. It is important that it is made very clear to Beijing and the current Administration in Hong Kong that businesses will leave, should leave and may well be encouraged to leave if the human rights situation does not improve and more prospects are not given. I support the call that, at the next Commonwealth meeting, the question be raised of whether—we must do this along with other countries, though we will have to take a lead if we are to ask others—BNO passport holders will be given the opportunity to relocate. It is the best possibility not only for their future but for maintaining them there with some confidence that they have alternatives.

Syria and Iraq

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale. He is absolutely consistent in addressing violent conflict and promoting development internationally. This debate is another example of his consistent commitment. There are some things about which we should be consistent and others that we should change. I want to speak about some of the things that ought to be changed that are not being changed, and those things that we ought to be consistent about.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, talked about the disastrous policy that we have adopted in Syria. I come back, as I have done repeatedly since the start of this whole sorry episode, to my warning that the British Government’s adoption of a policy of getting rid of Assad as a primary requirement was a disaster. It was always going to be a disaster. I was not the only one who issued warnings in your Lordships’ House. Others who knew the region said the same thing and the Government refused to listen. It is time for the Government to understand how disastrous that has been and to change that policy.

The second thing that the western world has done consistently and that we need to change is betraying the Kurds. In 1920, under the treaty of Sèvres, there ought to have been a Kurdish state, but in the subsequent treaty of Lausanne, they were abandoned. They have been abandoned time after time after time and have now been abandoned again by the United States, which benefited so enormously from their courage and commitment in dealing with Daesh. That betrayal of the Kurds is something that has not changed, but must be changed, not just for good moral reasons but for political and strategic reasons too.

There are some things that are changing, but it were better they did not. When Mr Erdoğan became Prime Minister of Turkey, before he became President, I visited on quite a number of occasions and met his Ministers, police, security forces and so on. He was interested in applying the Northern Ireland experience to the Kurdish problem and started down that road. There were talks for a period of time and then, in a characteristically emotional outburst, he threw his head up, abandoned the whole business and turned everything on its head. That is a change that we need to stop.

The other change also emerges from Turkey. Turkey has been our ally, but it is not behaving like an ally now. It is not behaving like an ally in its relationships with Russia and its obtaining of weapons. It would have been inconceivable some years ago for a NATO ally to obtain weapons in that way. It is a signal that things are going the wrong way in Turkey’s relationship with us. However, there may be worse to come because, in the last few weeks, there have been indications from Turkey that it may wish to obtain nuclear arms. What are the Government doing to inquire after this question and to address it? We know the Saudis have been talking in similar terms and that they have relationships with Pakistan. Turkey talking in such a way, along with the breakdown of the treaty with Iran and the situation in Israel, creates a situation that is potentially globally catastrophic. I hope that the Minister can indicate that HMG are taking it seriously.

FCO Support for Persecuted Christians

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I totally agree with the right reverend Prelate.

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s undertaking that the Government will accept all the recommendations in the Bishop of Truro’s report, and I congratulate him on his work over the last few years in the area of freedom of religion and belief. One of the report’s recommendations was that Her Majesty’s Government should use the opportunities provided by the international institutions of which they are a part. Regarding the United Nations Human Rights Council, we have had a special rapporteur going right back to the days of the Commission on Human Rights and there have been regular resolutions—I think that the last one was on 21 March this year—with lots of wonderful words. Disappointingly, however, on a daily basis members of the UN Human Rights Council, the Security Council and even the P5 disregard all the fine words in those resolutions as a matter not of accident but of public policy in discriminating against people who have a different religion or belief. How will the Government use their membership of the Security Council and the United Nations Human Rights Council to bring about a change, as identified in the bishop’s report?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

On the noble Lord’s second point on the UN Human Rights Council, we have made sure, through repeated UPRs on every country, that freedom of religion or belief is a specific question raised with countries of particular concern. I agree with the noble Lord about the institutions of the UN. Currently the issue of freedom of religion or belief sits with an organisation called the Alliance of Civilizations—I must admit, when first raised with me, it took me back to my A-level history on Aztecs and Incas—which exists for that purpose, but I support the noble Lord’s view that there is more to be done. I am delighted that the United Kingdom lent support to the resolution that 22 August will be the international day marking freedom of religion or belief, focusing on persecuted minorities, faith minorities and those of other beliefs around the world. We will work on an Arria formula meeting with Poland, which will chair the Security Council in August, to ensure that this issue is given the priority that it deserves.

Burma: Rohingya People

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Wednesday 11th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

First, I of course acknowledge the excellent work that the noble Baroness does on this issue and I share her sentiments totally. The brutality and military ruthlessness and the ethnic and religious prejudice that lies behind this human suffering are there for all to see. The noble Baroness will be aware that the UK has been leading action at the UN Security Council in the open debate that has taken place, and that there have been various engagements through both my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and my right honourable friend the Minister for Asia and the Pacific, who recently returned from Burma. We have also been speaking directly to the Bangladeshi Government—indeed, I met with Her Excellency the Prime Minister of Bangladesh last Friday. All the matters that the noble Baroness has raised are very much on the agenda. We do not, in any case, sell any arms to the military in Burma, and let us be absolutely clear: it is the military who are behind this ruthless and brutal treatment of the Rohingya. We were providing some military training through education on issues such as human rights, and that has also been suspended.

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

On the moral case which has been identified so clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock of Holyhead, do Her Majesty’s Government appreciate that the plight of these people because they are Muslims is now being used loudly as a recruiting sergeant by ISIS in south and south-east Asia? This is not just a question of the moral imperative to do what is necessary for the Rohingya people; we in this country must also say very loudly that we oppose any role that Aung San Suu Kyi has in all of this. We rightly have a history of being very supportive of her when she needed it. For the sake of our Muslim people, we must now say very clearly that what she is doing and the stand she is taking is wrong and that we do not support it.

Middle East (IRC Report)

Lord Alderdice Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, I looked forward to the report and this debate, not only because of the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, and the distinguished membership of the committee—because I have always found that what he has to say and what other members have to say is thoughtful, helpful and challenging—but also because of the title, Time for New Realism. I declare my interests as the director of the Centre for the Resolution of Intractable Conflict at Oxford and the Centre for Democracy and Peace Building in Belfast, especially its work with the Arab Network for Tolerance and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy on our own report on diversity, participation and tolerance in the Arab world.

The notion of a time for realism speaks to analysis of the problem. When as a doctor I found patients not getting better or even getting worse, it was a time not simply to redouble one’s therapeutic enthusiasm and increase the dose of medication but rather to pull back and ask whether I had made the right diagnosis in the first place. The very title of this report presses us to think again about how we view the situation in the Middle East, because our policies and approaches have manifestly not been successful. Therefore, it is a little unfortunate that the Government’s response—what I have been able to read of it—tends to speak to the things that the Government are doing or have been doing, when there is a faulty analysis of the problem in the first place.

When I started to take an interest in these things, “Middle East peace process” meant relationships between Israel and the Arab countries. After a while, it moved to mean relationships between Israel and the Palestinians—but now when we talk about the Middle East and the possibilities for peace we discover that disorder has spread through the whole of the region and much beyond. That speaks to a faulty, mistaken and thoroughly unsuccessful approach to politics in the region, and the essential British diplomat, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, pointed that out in delightfully understated terms. It is a mess—a disaster—and it is getting worse, so we must ask ourselves, “What is wrong with our analysis?”.

When I started to get involved in these things, I took the approach that has been taken in Northern Ireland—to go and meet all involved, including those involved in violence on all sides. I well recall, in a series of conversations with Khaled Mashal, who at that time was the leader of Hamas, him saying to me, “You know, people in the West don’t have to listen to us. They can ignore what we have to say, but they need to understand this: we are prepared to work the system. We will stand for elections and, if we lose, we will be in opposition; if we win, we will be in government. We might well do things that you might not like, but we will work the system. But people need to understand that, if things do not move ahead—and this is simply an observation—there are those coming after us who do not want to work the system; they want to burn the system”. Frankly, anybody who did not expect al-Qaeda and Daesh has not been paying attention to what has been happening for over a century in the Muslim world.

Going back 100 years, we have the Balfour Declaration—which, by the way, in a very short paragraph gave a national homeland, rather than a state, to Jewish people, but not only for Jewish people; it was very clear that the civil and religious liberty of those who were already there also had to be observed. Like many decisions of the time, part of it was observed, and part not. The same happened on my island. Going back 100 years, we had liberal democrat parties; in Egypt, for example, there was a real flourishing of liberalism. But when, after 20 or 30 years, liberal democracy did not seem to have been successful in freeing up countries to follow their own lights and wishes and those countries continued to be dominated by the West, it was replaced by pan-Arab nationalism and Nasser. When he was defeated in 1967, there was a further deterioration into authoritarian leaders. Eventually, when that was unsuccessful, there was a further deterioration and so on. The Arab spring, as it was mistakenly called, was simply a further fracturing into chaos of everything in the region; and no good comes from chaos.

We have to understand that this is the inevitable consequence if a group of people becomes frustrated every time it moves to take responsibility for its own affairs. Of course, if they take their own responsibility they will come up with different ways from ours of governing themselves. I remember Charles Kennedy telling me about a conversation he had with Tony Blair, who was complaining about the Welsh Liberal Democrats taking a particular position. Charles Kennedy said, “You see, we are a devolved party”. Tony Blair said, “But you are the leader: tell them what to do”. The Prime Minister of the time did not really understand that in Wales they had the right to make their own decisions about what to do—it seemed an alien concept to him. If people are elected and we encourage them to have democracy they will make different decisions about how they want to govern their country, guided by their lights, culture and approach. If we continue to interfere and prevent that happening because we do not like the outcome, the consequences will be disastrous, and that is what has happened.

We cannot press others to follow our lights; that is also true of Israel. It is not for us to tell Israel how it should behave, but it also is not for Israel to tell us how we should behave. I do not think a two-state solution is possible any more. For years I have heard Foreign Office Ministers say, “If it is not done by the end of this year, it is off the agenda”. The next year, and the next year, the message is the same. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, said, the message has been the same for 30 years. I do not think it is possible any more. Let us be clear: it is time for new realism; there is not going to be a two-state solution. If there is, we should recognise Palestine and get on with it. If not, and some are not prepared to do so, we must say to Israel: “You have not occupied, you have now annexed and you must govern the whole of that country with proper recognition for all the people who live there, not as a kind of apartheid state—which you yourselves would reject—but as a proper country”. We cannot continue because, apart from the difficulties it creates for those people in that place, it sends out the message to the whole of the Muslim world, from Indonesia to Morocco, that we say one thing but do something different, particularly when it involves Muslims. No amount of fine language persuades people in the Muslim world of anything different when they see the way we act.

It is time for a new realism and I hope the committee and the House take this report and go even further in following the consequences of a more realistic analysis of where we are in the Middle East.