International Development Strategy

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, it will not be a sudden decision to return to 0.7%. Of course, I hope, as everyone does, that 0.7% is something that we can return to very quickly, but it is not going to happen overnight. We know from projections and economic trends when we are likely to meet that point, and that will provide us with ample time to prepare in order to ensure that we can spend the money effectively.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my relevant interest in a number of all-party parliamentary groups. Does the Minister agree that central to our international development strategy is the BBC World Service? If so, is he aware of the warnings from the National Union of Journalists that without renewed funding, in April 2022—in just a matter of weeks—vital programmes to places such as Korea, Ethiopia and Eritrea could be adversely affected? Will he ensure that as a matter of urgency the necessary certainty of funding—the point being made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, a few moments ago—is resolved, and will he promise to keep the House informed?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, I admit I have not seen the report that the noble Lord cites but I will dig it out after this session and convey his message, which he makes extremely well, to colleagues at the Foreign Office.

Ethiopia: Tigray Region

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, the conflict has the capacity to spill even further out of control and expand beyond the northern region. We have struggled to deploy UK aid for the reasons I described in my answer two questions ago. UK aid was being delivered into and across Tigray before the Government of Ethiopia created a blockade. We are supporting partners so that they can quickly recommence aid delivery should that be possible, and we are putting pressure on the Ethiopian Government to address the blockade and remove it.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that he and the Foreign Office have received representations from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Eritrea, which I co-chair, about torture, rape and starvation being used as weapons of war and the involuntary repatriation of Tigrayan refugees to Eritrea? Will the United Kingdom follow the United States in imposing targeted sanctions on the perpetrators of these crimes? What is being done to ensure that those responsible for what has rightly been described as a catastrophic, man-made disaster that is destabilising the whole of the Horn of Africa are brought to justice?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, we are appalled by the reports that we have received on the systematic killing of civilians; widespread sexual violence, including rape and including that of children; indiscriminate shelling; and ethnic discrimination, including the forcible displacement of communities. I cannot answer the noble Lord’s question on the APPG report, I am afraid, but I will ask my colleague, who would have received it, to confirm that that is the case. On sanctions, the UK will consider the full range of policy tools at our disposal to protect human rights and deter violations of international humanitarian law.

Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, it is very late and I have not participated in the Bill before, so I shall be extremely brief. My interest is not so much in the matter we are debating; I understand that people feel very strongly about it, on both sides, but I have no particular dog in that fight. My intervention comes because I am chairman of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House. As is well known, we produce a report every week where we try to provide a commentary on the instruments that are coming up through the process so that your Lordships have some guide—some thoughts, some suggestions—about areas that might usefully be probed as we undertake our primary role, which is of scrutiny and the ability to hold the Government to account.

I have read my noble friend the Leader’s letter with great care and I recognise and accept the seriousness of the points she makes and has spoken about this evening; that we are a self-regulating House and how this amendment, if I may summarise what she is saying, is pushing the envelope too far. I introduce to the House the concept of Isaac Newton’s third law of motion: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. I think Newton’s third law of motion may explain some of the background to the issues that we are debating so strongly tonight.

The SLSC, along with many other Members of your Lordships’ House, is increasingly concerned about the use—some might say misuse or misapplication—of secondary legislation, which, as all Members of your Lordships’ House know, and the Government very conveniently find, has a very much lower level of scrutiny. So, in summary, while my noble friend may be pushing the envelope, I think the Government have been pushing the envelope in recent months and years a great deal. What do I mean? I shall give just two examples which I think are of particular relevance to our debate this evening.

Permanent changes to our laws, which probably should be introduced by primary legislation, are being rushed through in regulations, and sometimes being rushed through under the excuse that they are needed for the pandemic. Planning regulations have nothing to do with what we are discussing today but are something that may change our high streets, perhaps for ever. They have nothing to do with the pandemic, yet are now law because of regulations made under a pandemic regulation. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, made a point about impact assessments. Regulations with sunset clauses have no impact assessments because they are going to last for less a year, and then—surprise, surprise—they are extended, they go over the year, but still no impact assessment is produced; or impact assessments are introduced long after the debate in your Lordships’ House, when regulations are in place, and are of no real value, therefore, in influencing the way the House decides.

Last week, we looked at the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2021: these concern critical issues about road safety and no impact assessment has yet been provided. If debate and scrutiny are stifled, as they are by not providing this information, the Government must expect Members of your Lordships’ House to try to find ways to get round the point, and that is what brings us to the issue we are facing tonight. The system for scrutiny has not provided a way for a proper extent of looking at and considering issues which mean so much to people on both sides of the argument that we have been discussing for the last couple of hours.

I will not go on but will conclude by saying that while of course I understand my noble friend the Leader’s concerns and worries, I say to her gently that I think there is a view in your Lordships’ House, and outside in academia, within the Hansard Society and elsewhere, that the Government, the Executive, have made a grab for power at the expense of Parliament, the legislature, and that these actions have led to the equal and opposite reaction that we are debating tonight.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, has made an important contribution in your Lordships’ House, albeit at this late hour. This is a terrifically important debate; it is about our role as a House that scrutinises and about the democratic deficit the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, referred to earlier. I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for coming to the Cross-Bench Peers meeting last week and setting out the arguments about scope, but also about the Bill in general.

I think there has been, across the House, outside and inside the Chamber tonight, a really important discussion about our role as parliamentarians, and what our job is in these kinds of circumstances. Ultimately, despite my incredible affection, as she knows, for the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes—I am sorry we disagree on this occasion; I have enormous respect for her, and we have spent much of our lives in both of these Houses defending democratic values—I do not think the argument is about whether or not the amendment that has been tabled tonight is in scope. It is about the position and rights of this House to reach a decision on this issue. I agree with the noble Baroness that, looking at the Title of the Bill, she is right to come to the conclusion that she has, but taking the argument that the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, had put, that was advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, in her remarks tonight, it demonstrates that in some circumstances we can reach a different conclusion.

Those circumstances, as the Leader of the House has told us, ought to be extraordinarily rare. Therefore, I do not say that I came to a short, sharp decision on this issue. Indeed, my mind is still open and I have been listening carefully. I recognise it takes some courage to persist in the face of procedural questions of custom and practice, especially in a House such as this. The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, has given decades of commitment, along with the noble Lord, Lord Freud, to these issues. They have done this with extraordinary conviction, knowledge, courtesy and passion.

I will say a word about precedent and this issue of scope. I have also occasionally found myself in disagreement with the clerks and have, on the whole, of course, accepted their decisions. There are three questions, though, that might tilt the balance for me, and which I think apply in this case.

The first is, of course, the position of the elected House. Until I stood down from the House of Commons, I had the privilege of serving there, following my election as long ago as 1979. Within my recollection, there were a number of occasions where, on all sides, we were relieved when Members of your Lordships’ House sent back an amendment that gave us the opportunity to think again. Indeed, as recently as in the last 12 months, your Lordships persisted with an amendment to the Trade Bill on the question of genocide. At the end of a protracted process of ping-pong, an accommodation of sorts was reached between both Houses. Several senior Conservative Members, including a former party leader, expressed their thanks to your Lordships that we had given them, in another place, a chance to think seriously about an issue that had not been debated at any stage of that Bill’s progress in the House of Commons.

Secondly, what would tip me in favour of the noble Baroness’s amendment today is the support that she has received from an illustrious former Minister who dealt with these matters: the noble Lord, Lord Freud. The noble Lord will remember that I harried him when he was a Minister on an issue that went to ping-pong. It was about mesothelioma, which for personal reasons I know he felt deeply about. He defended the Government’s position, as he was right to do. We went to ping-pong and ultimately an accommodation was reached, and it went further than that: the noble Lord then introduced an entire Bill on mesothelioma. It is part of his extraordinary legacy from his time as a Minister. He is a man I enormously admire. I note too that six former DWP Secretaries of State since 2010 have said that the £20 uplift investment should remain.

Thirdly, there is the little issue of manifestos. Commitments made in government manifestos are very much in scope when we come to consider legislation. The Government’s current policy regarding uprating is entirely at variance with that commitment. It is not a trivial issue; it is something on which our colleagues in the elected House have the right to deliberate. This amendment would give the opportunity to do that in the House of Commons.

What of the substantive argument about the universal credit £20 uplift? Sir William Beveridge, who was a Member of both Houses, said it was our duty to provide a safety net—a phrase that was used by the noble Baroness earlier on—against the “giant evils”. Today, there are cuts and sears in that safety net that we must repair.

Finally, at Second Reading, the noble Baroness set out her formidable objections to the removal of the £20 uplift, but also her serious concerns about the democratic deficit. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, talked about public confidence and thought that if we took this decision it might erode public confidence. I think it will have precisely the opposite effect, and this is not something I argue for lightly. I certainly think we need to give it a great deal more thought.

Human Rights Situation in India

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I thank my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries of Pentregarth for initiating this important debate. As he said, India is a truly great country; it is one for which I too have great affection and admiration.

One of the greatest Indians was Dr BR Ambedkar, the Dalit who became a lawyer—an alumnus of Gray’s Inn—a parliamentarian and a social reformer, and who crafted India’s constitution. Last month I was honoured to take part in the unveiling of a new portrait and the opening of a room at Gray’s Inn, dedicated to the only Indian ever to be awarded such an honour. Dr Ambedkar’s great-grandson, Sujat Ambedkar, was present. Santosh Dass, Ali Malek QC, the Master Treasurer of Gray’s Inn, and the Federation of Ambedkarite and Buddhist Organisations UK, all deserve our congratulations for bringing this project to fruition.

For all Indian citizens, the story of Dr Ambedkar and his constitution is an inspiring route out of enforced misery, a pathway out of servitude, and a road map to emancipation, justice and equality. It signposts the way to social, economic and political justice, to liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship, to equality of status and of opportunity, and above all, to the fraternity and dignity of India’s citizens.

However, as Dr Ambedkar once said,

“If I find the constitution being misused, I shall be the first to burn it”.


He would surely be greatly disturbed that millions of Dalit and tribal people still remain excluded from their rights, as guaranteed in that constitution, and that the BJP Government have presided over the steady erosion of those hard-won gains. Take the incarceration of human rights defenders, academics and lawyers, referred to earlier, who are in jail, without bail or prospect of an early trial. Dr Anand Teltumbde, Dr Ambedkar’s grandson-in-law, is one of those incarcerated without bail. He is 71.

Those jailed in the Bhima Koregaon case have consistently and robustly denied the charges against them. Yet some have been in jail for years, without bail, under dubious sedition laws—bequeathed, regrettably, by the British—on trumped-up charges and flawed evidence. Many are elderly and have medical health conditions. Along with Dr Teltumbde, there are the 80 year-old human rights activist and poet Varavara Rao and the 60 year-old trade unionist, activist and lawyer Sudha Bharadwaj. All of them are languishing in jail; all are in extreme danger of catching the Covid virus there, and all have been denied bail.

Think of Father Stan Swamy, who has been referred to before, and about whom I was in regular touch, and correspondence, with the Minister, who tried incredibly hard to be helpful in this case. Father Swamy spent his life defending the rights of tribal people in India. He was a frail 84 year-old man with Parkinson’s yet despite applications on health grounds, the authorities denied him bail. His death was unjust and it needs to be investigated impartially.

Following Father Swamy’s death in custody, Mary Lawlor, the UN special rapporteur on human rights defenders, said:

“There is no excuse, ever, for a human rights defender to be smeared as a terrorist, and no reason they should ever die the way Father Swamy died, accused and detained, and denied his rights.”


I echo those remarks.

The rape and punishment of Dalit and tribal women and girls also must be of the gravest concern to us. I welcome the reply that the Minister gave me on 19 July about the British high commission’s project to provide legal training for Dalit women to combat violence against them. I really hope that this will make a tangible difference that can be measured in due course.

Finally, like other countries, India has suffered grievously under Covid. We have all seen the heartbreaking reports. The long-term health and economic effects on Dalits and tribal peoples, who would frequently be the daily labourers or bonded labourers, should surely be examined and researched. The human rights that Dr Ambedkar championed all his life must be protected.

I will end with this. In his book, Annihilation of Caste, Dr Ambedkar said:

“A just society is that society in which ascending sense of reverence and descending sense of contempt is dissolved into the creation of a compassionate society.”

International Freedom of Religion or Belief

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]]

I can give the noble Lord that direct reassurance. We will do exactly that.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I take the Minister back to what he said about the Truro review and specifically to recommendation 7, which asks the Government to put in place effective mechanisms to deal with the crime of genocide against religious and ethnic minorities. In that context, the report published this morning by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons recognises that a genocide is under way against Uighurs in Xinjiang and calls on the Government for a much stronger response. Can the Minister tell us what that response will be?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I have yet to read the report in full, although I am aware of its publication. I have not yet reviewed it. Bearing in mind its publication, I am sure that in due course the FCDO will respond accordingly. I can share with the noble Lord—I am sure he is aware of this—that the United Kingdom has consistently, regularly and directly raised the persecution of the Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang in China. We continue to do so. We recently worked through a resolution at the Human Rights Council led by Canada. In the past few weeks, I have met Uighur representatives visiting the UK to hear about their plight. I assure the noble Lord that this remains among our key priorities and will continue to be so.

China: Muslims

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by Amnesty International “Like We Were Enemies in a War”: China’s Mass Internment, Torture, and Persecution of Muslims in Xinjiang, published on 11 June.

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

My Lords, the Amnesty International report is a compelling addition to the already extensive and irrefutable body of evidence about systematic human rights violations taking place in Xinjiang. The Government have taken careful note of the report and FCDO officials have already discussed the findings with Amnesty International. We will continue to engage with a wide range of NGOs and other experts to inform our further understanding of the situation on the ground in Xinjiang.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, with Amnesty’s report detailing arbitrary detention, forced indoctrination, torture, mass surveillance and crimes against humanity, along with newspaper reports from Xinjiang of the destruction of 16,000 mosques, harrowing evidence being given last week to the independent Uyghur Tribunal, whose brave witnesses and families now experience threats and intimidation, and further legislatures joining the House of Commons in declaring atrocities against the Uighurs to be a genocide, when will the United Kingdom raise this report from Amnesty at the UN Human Rights Council and seek judicial remedies? Will the Government commit to co-operating with, examining and acting on the findings of the Uyghur Tribunal, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con) [V]]

My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, I have met directly with Sir Geoffrey Nice on numerous occasions and we continue to monitor the tribunal as it takes place. My understanding is that the first session has now been completed. On the independent evidence, the noble Lord might be aware that I met with some of the people who gave evidence to the tribunal last week as part of our direct engagement with members of the Uighur community. With the session of the Human Rights Council coming up we will look at this report very carefully. As I said, we have met directly with Amnesty International on its recommendations and findings.

Ethiopia

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I will not agree with my noble friend on the fact that it is a failed continent. I think there are many successes across Africa but, as I alluded to earlier, we are working with key partners and through UN agencies both on the ground and through political engagement to ensure that we bring about a peaceful resolution of this conflict.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Eritrea, which will be addressed this afternoon by the United Nations special rapporteur on Eritrea and will focus on Tigray. How do the Government intend to respond to his findings of appalling human rights violations by Eritrean militias in Tigray? Did the Minister discuss it when he met the Secretary-General of the United Nations last week? Are we working with Ireland, which is proposing to raise this in the Security Council this week? Are we considering joining Belgium, which is using universal jurisdiction to bring prosecutions for war crimes and crimes against humanity?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, yes, I did discuss this with the UN Secretary-General António Guterres last week when I met him. We are awaiting a full report of that joint investigation by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission, which is currently under way. We will continue to work with key partners on the UN Security Council, including Ireland, to find further resolutions and we continue to lobby for a full debate at the UNSC.

Official Development Assistance

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My noble friend presents an interesting proposition. What I will say in response is that, as part of the withdrawal agreement, which was ratified back in January 2020, a financial settlement was agreed on the UK’s past obligations as a departing member state from the EU and that, by definition, this does not relate to any future arrangements. The EU and the UK both recognise our financial commitments to each other in this respect.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, perhaps I may take the Minister to questions of parliamentary sovereignty, legality and trust. If Governments are permitted to break laws, politicians to break manifesto promises, parliamentarians to break commitments to the destitute and starving, why should anyone take the blindest bit of notice when the United Kingdom proclaims the rule of law and the primacy of Parliament? Before the Prime Minister travels to the G7 summit, I ask the Minister to take the message to him—it is the one he has heard today during these exchanges, but it is from many in your Lordships’ House—that this country’s word should be its bond, even when that is difficult or inconvenient, and urgently to put right this deeply troubling and, arguably, illegal decision.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord is fully aware, I respect greatly his commitment and passion and, of course, his principles for the issues around our support of the most vulnerable communities around the world, as well as his advocacy for human rights. On a lighter note, he has suggested that I should talk to the Prime Minister before he departs for the G7 summit. The Prime Minister is already in Cornwall, so I cannot promise that I will be able to do that in practical terms. What I will say to the noble Lord is that, as I have said before, I recognise, as do the Government, the important role that Parliament plays, its sovereignty and the importance of standing up for the rule of law. Indeed, as the Minister responsible for standing up for the rule of law, I can assure the noble Lord of my engagement in that directly—as was demonstrated in our support for recent candidatures for the International Criminal Court, for example. That demonstrated the strength and respect for the United Kingdom as a state that stands up for its international obligations and for the international rule of law, and long may that continue.

Iran: British-Iranian Prisoners

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Monday 7th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, we are working on specific measures on a raft of issues with our allies, as my right honourable friend Minister Cleverly indicated, including, without my going into the details of each case, engagement directly with the Iranians on the early release of all those currently held in Iran, as I have said already.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister study this morning’s statement by openDemocracy, which includes an appeal by a survivor of the 1988 mass executions of Iran’s political prisoners, and support his call for an international commission of inquiry, requested in a letter in May to Michelle Bachelet by more than 150 UN officials, lawyers and human rights activists? Also, given the alleged role of Ebrahim Raisi in those events and in subsequent executions and impunity, and given his statement that amputation of arms and limbs is a “divine punishment” and that divine punishments are

“a source of pride for us”,

how do the Government view the prospect of his election as Iran’s next President?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I have not seen the statement, so I will write to the noble Lord on the specifics of his question. I assure him that we continue to make the case through multilateral engagement as well as directly with Iran about the well-being and, ultimately, the early release of all hostages.

Genocide: Bringing Perpetrators to Justice

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2021 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to bring the perpetrators of genocide to justice.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in opening this short debate I must declare that I am a patron of the Coalition for Genocide Response, and thank its founders, Luke de Pulford and Dr Ewelina Ochab, for their briefing note. I also thank the Library for its briefing note, and all participants, who will bring great expertise and knowledge to our proceedings. I also serve as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Groups on Burma, Uyghurs, Rohingya, and Hong Kong, and as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Eritrea.

Dag Hammarskjöld, a truly inspirational Sectary-General of the United Nations, once said that the United Nations

“was not created to take mankind to heaven, but to save humanity from hell.”

But as we will hear this evening, from Xinjiang to Burma, from Tigray to Nigeria, from Iraq to Sudan, and in many other parts of the world, the international community has fallen a long way short in saving millions of people from the hell of genocide and from atrocity crimes. While the victims suffer appalling violations, the perpetrators strut the world stage, confident of their impunity and the triumph of mercantile and other interests over our convention duties to prevent, to protect and to prosecute those responsible for these heinous crimes.

In the post-war years, men such as Raphael Lemkin, and women such as Eleanor Roosevelt, bequeathed the institutions that emerged from the ashes of Auschwitz—notably the International Court of Justice and, later, the International Criminal Court. It is to those bodies that the United Kingdom Government defer, stating as recently as this week, in reply to a Parliamentary Question, that

“The UK is fully committed to honouring its legal obligations under the Genocide Convention. The Government’s longstanding policy is that any judgment on whether genocide has occurred is a matter for competent courts. These include international courts, such as the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, and national criminal courts that meet international standards of due process.”


But as became clear during our proceedings on the genocide amendment to the Trade Bill, this is simply a convenient sleight of hand, disguising the shameful inability—or perhaps unwillingness—to bring perpetrators of genocide to justice. The Government cannot plausibly offer that response, simultaneously telling us that Russia and China will invariably use their Security Council veto to close routes to the international courts, while the Government themselves close routes to domestic courts.

The all-party genocide amendment to the Trade Bill offered a way out of the cul-de-sac and a route to our national courts, and it was given three-figure majorities in the House but opposed by the Government. My noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead, a former Supreme Court judge, and others, told the House that the current arrangements simply do not work and that our High Court was perfectly capable of adjudicating on whether a genocide is under way. When the proposal came within a whisker of defeat in the Commons, the Government offered the compromise of a committee to examine allegations of genocide. I have given the Minister notice that I would like to know when such a committee will be established to examine whether the Uighurs, for instance, are subject to a genocide. Can he also confirm that, even if a parliamentary committee determines that a genocide is under way, the Government will still not accept such a determination and intend to continue to say that it is just a matter that the courts can determine?

The Committee should note that a legal opinion from Alison Macdonald QC and Essex Court Chambers concluded that there is credible evidence of genocide in Xinjiang. We should also note that, on 22 April, the House of Commons voted to declare the crimes against the Uighurs in Xinjiang to be a genocide. The United States, Canada and European countries such as the Netherlands and Lithuania have all done the same, but not the United Kingdom Government.

On 27 April, the Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, appeared before the House of Lords Select Committee on International Relations and Defence. I asked him whether it was his intention to accept the Commons declaration. In reply, he said that

“Parliament should hold the executive to account on all these matters. That has been our position all along. Our long-standing position is that a court should make judgments on genocide. Fundamentally, genocide creates obligation at the state level”.

Yes, he is right—we have treaty obligations at the state level—but we and others repeatedly fail to meet them, and refuse to reform our domestic and international mechanisms to address this lamentable failure.

When Mr Raab told the committee that he is an “ardent … reformer”, I asked him what we are doing to increase the efficacy of international institutions, to gather support for the proposed code of conduct regarding Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and in combatting genocide. On the code of conduct he said:

“We are a signatory to the accountability, coherence and transparency code of conduct … That allows all members of the Security Council, permanent and non-permanent, to make public commitments not to vote against credible resolutions intended to prevent mass human rights abuses.”


Perhaps the Minister can tell us this evening what progress this proposal is making and whether, realistically, in the absence of support by China or Russia, he honestly believes it will save a single life.

Mr Raab rightly warned the committee about the potential misuse of the word genocide. It is precisely because the definition is exacting that I agree with the Government that a court should evaluate the evidence and make the determination. But there is no point identifying the problem without willing the solution. This has become a circular argument, and it was to break this vicious circle that noble Lords tabled the genocide amendment—and why we are here again today. Voluntary codes of conduct are all very well, but at the United Nations Human Rights Council, Dominic Raab rightly said that what is happening in Xinjiang is “on an industrial scale”. That needs much more than a voluntary code of conduct. The Foreign Secretary told us legislative attempts in both Houses had “shifted the dial.” Perhaps, with the Biden Administration, we can push the dial further.

We have already worked together on Magnitsky sanctions, announced on 6 July 2020, and for which the Foreign Secretary, and indeed the noble Lord the Minister, deserve credit, but those sanctions are not a response to genocide. I have sent the Minister a recent Financial Times review of Geoffrey Robertson QC’s new book, Bad People. In summary, he argues that the sanctions regime is too opaque and liable to be used against soft targets rather than the worst villains. It does seem passing strange that a functionary such as Chen Quanguo, the CCP party secretary in Tibet and then Xinjiang, remains unsanctioned, as does Carrie Lam, in Hong Kong. Oversight of the Magnitsky sanctions by a Select Committee of your Lordships’ House is urgently needed.

I note, incidentally, as someone who has himself been sanctioned by the CCP for drawing attention to genocide against the Uighurs, that the European Parliament has frozen the EU-China infrastructure deal until sanctions against their parliamentarians are lifted. By contrast, in the UK, our Trade Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, tells us it his ambition to deepen trading links with a state credibly accused of genocide. Let me ask the Minister quite directly: does he think that it is ever licit to seek to deepen trade with a country credibly accused of genocide, or, for that matter, one which uses slave labour?

Will the Minister also provide a response to the recommendations in the Coalition for Genocide Response briefing? I would especially like a response on what it says about universal jurisdiction; prosecution in UK courts of Daesh fighters for their involvement in the genocide against Yazidis, Christians, gay people and others; and the importance of establishing a mechanism for evidence collection and preservation, about which I have written to the Minister, and which is urgently needed in Tigray, where there are reports of mass graves, rape as a weapon of war, summary executions and the targeting of religious figures—these are all detailed in the briefing provided by CSW to noble Lords.

It tells us all we need to know that China and Russia blocked attempts to discuss the allegations about what is under way in Tigray at the United Nations Security Council, while the 2016 recommendations of the UN commission of inquiry on Eritrea, which is now embroiled in Tigray, have never been implemented.

Can the Minister also say what we are doing to bring Burma’s illegal junta to justice and, in the light of the atrocities against Rohingya and Kachin, what we are going to do to take forward the Gambia’s admirable decision to pursue the Burmese military at the ICJ?

The dial may be shifting, but it is not fast enough for beleaguered and suffering people in Burma, Tigray, northern Nigeria, Xinjiang and elsewhere. Dag Hammarskjöld’s ambition to create effective mechanisms

“to save humanity from hell”

remains unfulfilled, but we must not throw in the towel. We have clear duties to hold to account those responsible for atrocity crimes and genocide, and in meeting those obligations we must redouble our efforts. Once again, I thank all noble Lords who have entered the list to speak tonight.