Middle East: Security Update

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I am not here to answer on behalf of the US Administration. What I can do is talk of the responses of Her Majesty’s Government to the situation on the ground. I agree with the sentiments of my noble friend, who obviously has deep insight into Iran, about the actions we have seen—including the killing of General Soleimani. It is for that reason that we have stressed, and continue to stress, the importance of de-escalating and reducing tensions in this area. He makes the point—I, he and all noble Lords have witnessed the scenes from Iran—that the hardliners in Iran have clearly been given a stronger voice. However, as I said in the Statement and as my noble friend acknowledged, Soleimani was no friend of the West.

We must now deal with the situation in front of us. Therefore, it is important that the UK uses its influence with our partners in Europe through the E3, as I have already said. We are working with the United States and updating regularly; as I have said, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is travelling to the US and we will seek to keep the House advised of future developments. However, I am sure my noble friend agrees with me that it is now important to call for not just calm but de-escalation from all sides.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, no one here mourns the death of such a man of blood. It is understandable that the Foreign Secretary called for restraint and de-escalation, but does the Minister agree that, in situations such as this, it is often helpful to try to imagine what would happen if the reverse were true? For example, if a US Vice-President or Secretary of State were assassinated by an Iranian or an Iranian proxy in the Middle East, would we call for restraint?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I agree with the noble Lord on the importance of restraint. At this time and with the sensitive nature of what is in front of us, it would certainly be inappropriate for me to speculate on situations. I stress again the importance of de-escalation and of keeping diplomatic channels open at all levels.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, one thing which we can all agree upon, I think, is that not for decades has there been such an acute period of political and constitutional uncertainty as that which we are experiencing at present. We do not know whether there will be a general election, whether there will be a vote of no confidence or whether we will leave the EU. Our constitutional conventions are threatened, our courts are increasingly involved, our political parties are divided, Parliament is paralysed, and public confidence in and respect for Parliament is diminishing by the day.

Inevitably, as a result of all this, political debate is course and bitter. I would even go so far as to say that our political culture, the accepted norms of our national debate and decision-making processes are seriously threatened.

The symptoms are complex, but the cause of all our present difficulties is not complex at all. It is incredibly simple. In 2016, both Houses of Parliament voted, virtually without dissent, that the issue of whether we should remain in the European Union was something that should be decided not by the House of Commons but by the British people in a referendum. We, the parliamentarians, also decided the precise rules under which the referendum would be conducted and the precise question that would be on the ballot paper.

We all know what happened next. Leave won, and ever since, a significant number of parliamentarians, though by no means all remainers—I certainly do not put everyone in the same category—have used every possible procedure to obstruct, delay or even try to reverse the result of a referendum which, I repeat, almost all of us voted for.

There is no point whatsoever in holding referendums if those responsible for implementing them—the parliamentarians—will only do so if they agree with the result. That also applies to any suggested second referendum. Why on earth would I, who voted leave, agree to a second referendum, when I know from bitter experience that even if I win, it may not make any difference?

We have all heard the excuses for not implementing the referendum result. We are told it was not clear what leave meant. Well, it is crystal clear to everyone outside “Confused of Westminster”. If you leave any organisation, at the very minimum you do not have to obey the rules of the organisation and you certainly do not have to pay the subscription.

In any case, two can play at the “What does it mean?” game. What does remain mean? Does remain mean continuing to pay our current subscription? Does remain mean joining a European army? Does it mean ever closer union, with more laws to obey over which we have no control? Does it mean losing our rebate? Does it mean ever greater dominance and control from those members of the EU who are members of the eurozone? The truth is that the future is uncertain, whether we remain or leave. It is always uncertain. Life is uncertain.

The tactics of the unreconcilable remainers have at least evolved over time. First, we were told that the referendum did not really mean anything, that it was purely advisory and that it would be fine for the Government to ignore it. Then it was said that the real choice was not between remain and leave, but between a hard Brexit—or even the hardest of hard Brexits—and a soft Brexit. However, when Mrs May offered the softest of soft Brexits, they said: “No, thank you very much”, by a large majority. Their next tactic was saying: “What we want is a People’s Vote”. In the finest Orwellian tradition, the purpose of the people’s vote would be to reverse the 2016 vote of the people, but there was no agreement as to what question should be put to the vote, or even how many questions there should be, except, of course, that remain must be on the ballot paper.

The latest tactic is the so-called Benn Act, in which a majority of the Commons were united in the view that our departure from the EU should be delayed for a further three months. The problem is, of course, that that was all they were united on. Ask them what the three months’ delay is actually for and they are all over the place.

The most bizarre suggestion, from some, is that they want what they call a Government of national unity. It would of course be a Government of national unity with a passionate remainer as Prime Minister and a Cabinet full of remainers, so the losers in the 2016 referendum would achieve national unity for us all by excluding the leavers and reversing the referendum result. The mind boggles at the logistics of it all. Who would be the Prime Minister? Who would be the leader of the Opposition? Would Her Majesty be required to make another Queen’s Speech? What about the Chamber in which we sit? Presumably, for a Government of national unity we would all have to sit on the same side.

There are yet more severe remainers who want to go even further. They want to revoke Article 50 by a simple vote in Parliament, so that the votes of 17.4 million people in a referendum could be overturned by 326 votes in the House of Commons. It may be democracy, Jim, but not as we know it. These people who want to revoke Article 50 seem to believe that we can all pretend that the last three years, including the referendum, never really happened.

I can just imagine the letter that a revoking Prime Minister would have to send to the EU. “Dear Monsieur Barnier”, it would say, “First, let me apologise unreservedly for all the inconvenience to which we have put you during the past three years. It was all the result of a dreadful mistake that we made when we asked the British public whether we should remain in or leave the European Union. I can assure you that, in the future, there will be no more nonsense about consulting the people”.

This Parliament is enveloped in a political and constitutional quagmire. The cause, as I have said, is very simple: the failure of Parliament to honour the referendum. All the parliamentary and constitutional shenanigans are a direct result of this. Unpalatable as it may be to many in this House there is only one solution to this problem, and that is to leave the European Union. I voted leave but, in a spirit of national unity, I would like to end my remarks with the words of a remainer. This is Sir Anthony Meyer, writing in this week’s Sunday Times. He said:

“I voted to remain but believe that it is a moral and political imperative to honour the referendum result”.


Well, so do I, and I know that millions of our fellow citizens, leavers and remainers, think exactly the same.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

If I may correct my noble friend on one thing, Sir Anthony Meyer was my former boss in the Foreign Office and a former Conservative MP for Eton and Slough. My noble friend means Sir Christopher Meyer.

[Lord Grocott]

Yes, I did.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I fully agree with the well-deserved tribute that the noble Lord has paid to the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I recall from when he has talked about our naval power that, some 25 years or so ago, we were debating 40 frigates and destroyers within our fleet. We now have about 20 and yet, somehow, we still talk of enhancing our “global role”—in which, surely, the Royal Navy should be playing a leading part. How can we play such an enhanced role if our fleet has been reduced to such an extent? The question surely answers itself.

Some 200 years ago, Shelley was looking at the state of England, observing the turmoil, writing his poem in anger and, indeed, sadness. Some of that same anger and sadness must surely be seen by so many of our friends as they look at the United Kingdom today. We all take pride in our constitution. Like many noble Lords, I have addressed conferences about the virtues of our unwritten constitution, its flexibility and the pragmatism of the British people. But, alas, over the past three years, we have failed the stress test of our constitution. Many shortcomings have appeared and many questions, which were under the surface, now appear almost paramount.

The current state of the UK has renewed the debate about constitutional reform by means of a constitutional convention or otherwise including the possibility of a written constitution, and it has boosted our discussion about further devolution or, indeed, independence. Noble Lords may have noticed the poll in last week’s Sunday Times, which said that 50% of Scottish people would now favour independence. I hear a “Hear, hear!” from my noble friend. As he well knows, we in Wales often have a sort of “Me too” or “Follow the leader” position about Scotland. I know where he would stand on that. It is rather surprising that the unionist party, by its own actions, has created greater discussion about, and support for, Scottish independence and, possibly, according to recent polls, greater support for the independence of Wales—which, in my judgment, if it comes at all, is something far off—as well as more talk about a united Ireland. We must remember, although we would not know this from listening to the contributions from our Northern Irish colleagues, that Northern Ireland—Ulster—voted to remain.

I begin with two preliminary reflections. First, we have as a country been here before. I have just read Claire Tomalin’s wonderful biography of Samuel Pepys, and my first reflection is that our situation reminds me of the period of the restoration of the monarchy from 1658 to 1660. So many of the most ardent Parliamentarians at the time suddenly discovered that they were Royalists after all. Could we not apply that to some Cabinet members, in particular, who are now saying stridently and ardently that they are now strong Brexiteers? It is perhaps a sad commentary on human nature that, rather like those Parliamentarians at the end of the Cromwellite rule, so many Conservative politicians are now discovering that they were indeed Brexiteers.

My second reflection is this. In the 1630s, there were two concepts about the source of authority of government—two concepts that collided in the Civil War. On the one hand, there was the divine right of kings; on the other, there was the sovereignty of Parliament. Now, it was not God but the people who spoke three years ago. The mantra today is, “The people have spoken: long live the people”. Are we seriously suggesting that one snapshot three years ago at one point in time has determined the position of this country, across the board, on foreign and domestic affairs, for as far ahead as is planned? It was well said, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that, if there were a poll today, the people would have changed their minds. Are people not allowed to change their minds? Some people give the parallel of a general election, but a general election lasts at most five years and people can then change their minds. We are stuck with one snapshot, taken three years ago, which would change if there was a new referendum.

It is interesting that those who in the past called for the supremacy of Parliament against the foreign power of the European Union have now changed their tune and are rather downplaying the sovereignty of Parliament. The Prime Minister uses the terms “surrender” and “the surrender Act”—a mantra repeated again and again by his followers—yet one surrenders to an enemy. One can hardly properly debate and negotiate with the European Union if one truly thinks of them as the enemy.

Turning to the Queen’s Speech itself, and to foreign affairs and trade, it was claimed that we will be free of these shackles and enter the world stage boldly as global Britain. Looking at our resources, it is in part a pipe dream. It is certain that our clout internationally will be diminished. Our status will be diminished, as will respect for us overseas. We will be in a waiting room, waiting for decisions to come to us from the European Union. As for links with President Trump’s America, we saw how the Prime Minister kept silent on the Kim Darroch affair, for example, and did not rally to support a member of the Foreign Office at that time. The latest example is of course the dumping of the Kurds. I may be wrong, but I understand that we were not consulted in any way. Giving good warning of a policy change of this sort must surely be a test of a true ally. The only winners in this are President Putin, who gets a boost in terms of Russia’s long-standing policy in the Middle East, and, alas, ISIS, as the camps will not be guarded by the Kurds. That is the inevitable consequence of President Trump’s unpredictable, capricious decision, which has so dismayed his allies.

As for trade, our comparative weight in and out of the EU must be a major factor. Our market in the UK is 60 million, while the EU is 450 million. Whereas Mr Fox talked about glittering trade deals, he has achieved none. His policy collided with reality. Of course, sentiment plays no role in trade deals. India, for example, will demand concessions on visas and, as the excellent former US ambassador, Ray Seitz, reminded us, the UK is important to the US largely as a bridge to the European Union. Congress has a key role in terms of protectionism by America and pork-barrel politics. We would seek a deal in financial services, but the regulators and lobbies would stand in our way. That “America first” policy was shown in the US-Canada-Mexico agreement and, with US regulatory standards in food, animal welfare and food safety will prove a major difficulty. Our major market is clearly our neighbours in the European Union and, as an outsider, our weight there will be considerably reduced.

I make only this comparison between our Prime Minister and the President. Both obviously have problems with women, but that is not relevant. What is relevant is that both are prepared to use their authority for their own personal ends, as with President Trump in Ukraine seeking to dish the dirt on a potential rival, and the Prime Minister favouring a girlfriend when allocating public money. This is well attested, however much it is denied.

It is crystal clear that we in the UK are living in most uncertain and troubled times—perhaps the most troubled times since just before the First World War and The Strange Death of Liberal England. Our constitution is fundamentally under scrutiny; our very existence as a United Kingdom is being challenged at a time when our global weight will be reduced. Navigating this uncertainty requires great statesmanship. I ask a question which again answers itself: does anyone seriously expect that statesmanship to come from our Prime Minister?

Hong Kong: Emergency Powers

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, the Government have shown that diplomacy is the way forward. Ultimately, in any public statement that we make, we consistently make the point that political dialogue is the solution. We are very mindful of the history of Hong Kong, but, speaking as the Minister responsible for human rights, when we see human rights being usurped in those countries with which we have a strategic relationship—and yes, that includes China—we stand up for them, and make those views known.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, to avoid the ultimate disaster of intervention by the People’s Liberation Army, and to give all sides a ladder down which to climb without losing face, is there, in the judgment of the Government, any prospect of outside conciliation or conciliation by respected individuals?

Hong Kong

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

First, let me reassure the noble Lord that we seek to uphold “one country, two systems” and will call on the Chinese authorities and the authorities in Hong Kong to do the same. As I said in answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, this is an international agreement whose principles should be abided by. I will certainly take the issue of the Early Day Motion back and look at the detail. I assure noble Lords that the important thing is that we continue to raise through all international and bilateral channels the importance of upholding the rights of, and obligations to, the citizens of Hong Kong.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, much of the prosperity of Hong Kong depends on confidence. Is there not clear evidence now that much of the business community has been relocated or is considering relocating to Singapore, which would be much against the interests of the Government of China? Are we not making it clear to China that to be in breach of the joint agreement is to be in breach of its interests in this matter?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I believe that, thus far, the Chinese authorities have shown restraint, which we welcome. Clearly, as I said in my Answer to the original Question, law and order in Hong Kong is of deep concern to us. The noble Lord raises the important issue of future investment in Hong Kong. As we have seen, the eyes of the media and the world are on the situation in Hong Kong; that will not be lost on investors. He makes an important point about political and economic stability in a given territory. I am sure that any business making a decision in respect of Hong Kong will look at that very carefully.

Council of Europe: House of Lords Members’ Contribution

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord has drafted the Question very narrowly indeed. I shall follow him in not confining myself to the narrow part of it. I recall a programme on BBC Wales called “Wales at Westminster”. Every three months or so, every single Welsh MP had the opportunity to sum up the work of his or her colleagues. Woe betide any Member who omitted the name of one of his colleagues at the time. I fear this will be another parade of all the good work that the noble Lords, Lord Balfe, Lord Russell and Lord Blencathra, my noble friend Lady Massey and Lord Foulkes, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and others do there. I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, wanted us to parade the work of our colleagues or, it is fair to say, make an important contribution from mature experience in the Venice Commission for democracy-building. We all in the assembly have one great advantage: the English language.

In 2008 I had the honour to return to the Council of Europe after a gap of 50 years. I was the FCO adviser to the delegation in the early 1960s. Much has changed in the meantime. The assembly was no longer the consultative assembly but the parliamentary assembly. I hope that name change has some significance. New members from central and eastern Europe had joined, including, of course, Russia, but the core business of the council remained human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

We in the UK have a good record, blemished only slightly in terms of the court by the Hirst case on prisoner voting, where the House of Commons rejected a compromise. Happily, a compromise was at last reached. It is fair to say that the Conservative Government —at least the ERG—flirted with the idea of leaving the Council, partly because of the Abu Qatada case. However, had that taken place, leaving the convention would have meant leaving the Council.

Turning to some of the future challenges, one is the temptation of all parliamentarians to empire-build; another is relations with the European Union. When the Council was formed, Ernest Bevin, as Foreign Secretary, said: “I don’t like it when you open that Pandora’s box. All sorts of Trojan horses will come out of it”; one of his more famous quotes. From the start, the Council has been one of interstate intergovernance, not integration, in the stream which culminated in the European Union. Now, we need co-operation, and I hope that the European Union will join the convention, so far blocked by the European Court of Justice. We need to work together on democracy-building and partner with the European Union across the board on election monitoring and so on.

The other major problem is Russia. I disagree with the noble Lord on this—against the opposition of the UK delegation, but I am not so sure about the UK Government. We voted in June to readmit Russia, giving them the benefit of many doubts, despite their record in Georgia, Crimea, Syria, in interfering in democratic elections and, of course, the poisoning in Salisbury. I suspect that it was Russia’s financial contribution which played a substantial part, but it does harm the credibility of the Council of Europe as a forum for human rights.

My final question for us all is: how do we in the UK maximise our role in Europe, post-Brexit? Clearly, we must seek to use all institutions which bring us closer to Europe. This means NATO, and it also means bilateral relations and relations with cultural institutions such as the Council of Europe. We were there at the start and have played a major role. Surely, now we must examine how we can make our contribution to the Council of Europe more positive. For example, we can make a voluntary contribution to the work, because of the budgetary problems. We can drop, with the Italian ultra-right, the objection mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. I hope that the Government are already examining how best we can take the Council of Europe more seriously and enhance the UK’s role in Europe more generally.

FCO Support for Persecuted Christians

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, in Syria, Christians are afraid to enter UNHCR camps because of violence against them, and there is also violence in the camps in Germany, yet the Government accept only refugees from those camps, unlike Belgium and Australia. The result is that in the first quarter of 2018, no Christians from Syria were accepted in this country and the Government have steadfastly refused to give any figures since because of the likely embarrassment. Why is that? Is it post-imperial guilt or are the Government discriminating against Christians from Syria?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

On a lighter note, this is the second day running that I have been asked about post-imperial guilt. The irony is not lost on me. On standing up for persecuted Christian minorities around the world, I am proud of the record of this Government and previous Governments, who have done the right thing. The noble Lord raises an important point about granting asylum and refuge to people from persecuted communities, including Christians, and I believe that the Government have focused on that. We have sought to work with the UNHCR to ensure that applications are progressed effectively and efficiently. There has been a suggestion that Christians should be prioritised over others. I believe that, whether you are Christian or of any other faith, or of no faith whatever, common humanity dictates that we stand up for the rights of others, including Christians, as well as our own rights.

UK Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order (International Relations Committee Report)

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I join in the commendation of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for setting the IRC on the map so that it will now be a permanent feature of your Lordships’ House. I also commend him on his speech today and his general commitment during his time as a Minister. He set as the aim of the report to give a basis for general debate. The committee has certainly succeeded in that and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and others might consider this report and his speech as a set piece for students of international relations, as there were so many wonderful insights.

Not surprisingly, the report follows the path of most parliamentary Select Committee reports by recommending more resources for the subject studied. We are told that the FCO accounts for only 3% of government funding for international work, but in concluding that we need a more agile, active and flexible diplomacy the committee does not examine the case for greater co-ordination and the sharing of resources between the FCO, DfID, the MoD and the Department for International Trade. The emphasis on cyber was possibly a little excessive and may have unbalanced the report. However, the starting point is surely the advice of the Oracle at Delphi: “Know yourself”. What strengths do we as a country bring to a rapidly evolving context? Is the national consensus on foreign policy likely to change, particularly with a more ethnically diverse UK? How do we reconcile our status as a medium-sized European power with our global interests and ambitions? Some, like the children of Israel in the desert, will certainly yearn for the certainties of the Cold War period.

A key question, not properly touched on in the report, is: will Brexit, if it happens, lead to an enhancement or a diminution of UK interests and clout overseas? This question was raised somewhat polemically by Sir Simon Fraser in the Evening Standard on 7 May. The report says that seeking a continued close relationship with the EU is vital. The Foreign Secretary told the committee that he did not want the diplomatic alliance with EU countries to change as a result of Brexit, but this is surely wishful thinking in the extreme. As we saw in last week’s debate on the CSDP, we will become a rule-taker and not be in the driving seat. There have been a number of straws in the wind. Cyprus has turned from the UK to France to update its naval base. We no longer have a British judge on the ICJ. The UN General Assembly has voted against us on the Chagos Islands. Inevitably, over time, as we become a country outside the EU, we will lose a degree of our clout and be disadvantaged. Contrary to the committee, I see no substantial evidence that India wishes to build an enhanced security relationship with us and, pace the noble Lord, Lord Howell, it is showing a very detached commitment to the Commonwealth as a whole.

The text on which the committee might have sermonised is the comment by Dr Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, that,

“among the foreign policy elites … the British role is seen as having been downsized and likely to continue that way, and that Brexit reinforces that”.

I recall meeting Dr Haass after he wrote his book on US policy, The Reluctant Sheriff. The world has indeed changed, particularly with China and Russia. We certainly have concerns about authoritarian tendencies in a number of European countries but, unlike Russia, none of them has a destabilising role outside their frontiers; none has invaded and occupied neighbouring countries; none has interfered in western elections; none has tried to assassinate dissidents on the streets of our cities. We should not, of course, seek to provoke Russia; we should co-operate where it is in our mutual interest but we should be vigilant and realistic and have that awkward posture of holding out our hands but keeping up our guard.

The major change has been in US policy. Is this a continuation, as the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, sought to argue, or is it essentially a fresh start? The President has cast aside more moderate advisers, blows hot and cold on North Korea, Iran, Russia, the UN and NATO. He has imposed steel tariffs on her allies and is, in general, unpredictable and often capricious in his policies. Traditionally, we share many interests with the US, not least in intelligence and nuclear. However, the blunt truth is that we align more and more with the countries of Europe and the US no longer sees us as an interpreter of or bridge to our European allies; nor do Japan or other investing countries. Nevertheless, I stress that we should recognise the US as our most powerful ally and ensure that, during his forthcoming visit to the United Kingdom, President Trump is afforded all the normal courtesies, certainly far more than those afforded to President Putin, who faced far fewer demonstrations than President Trump is likely to.

We should be concerned about the comments by Sir Simon Fraser that he could not think of any time in his distinguished diplomatic career,

“when there has been less clarity, frankly, about the purposes and objectives of British foreign policy”.

Yes, there has been a welcome increase in diplomatic posts and personnel. Yes, we are in the premier division of soft power, but there is general puzzlement at the aspiration for a “global Britain”. Is this no more than a verbal fig leaf to cover a vacuum of policy; a part of the liberated, nostalgic future promised by the Brexiteers? Is there not a danger of falling between many stools, facing the choice of greater dependency on the United States or becoming an outrider to the European Union? This is hardly a happy posture for our country, which has so many advantages and such a remarkable history.

Nigeria: Fulani

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness. It is exactly why the Foreign Secretary and I were intrinsically involved in that decision, and initiated the independent review of Christian persecution around the world. The interim report is not just sobering, it is actually pretty horrific in terms of the numbers. We are talking about 200 million Christians around the world being persecuted in some shape or form because of their faith.

The example of Nigeria is a very stark one. The noble Baroness knows Nigeria well. This was a focus area for my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary’s recent visit, and I assure the noble Baroness that any of the organisations that seek to represent or hijack a religion are doing so erroneously. It is important for all communities, all faiths, to stand against them. I am of course referring to Boko Haram and the Islamic State in West Africa. Through development, diplomacy, and security initiatives, we will defeat these radical extremist groups once and for all.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, Nigeria is a valued member of the Commonwealth and as such, has signed the Harare Declaration and all other relevant declarations, yet Nigeria is mentioned by Open Doors as among the 50 worst countries in the world in which to be a Christian. What have the Government done, consistent with their new policy on religious persecution, to assist the Government of Nigeria to fulfil their commitments under the Commonwealth? Does the Commonwealth have a role in this tragedy?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

First, I totally concur with the noble Lord. Membership of the Commonwealth brings additional responsibilities for any country wishing to be an active and fully engaged member. I assure him that we are working closely with the Government of Nigeria. President Buhari himself has condemned these clashes. There is also an initiative from the Christian vice-president, who is taking forward a national strategy to address the issue of violence directly. He has already engaged directly with governors. We are also providing support and assistance to communities on the ground to ensure that those communities—be they of whatever religion, Christian or Muslim—can work together to defeat the scourge of extremism. This is a long process; that does not mean that we bail out at the first challenge. I fully accept that the situation of Christians in Nigeria is dire, but it is important that we engage even more forcefully now to ensure that we can beat the groups which seek to destabilise Nigeria.

Iran Nuclear Deal

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

On my noble friend’s final point, no trade has happened yet because the SPV is not yet operational. We continue to work on its technical detail. My noble friend is right to mention President Rouhani’s declaration that he is keen to ensure that the JCPOA, a working agreement, remains on the table. The United Kingdom shares that aspiration. Therefore, a 60-day window still exists; we hope that no other steps to change the situation we currently face will be taken during that time. As I said in the Statement, we regret the announcement from Tehran but it is important that we continue to look at how we can work through the challenges we face. Equally, we must look at the SPV’s creation and initiation of the process; for example, my noble friend talked about medicines and humanitarian aid, which are important, but this is also about looking at agricultural products and consumer goods. It is important that we continue to work to ensure that the SPV becomes operational.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have given a measured response, working with allies other than the US, but recognising that Iran is engaging in malign activities in the Middle East. Does the Minister agree that what the Trump Administration appear to lack is a sense of history? Experience shows that the Iranian people will rally around the flag and will not yield to bluster, warships or to the privations visited on them. That is surely what is happening now.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord is correct to draw attention to Iran’s activities, including, as I said in the Statement, the current focus on its ballistic missile programme. That is not conducive to peace in the Middle East; rather it adds to the insecurity and instability. Indeed, Iran’s actions in other areas of the Middle East have also been causing instability. We continue to urge Iran to abide by the commitments it has made through international bodies, including through UN Security Council resolutions, and to continue to work towards peace in the Middle East more widely, particularly in those countries where it has influence. On what is happening in Iran, as I have said, our commitment to the SPV is closely focused on alleviating the plight of the Iranian people. Whatever challenges or differences we may have with the Iranian regime, they are not with the Iranian people. There is a rich history and culture in Iran, which we have all seen in the past. We hope that in due course Iran will re-emerge on to the international scene.

Lord Mayor’s Show: Taiwan

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I agree that our relationship with Taiwan is best built on sound values. Therefore, shy of recognising Taiwan—which we do not—Taiwan’s future, as the noble Lord said, is a matter for China and Taiwan, on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, and it is for them to come to a way forward. As I said in answer to the previous question, we are supportive of not only Taiwan’s presence in the Lord Mayor’s Show but its inclusion in various organisations on the world stage, and we will continue to articulate that. On a more general point, we will stand against human rights abuses wherever we find them.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, are there other examples where the City has rejected the advice of the Foreign Office on such matters?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I think in this case—or indeed in any other case where we are dealing with the private sector—our job is to provide advice. It is for a private sector company or an independent organisation to take a decision. That is one of the key freedoms we enjoy as a democracy, and I would stand up for it. It is for organisations to make independent decisions. As far as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is concerned, it will give the best advice available.