Xinjiang: Forced Labour

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that human rights are a key consideration in our discussions on bilateral trade agreements.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, as I have said in this Chamber before, we have to look at the broader picture when it comes to China. The Belt and Road initiative is about a very different China’s place in the world. We need to pull ourselves together with the United States and Europe and take a common position. How are we going to get people on the ground to see what is going on? The Chinese are not allowing anyone in. Unless they do, we will not find out. We could not even find out what was going on in Leicester, which is in our own country. We must find a way of putting people on the ground in the province.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. China is part of the international community. We continue to state the point he has articulated so strongly through all our multilateral fora engagements.

Hong Kong: National Security Law

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, China continues to be an important international and strategic partner, but where there are abuses of human rights or other challenges, issues and concerns, we will raise them candidly, both bilaterally and through international fora. If we look at issues around the environment and climate change, for example, it is important that China also acts in this respect.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, it is about time that we got realistic about China. It is on a course of expansionism where it is threatening not only Hong Kong but Taiwan, and fortifying islands. Will the Minister not work hard to build a common front, which includes not only our traditional allies but the frontier states of the former Soviet republics and Russia itself? Unless we can get them on board, we will not effectively contain China.

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

My noble friend makes an important point. Let me assure him that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and I are working hard, including in my capacity as Minister for Human Rights, to ensure that we broaden the alliance against the human rights situation that we see in Hong Kong and mainland China. We saw recently at the UN Third Committee an increase in the number of countries supporting the UK position, which I believe went from 28 to 39.

Sanctions (EU Exit) (Consequential Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2020

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the maiden speech of my distinguished friend of almost 40 years. Kate and I go back to the early 80s; I knew her as a parliamentary candidate in Dulwich, I knew her as the MP for Vauxhall, elected on European election day in 1989, and I have known her as a friend all the way through, despite the fact that for at least half that time, I have been a member of the Conservative Party. Before that, I was in the same party that she used to belong to. So, we both moved, you might say.

I recall that when Kate was a candidate, the slogan we had was that she would “hit the ground running,” because sport has always been an important part of her life. Indeed, she was the first woman to be Minister for Sport in this country, and she has always championed sport. She had a career with Tottenham Hotspur youth and helping young people to appreciate sport, and for eight years she was adviser to the Mayor of London—a long and distinguished career.

She has also been unafraid to embrace controversial issues. I remember agreeing with her that the foxes around the dustbins of Vauxhall were of more concern than those being chased around the fields of Kent. I still happen to feel that way, and I was pleased to go on the Countryside Alliance marches years ago. She has a long record of being prepared to stand up for what she believes in; Vauxhall was very lucky to be represented by her.

Europe is the one area where Kate and I have never agreed, but we have come nearer to agreement now. In the run-up to the last election, I consistently queried the referendum result and said that I thought the circumstances of the referendum were dubious. I asked for another referendum, or an election to sort out the matter. We had an election, and it is quite clear that I lost. In a democracy, on occasion, you have to accept that you lose. I am not going to oppose the Government. I welcome the Government’s work and the Minister’s; he has had to do a lot of detailed work to do transposing all these European regulations into UK law, and I wish him well with that.

I endorse strongly the point that my noble friend Lady Hoey made about victims of terror. We have tended too much to conflate the victims of terror with the perpetrators. The victims had no choice: they were gunned down, blown up and lost their lives. The perpetrators of terror, whatever else can be said, knew what they were doing. There is a big difference.

Treaty Scrutiny: Working Practices (EUC Report)

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

Let me first put on record my thanks to the three chairs for producing these reports, which have given us an excuse and a reason to debate where we go from here.

I welcome the government response to the Constitution Committee report on the parliamentary scrutiny of treaties, because it brings out into the open what the Government are really up to. On page 5, it states:

“The Government welcomes the Committee’s recognition of the fundamental right of the Executive to negotiate for the UK on the international plane.”


In other words, returning power is returning power to Whitehall and not to Parliament. It continues:

“At the start of negotiations, the Government will publish its Outline Approach … Parliament will have a role in scrutinising these documents … The committee(s) could have access to sensitive information … and could receive private briefings … the committee(s) would have the power to produce a detailed report”—


but it does not say how long we might spend doing it.

I must say that I find this whole procedure depressing; no one has ever doubted where I have stood on this exercise. I am convinced that multilateralism is the only way forward in the modern world. Only in Moscow and Washington are there other Governments who believe that they can repudiate inconvenient parts of international agreements. I spent 25 years in Brussels in the European Parliament and have spent 15 years since then doing odd jobs for it and the Commission, and I can tell noble Lords that the only way forward is negotiation. You have to work with your colleagues; you do not win all the battles, but we are a big a country and we had a record of winning most of them. We won far more battles than we ever lost in the European Parliament.

We are losing sight not only of treaties as they retreat into the Foreign Office but of what is happening in Brussels. We are losing sight of the Lisbon process, and the inevitable end will be what happened when I was on a delegation to Vietnam last year. We interviewed the Trade Minister and he said, “Yes, of course we will be looking forward to a full, comprehensive trade agreement with you.” Then there was a pause of about five seconds before he said, “Of course, we couldn’t put anything in it that Brussels objected to because they are quite big, you know, in our trade arrangements.” This is the reality of where we are going. I hope that we get a treaty scrutiny committee. I am not sure whether it should be a Joint Committee of the two Houses, because the way in which the Commons treats the Lords is not always conducive to equality, but we certainly need something. We need to be informed and to be taken into consideration by the Government.

The European Union has many faults; it also has many strengths. One of its strengths is the system of rapporteurs, who are independent individuals appointed to look at specific trade and other agreements, and who have expertise in those countries. I had 20 years on the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee. I knew everyone from the President down to the Ministers, and I could get in to see them. If we could look at a way of combining the trade envoys and the rapporteurs, it would be a good way forward. There is a lot to be gained in the future, but I would not in any way want to be where we are today. We are making the best of a bad job.

Global Human Rights Sanctions Regime

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, we have made our position on the British Indian Ocean Territory very clear. The ICJ decision was an advisory opinion which we do not agree with. The ICJ should adjudicate only where both parties have agreed to it. We believe appropriate support was provided at that time, although there were many shortcomings in the way that the Chagossian people themselves were treated, which we have also acknowledged. We wish to work in a progressive way with the Government of Mauritius on ensuring that we build a strong bilateral relationship.

[Lord Balfe (Con) [V]]

My Lords, can the Minister tell us to what extent the Government consulted with their opposite numbers in the EU in drawing up this list and to what extent they just informed them? In the case of additions and deletions to the list, will there be a structure in place for consulting or will it just be a case of informing?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I have already said that we work and continue to work with our EU partners. The EU does not yet have a global human rights sanctions regime per se. The most effective regimes are when you work together, and that of course means sharing information and an evidence base, so we continue to work with our EU partners, as I have already said.

Hong Kong National Security Legislation

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I believe I have already addressed this issue. The route, or the programme which has been announced, is specifically for those who currently hold or qualify for BNO status and their family dependents. As to others, each case will be looked at on its merits. If someone comes to the United Kingdom, from wherever they may be in the world, and seeks sanctuary or asylum in the United Kingdom, that case will be looked at on its merits.

[Lord Balfe (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I notice that the terms for people from Hong Kong are considerably better than those we are affording to EU citizens, many of whom have lived here for years. Will there be any salary threshold applied to new migrants who wish to come here, and will we treat them more favourably than EU citizens who are already here?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I am sure my noble friend will recognise that the situation faced by those who are eligible for BNO status or have BNO status—or, indeed, Hong Kongers more generally—is markedly different from the situation faced by EU citizens, and therefore it is right that we have a specific scheme, as we said we would, for BNOs specifically.

Hong Kong: Human Rights

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest, as I was for some years the joint chair of the European Parliament Hong Kong friendship group and I have been to Hong Kong on numerous occasions. We are now facing what I think of as a Rhineland moment. It is a time when you have to draw the line, because the line has clearly been crossed. We have seen a lot of Chinese pressure over the years: China’s pressure on states not to recognise Taiwan; its pressure on countries when they entertained the Dalai Lama, as David Cameron did; and, more recently, its pressure on Australia when it called for an independent WHO inquiry. It is time now for there to be some international action against bullying, and taking in 3 million citizens is not necessarily part of it. I call on the Minister to tell us how he is going to get together with like-minded states and co-operate in opposing these Chinese moves.

Covid-19: Repatriation of UK Nationals

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Thursday 30th April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

On the noble Lord’s more substantial point, we are of course redeploying diplomats in all our posts, whether they work on the security side or from a Home Office or military perspective, wherever they are needed, and they are key to the repatriation effort in each country—I know that south Asia has been a key area of focus—and that has been the right thing to do. The noble Lord says that nothing positive is said about Europe. I ask him to reflect on the comments I made a few moments ago on how we will be co-hosting a conference with our European Union partners on the important issue of the global response to Covid. That underlines the commitment of the UK to work with international partners in different multilateral fora—and, yes, including with our European Union friends.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am not yet clear as to what the numbers are. Clearly, two sorts of people are being repatriated: one is the people who were on cruise ships and on holidays who were just stranded; the second group is people who went often to south Asia because that is what they did on a regular basis, but they were not on holiday and they did not have a definite time of return. Is there any estimate of the numbers in those two categories, and what are the plans for getting them back? I think in particular of the holidaymakers, because they are no longer on holiday if they have been there for a month, and I guess that the cruise ship industry will have problems. Secondly, there are lots of planes sitting on the ground at Heathrow and in all sorts of airports. How do you choose who gets to fly the planes back, and why, when there are so many empty planes, is there such a long queue?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

To take my noble friend’s final remarks first, a lot of countries have closed airspace, and you need to seek special permissions to allow aircraft to fly. Our charter flights have been operating; as my noble friend will recall, we announced a £75 million package, and we are working in partnership with airlines with which we have signed memorandums of understanding. Every time there is a charter route, we go out and get the best offer from an airline. For example, in India we have been working with British Airways, and in Pakistan we have been working with Qatar Airways.

On the specific numbers on cruise ships, I have already alluded to the fact that we have returned a substantial number—around 19,000 people. At one time we were monitoring a great number of cruise ships—I remember sitting in meetings, day after day, tracking cruise ships around the world. We have had a successful repatriation policy in support of those people, returning them either through commercial routes or, when necessary, running chartered flights.

On the specifics of holidaymakers versus people visiting family, the original estimates ran to around 20,000 people in India, for example, so the fact that we have already returned over 10,000 people is testament to the number of flights. However, the scale of the operation could not be underestimated. To take just the Indian example, we have now run 52 charter flights. It was necessary to run them, and, as I said in response to an earlier question, we continue to run additional flights because of the sheer scale of numbers, with people visiting family and in different parts of the world. Yes, we have committed to do this work and continue to do it. As I said, the job is not done, nor have I claimed that, but we are working through the numbers to ensure that those who wish to come back to the UK can be brought home as quickly as possible. We have prioritised the most vulnerable, which was the right thing to do, but we continue to work with countries on the ground to ensure that we can repatriate all British travellers who wish to return home.

Council of Europe: House of Lords Members’ Contribution

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Balfe]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the contribution of Members of the House of Lords to the work of the Council of Europe.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to have secured this Question for Short Debate and to welcome so many fellow Council delegates here. There was a similar debate in the House of Commons recently and there is something to be said for the delegations that travel from this House to the three international bodies, namely the Council of Europe, the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and the OSCE, bringing their activities to the attention of the House from time to time.

All three bodies play a valuable role in projecting Britain’s image overseas. We have been a member of all of them from more or less their foundation and this House has always had representation. We are supposed to make up one-third of the delegation but, having carefully analysed the figures, we generally fall somewhat short of that, although not by a huge amount. However, we do not fall short of one-third of the financial contribution to the delegation. If we had a Whip on our Benches, I would ask him to look very carefully at whether we could get value for money.

The size and composition of the delegations are based on the size and balance of parties in the House of Commons, not Parliament as a whole. I am sure we will hear a bit about that from a speaker from one of the Benches not represented in the Council of Europe.

My first point is that the cost of the parliamentary assembly is incredibly low. The whole annual budget of the Council of Europe costs less than the European Union spends in one day, to keep the sizes in perspective. Also, the cost of the parliamentary assembly has now gone down from €17.5 million in 2017 to €14.7 million this year. It is projected to stay at that level for the next three years.

The fact is that there is now no allowance for inflation. I am told that the two main opponents of inflation are the United Kingdom and the far-right Government of the republic of Italy. I would very much welcome the Minister’s comments on what Britain is achieving in extending its reach and influence by joining the Government of Italy in seemingly blocking the ability of the Council of Europe to expand even in line with inflation.

Since 2010, the parliamentary assembly and the Council have consistently been cut back. Some 230 posts have disappeared over that period. This means that the European Court of Human Rights will inevitably be one of the sufferers, because you cannot spread all the cuts in just one department. I would like to ask Her Majesty’s Government what exactly they are trying to do with the Council of Europe. What is their vision for its future? It seems it is part of the eternal cutting back and resentment of anything called “foreign”. That is my first question.

The second matter I want to turn to is Russia. Russia was probably rightly excluded from a number of international institutions after its intervention in Crimea and various other actions that put it somewhat beyond the pale of acceptable behaviour. It is worth remembering that the dismemberment of the Soviet Union was an extremely messy affair. It left behind a number of problems, most of which are now to be found in the frozen conflicts we are trying to unravel.

If Russia was expelled from the Council of Europe, or chose to leave, it would mean that all Russian citizens would lose their right of access to the European Court of Human Rights. That was probably why, having weighed everything up, including the importance of the Council of Europe, there was an agreement in Helsinki to let Russia back into the parliamentary assembly. The British Government did not oppose that agreement; it is important to remember that. But almost as soon as it had been agreed, the Government started lobbying against the very agreement they had let through. At the last session we had the sight, which I found very unsatisfying, of the UK delegation leading the attempt to get Russia’s suspension continued. A group of members, led by Ukraine and the UK, with, as I put it, sundry disaffected members from former communist bloc countries, put down a large number of unhelpful amendments, all of which were defeated by margins of either 2:1 or 3:1, but rather than seeing sense and saying, after the first half a dozen or even 10, “Let’s accept that we’ll lose all of these”, we kept the Council of Europe sitting until after 1 am voting hopelessly on amendments. Virtually every member of every other western European delegation, including the Germans, the French, the Spanish and the Italians, were voting against the United Kingdom. We were in extraordinarily odd company.

I understand that we have now been invited to a meeting in Riga on Friday 6 September, described in the invitation letter as,

“the first like-minded meeting on further actions concerning the return of the Russian delegation to the PACE”.

In other words, this is a meeting designed to make life as difficult as possible. Rather than stretching out an olive branch, it is stretching out a rather harsh whip. We will be represented there by three MPs—two Conservative and one Labour. All I can say for the two Conservatives is that they were the leaders of all the resolutions that were defeated 2:1 in Strasbourg.

I put it to the Minister that it is not acceptable for him to say that it is up to parliamentarians to decide what to do. I am delighted to see the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, in his place, because I recall that when he and I tentatively proposed that it might be appropriate to visit the Russian Duma a few months ago, the Foreign Office came down on us like a tonne of bricks. Do not start saying that there is any freedom for Members and that the Foreign Office is not interested.

How does the Minister propose to put our relations with Russia on a better footing? Frankly, we are all on the same continent. I am not sure I would go as far as Gorbachev and say that we all live in the common European home, but we certainly are in a situation where Britain needs friends. When we leave the European Union we will be in an absolutely ideal situation for people to have a pop at us and decide, “Well, Britain won’t really have the solidarity of Brussels. We can cause them a bit of trouble with a bit of cyberwarfare or the like”. I put it to the Minister that it is in our interests to get together with our western European colleagues and try to get a modus vivendi with the Russians. This is a huge challenge facing PACE today.

Those are my two main points. I congratulate the Minister on still being part of the Government at 6.15 pm; I hope he will still be there at 10 pm. In the meantime, I look forward to him explaining how we will relate to Russia and how we will get a better accord with people for whom we can change history, but cannot change their geography. They are there and they will stay.

Violent Extremism

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I follow all other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, for initiating the debate and thanking him and his colleagues for all the hard work that went into this most valuable report. I declare an interest as an adviser and participant in an outfit called the European Foundation for Democracy, which is based in Belgium. It was instrumental in being set up by a now deceased friend of mine, Anne-Marie Lizin, a Belgian politician who, 30 years ago, was in north Africa promoting the very values we are trying to promote today. Part of that is that a European approach is needed to what is largely a European problem. It is not just a British problem. The European Foundation for Democracy believes very much in having a cross-cultural, cross-country approach.

I and the foundation welcome the report. We acknowledge that fundamental religious ideological beliefs are among the pull factors that encourage radicalisation of young people in this region, but we could have somewhat stronger recommendations on cultural and educational interventions that could be tailored alongside those in the report to help us to tackle the problem.

Although economic, civic and social factors play a role in violent radicalisation and recruitment processes, we should not forget the significant role played by ideology. Religious leaders and groups play a significant role in those communities. Their interpretation of religion is a key factor in driving people towards taking radical or moderate positions. Research shows that prominent jihadis come from the background of non-violent Islamism, the former exploiting grievances that are not necessarily legitimate as they can promote a utopian, sharia-based state approach that goes against the principles of the rule of law and fundamental rights. In such cases, rather than addressing the grievances and compromising on them, we should be promoting alternative narratives. For instance, I draw attention to the first draft of the Tunisian constitution, which mentions the complementarity of women with men, but after consultation and debate this was changed to the equality between men and women. That was done within that society as a result of debate about the way the different genders should be viewed, all within an Islamist viewpoint. It is possible.

We share the aim of devising programmes to strengthen democratic accountability and good governance and to promote debate and dialogue. To implement those, we should recognise and be ready to counter the ideologies that act against such values. The report rightly focuses on prevention. To do that, we cannot focus only on violent extremism. We also need to take a step back and look at non-violent, extremist ideologies. How is it that among the millions of poor and marginalised individuals from all over the world, some—quite a small minority—decided to embrace violence? We need to try to tease out the ideological triggers so that many people who personally believe in extremist ideology do not then carry that forward into violent action.

I have already mentioned to the Minister that I wrote to him on 13 June, asking whether he would meet representatives from the European Foundation for Democracy to explore how we can all work better together towards our common goal of a peaceful and prosperous community of equal citizens and well-adjusted families in a tolerant UK, Europe and world. I hope that he will agree to such a meeting, because I finish where I started, by saying that this is a European problem. We have much to learn also from each other and I hope that we will do that in combating this difficulty, which faces so many of us.