Ukraine and Georgia

Lord Bishop of Leeds Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

The most immediate and pressing issue for NATO and the rest of the West is to repel Russia from Ukraine. The noble Lord is absolutely right that there is a future post success, but, as the Secretary-General of NATO said the other day, it is very important that we take this stand now and assure all malign influences that NATO will stand firm against any aggression towards its pact. That is the primary purpose.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, given Georgia’s recent history and its rather precarious geographical position, the importance of the upcoming elections in October cannot be overstated. To push a bit further the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, can the Minister explain what active steps the Government are taking to ensure that those elections are free and fair?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

The right reverend Prelate makes a very good point. The whole issue of the “foreign agents” law is that it is very similar to a law that is operating in Russia, although it has not yet gone through the entire democratic parliamentary process. We all saw the riots inside and outside the Parliament of Georgia earlier this week. They are a strong signal that the concept that the foreign funding of external NGOs and agencies beyond the level of 20% creates an external threat needs to be vigorously resisted. We believe in free and democratic relationships and will do all we can with our friends in Georgia to ensure that that is maintained.

Ukraine

Lord Bishop of Leeds Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, I could not be less smug about the situation in Ukraine, and I apologise profusely if that was the impression I gave. I am commenting on the Statement that was issued last week, which was an update on the current situation. I am fully aware that the world did not respond sufficiently to the challenge that the Russian Federation laid down when it moved into Ukraine 10 years ago. As President Zelensky says, it is all Ukrainian soil that he wishes to get back, not just what has been taken in the last two years. I assure all noble Lords that the Government are far from complacent about the situation that we face now, but diplomacy must constantly have a role to play, now and in the future. The role of NATO is one of defence, and that needs to be adhered to very clearly.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, I am grateful for what the Minister has said. It is understandable that the murder of Alexei Navalny is commanding the headlines, but there are other opposition leaders, a number of whom are in prison and possibly facing the same fate as Navalny. There are Russian anti-war organisations outside Russia, including here in the UK. Are the Government using their convening power to bring some of these disparate opposition groups together in order that they can exercise what we might call soft power to influence people back in Russia? Indeed, are the Government aware of their existence? I am aware that they do not all co-operate very well, but that might be for the lack of some sort of convening power.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, the Government provide support, either overtly or discreetly, wherever they can to these groups. There is no doubt that that can help in certain cases to ease what is a very difficult situation.

Ukraine: Update

Lord Bishop of Leeds Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his comments. The matter of a debate in this House was raised with me by someone from my own Benches yesterday. As I indicated, it is a matter for the Government Whips’ Office and the usual channels but I am sure that, if they pick up that there is an appetite for it, they will pay close attention. The noble Lord’s other suggestion is interesting. It is certainly something that I will take back and relay to the department. I do not know when the PM is next scheduled to visit Ukraine but I understand the point that the noble Lord makes.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, I endorse all that has been said thus far in strong support of the Government on this. First, the Minister gave us some details of how some of the armaments being given to Ukraine are being replenished. Have the Government made any assessment of what the head of the UK Armed Forces said recently about the impact on UK defence of the donation of tanks? Secondly, it is clear that Olaf Scholz is putting the onus of responsibility on to the United States—that is, if it will send tanks, the Germans will agree to Leopard tanks being sent. Are the Government putting pressure on the United States to do that?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My understanding is that the United States has sent tanks. It has also sent Bradley vehicles. I think I am correct in saying that, in addition to the UK, France and Poland have sent tanks. As to what pressure we can bring to bear, the meetings to which I referred in my responses to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, reflect exactly the comprehensive and high-level discussions that are taking place. Everybody is clear that we all have to pull together in support of Ukraine. There is no doubt that, if the Leopard tank could be part of the facility provided to Ukraine, that would be an important addition.

The right reverend Prelate also asked about existing capability in the UK. I will say just two things about that. We have a mixture of equipment that we have provided and, if we take the recent example of the Challenger 2 tanks, I can assure him that there will be no long-term capability gap. We currently have 227 Challenger 2 tanks; we are giving 14. We will operate 148 upgraded Challenger 3 tanks in future so this donation will not reduce the total number of tanks that the Army holds. As to the other equipment, munitions and related material that we have provided, we are very careful to ensure that it does not in any way imperil the capability that we need to protect the security of this country.

Ukraine Update

Lord Bishop of Leeds Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My noble friend makes a number of interesting observations. I am sure that we are all conscious of the extraordinary attributes of President Zelensky, and everyone will be reflecting on how we best acknowledge that. As to matters of Cabinet protocol, my understanding is that the leader of the Opposition is, in fact, briefed on Privy Council terms. I think my noble friend Lord Coaker would confirm that the Government have been as explicit as they can with intelligence and information, and I am not aware of any dissatisfaction with that.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

Notwithstanding that last answer, have the Government made any assessment that could be made public about the possibility of red lines, particularly in relation to biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and how that might be communicated to the western public if such weapons were used?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

It is a matter of international law that chemical weapons are proscribed. That is one of the areas of concern; there was speculation on the part of the White House in the United States that Russia might be thinking of this. It is very difficult to talk of things like red lines. Nuclear deterrents exist, and they exist within international law. While some may disagree with that, they do exist; indeed, we are a country with one of these important deterrents. Our focus at the moment in this complicated and distressing situation, daily unfolding before us in Ukraine, is how we collectively do our best to respond to that by supporting the Ukrainians in defending themselves and in showing our solidarity—this unity of purpose to which reference has been made—with the President of Ukraine and his people.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Bishop of Leeds Excerpts

Wednesday 19th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and for the Minister’s comprehensive and ambitious speech introducing this debate. I welcomed the Government’s integrated review as a necessary attempt to hold together the diverse interests, challenges and opportunities facing the UK in the immediate future. In my early career as a linguist at GCHQ, I learned that words and assumptions need to be interrogated, as they can be used to obscure reality. For example, in our context, an increased cap on nuclear weapons tells us nothing about numbers that might actually be intended or the rationale for them.

I think it was remarkable that reference to the European Union was almost completely missing in the review. This had been widely predicted as it seems that, for the Government, any such reference might be heard as an ideological remainer capitulation, yet the rationale for a tilt towards the Indo-Pacific makes sense only to a point: it is not just what we are tilting towards that matters, as what we are tilting away from has to be considered.

Put the fractious and loaded politics of Brexit to one side for a moment; we are still going to need a strong common alliance with our European neighbours if, for example, China and Russia are to be rightly understood and handled by the democratic West. Pretending that we can simply ignore the EU like a bad smell is ridiculous, and this ideological tilting at windmills needs to be challenged. To argue that we will engage with the EU by way of its member states—the review singles out three, Germany, France and Ireland—is to impose our understanding of how we think our European allies should organise themselves politically, rather than to engage with them on their own terms. In so doing, we overlook the point that the EU is more than the sum of its parts and has agency in and of itself. To ignore this agency is to shrink the diplomatic networks that the Government have access to in support of their stated diplomatic objectives.

However, as cuts to the overseas aid budget, and Yemen in particular—already remarked on—demonstrate, there is a potentially serious discrepancy between our rhetoric and our observed behaviour. We assert that we want to be a world leader in upholding the rule of law having a number of times threatened in the past couple of years to abrogate our responsibilities under international law, not least in the recent internal market Bill and overseas operations Bill. We might think we can simply move on, but that does not mean that our damaged reputation and the obvious—to everyone else, that is—gap between our rhetoric and behaviour go unnoticed internally and externally. It also reduces our credibility when we seek to hold other countries to the rule of law, and that impacts inevitably on global security in the longer term. Ethical assumptions lie at the heart of our political and economic choices. Ethics matter.

I come back to Russia. Chatham House published an immensely helpful paper this month addressing a number of myths and misconceptions about Russia. I commend it to the House. Basically, it urges a deep questioning of the assumptions that lie behind how we see, understand and strategise in relation to Russia. As we noted to our cost during the past five years negotiating our exit from the EU, any party to a relationship, especially a changing one, needs to develop an expertise in looking through the eyes of the other party, listening through their ears, hearing their language and interpreting it in order to know where to begin in offering a language of proposition or proposal. Failure to learn the language of the other is both stupid and costly.

The Church has to do this work every day, not least because we have partnerships in parts of the world where the world looks very different and our behaviour is read very differently from our intention or expectation. My work as a Soviet specialist developed during the Cold War. For my children and grandchildren, it is as remote as the English Civil War, but for most of us here it has shaped our world and the way we see it. I am not convinced that the integrated review will lead us to a deeper understanding of why Russians see the world the way they do. Building back better demands looking more seriously at the foundations of history. The UK needs to see how we are seen and why. Can the Minister assure us that the work of translation, interpretation and realism will be at the heart of implementation?

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Lord Bishop of Leeds Excerpts

Committee stage & Lords Hansard
Tuesday 9th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, I support this amendment, to which I have added my name. It is always a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, not least as, like him, I had the privilege of serving as an advocate depute, as Crown counsel, under the authority of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern.

As others have done, I begin by saying that the Armed Forces have my unequivocal support and admiration, not least because they often put themselves at risk of their lives in the interests of this country. More particularly, in recent months they have demonstrated precisely the flexibility and capability that have enabled us to deal with the problems caused by the coronavirus.

I can be brief because I shall speak only to Amendment 14. In doing so, I accept and adopt the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, authoritative as it was because of his previous responsibilities as Secretary of State for Defence and Secretary-General of NATO. It is clear that the purpose of this amendment is simple: to remove the presumption against prosecution for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and torture. I accept that the Bill does not prevent prosecution, but I believe that a presumption against it is misconceived.

In support of that, I pray in aid the executive summary of the Bill produced by the authoritative Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law on 19 January 2021. I begin with a direct quote. It says that

“murder, torture and other grave war crimes face substantial legal barriers before there can be a prosecution. ... The Bill undermines our obligations under the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention Against Torture.”

Further, it says that the Bill weakens the United Kingdom’s reputation for decisive action against war crimes and increases the likelihood that British soldiers may be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court. We heard, in the introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, of this amendment, the particular interest that the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court is taking in this legislation.

I have great difficulty in understanding the Government’s position on this matter. I have tried. I listened to and, indeed, read again the speech of the noble Baroness at Second Reading. She was kind enough to extend the opportunity to me and others to discuss particular issues connected with the Bill. I have read, too, the letter that the Government produced.

Respectfully, one difficulty is the fact that there is opposition such as I have described. I have no recollection, in the proceedings on the Bill so far, of any noble Lord speaking enthusiastically in support of the provisions that we seek to remove. That opposition consists, for example, of the Joint Committee on Human Rights—as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, has just told us—General Sir Nick Parker, Elizabeth Wilmshurst and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank. I would add to that panoply the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, because, in the latter part of his speech on the first group that we discussed today, quoting the perceptive remarks of Mr John Healey, Member of Parliament, in the other place, he made the case against the Government’s provisions as eloquently as I have heard. If this were a piece of civil litigation, it would be easy to argue that all the authorities favour the amendment. I favour the amendment for this reason: it is necessary for both reputation and regulation, and I shall vote for it.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds [V]]

My Lords, I understand the stated rationale for this Bill and I state at the outset that I have enormous respect for the noble Baroness the Minister, but I am struggling. I am not a lawyer, but I would like to focus on a couple of specific questions. I understand the difficulty with vexatious and untimely litigation, which is a curse, but legitimate litigation, however inconvenient, is surely the blessing of a free and civilised society that honours international law and a rules-based system in more than words.

The basic reason why I speak in support of Amendment 14 is that I fear the law of predictable or conscious consequences more than the law of unintended consequences. I ask the Minister to explain clearly this anomaly, which I cannot get my head around: this Bill, as currently drafted, will make it possible for an incident of torture or murder not to be prosecuted while a sexual offence committed in the same incident would be subject to prosecution. That suggests to me either that the reference to sexual offences is arbitrary or that torture and crimes against humanity and so on should also be admitted in the same category.

I understand the assertion that the Bill does not prevent prosecution, but we are dealing with law, not just with assertions of what may or may not be possible—it is what is written in the body of the Bill. I have said that I am not a lawyer, but I support the Armed Forces—my first career was at GCHQ in Cheltenham, providing direct support to our forces, not least during the Falklands conflict—and, despite not being a lawyer, I know that torture is absolutely forbidden in both domestic and international law and that no bars to prosecution are possible.

As Field Marshall Lord Guthrie pointed out more than once, these restrictions in the Bill cannot stand unchallenged. He said:

“By introducing a statutory presumption against prosecution and statutes of limitations, this bill undermines the absolute and non-derogable nature of the prohibition of torture and violates human rights law as well as international criminal and humanitarian law.”


Making torture an excluded offence under the Bill would, I think, have the double benefit of first, avoiding what Lord Guthrie rightly called the “de facto criminalisation” of the offence and, secondly, keeping the UK in line with the rules-based international order that we claim to uphold.

Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are similarly forbidden in law. Amending the law as proposed in the triple lock would make the UK the only country in the world to have deliberately legislated to restrict the Geneva conventions. Where does this place us in a world to which we claim to be an example of law and civility? Most oddly to my mind, however, as a signatory to the 1998 Rome statute, which enables the International Criminal Court to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes when a Government are unable or unwilling to do so, the Bill will make it possible for British soldiers to be prosecuted in the Hague—that is, before a foreign court. Really?

I strongly support the amendment not just because of the legal questions, but because there is a strong moral case for it. I recognise that the last time I made a moral argument in this House during the internal market Bill, it was dismissed by another Minister with the words, “We will not be listening to moral strictures,” but there is a moral case here. The church that I represent stands with victims of torture, and I think that our nation has done hitherto and should continue to do so. Our reputation as a country that is committed to the rules-based international order matters more than I think we sometimes realise. This amendment would further incentivise the UK to maintain the highest standards on the battlefield. It is this that differentiates the civilised from the uncivilised in combat.

If the Government will not accept the amendment, I would be grateful if they could explain rationally, legally and consistently, and perhaps even morally, why these anomalies are acceptable.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow a West Country SIGINTer. I will speak to Amendment 14 in support of my noble friend Lord Robertson and the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Campbell of Pittenweem. It is extraordinary that the presumption against prosecution applies to war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and torture. These crimes have a special place in the rubric of human rights unacceptability. In its current form, this legislation would seem to decriminalise such crimes by members of the Armed Forces if they are reported after five years. This cannot be the intention and serves the interests of no one. Indeed, in their attempt to protect the military, the Government will in fact damage our Armed Forces and cause our international standing serious harm, as has been said by all of the previous speakers.

If the Government say that the threat is more apparent than real because this will not happen, that will not wash, as the very strong perception remains, and that in itself can be damaging. As has been said before, there are a number of things about this Bill where the perception is almost more important than the fact. There should be no doubt in people’s minds about the commitment of the UK Armed Forces to adherence to international law in relation to war crimes. If their enemies believe they are not, they will feel that they have a right to be unconstrained in their behaviour against our people.

The Government initially seemed to understand that it is in the interests of all for allegations of torture to be investigated fully whenever they might arise. I have to say that I do not understand why they have changed their position. If war crimes are excluded from this, as has been said by a number of speakers, there is also an increased likelihood of UK service personnel being brought before the ICC. In debate on the International Criminal Court of 2001, it was made very clear that accusations of crimes mentioned would be tried by British courts, and we put huge effort into making sure that would be the case. It would be a disgrace if inadvertently, by reducing the scope for prosecutions in this country, we were to increase the scope for prosecutions in the Hague and possibly, as has been said, elsewhere in the world. That does not help our servicemen and women. I believe strongly that this amendment would ensure that that will not happen and I will vote for it.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Bishop of Leeds Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, following the last debate on Iran, I think it is wise to take a step back from the detail, to which we shall shortly return, to consider culture and principle.

Twenty-twenty vision is something that, if claimed, proves only that the claimant is deluded. However, leaving fantasists to one side for a moment, we might take some wisdom from the late former Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, Helmut Schmidt. At the age of 91, he wrote a book called Ausser Dienst, or “out of office”, in which he advises young Germans considering a career in politics not to do so unless they speak at least two foreign languages to a competent degree. His reason? You can only understand your own culture if you look at it through the eyes of another culture, and to do that you need language; some things cannot be translated.

On the anniversary this week of Anthony Eden’s resignation in the wake of Suez, and as the UK plans to leave the European Union and unleash its potential on a waiting world, Schmidt’s advice is both prescient and apposite. The British Government should never take it for granted that living on an island generates a very particular, if not peculiar, psychology and that this has an impact not only on how we understand ourselves but on how we perceive the way we are perceived by other nations. This is why the first couple of years of the post-referendum Brexit debate led to incredulity and bewilderment among many of those looking at us from the outside.

Behind all the politics and trading technicalities of Brexit lies the ineluctable fact that, on this hyperconnected, small planet, no policy on anything can ignore its implications for the wider picture. Foreign policy is not primarily about “us” directed at “them”, but rather “us” behaving as part of “them”. Integral to this is the first rule of negotiation: to look through the eyes of the interlocutor in order to see ourselves as we are seen. In other words, we need our Government to go beyond easy slogans such as “Get Brexit done”, or even “Global Britain”, and consider how actual policy is to be worked out with real people and how the implications and consequences of that policy are to be understood and responded to by those with whom we claim to be interconnected partners. I am seeking here not to avoid the pragmatics of policy-making—no doubt other noble Lords will attend to that—but to argue that there is an urgent need for this Government to look beneath the political game-playing to the deeper, long-term dynamics of both ethical substance and communication.

I will not be alone in noting that the language of insulting other European Union countries, as if they were not listening or could not understand English, has now changed to the language of “our friends and partners” in Europe. That is good, but our friends and partners will not have forgotten and they are not stupid.

The UK’s response to the assassination of General Soleimani in Baghdad last week, as we have just discussed, further exposes both the interconnectedness of foreign policies and the particular impact of trade dependency on the United States of Donald Trump—something that will not be lost on Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe or her family.

Daily reading of the Bible, which is in my job description, reinforces a sense of the transience of power in history. The Old Testament shows that quick and obvious defence alliances often led to terrible longer-term enslavements. Empires came and went, their hubris dribbling away into deserts of exiled misery, and powers and rulers never learned, even when they seduced their people into what turned out to be false securities.

Ethics is, first and foremost, an exercise in sympathy, looking through the eyes of others. The ethics of our foreign policy priorities must begin with an understanding of what drives other countries in their domestic and foreign policies, and a cultivated willingness to shape ours in the light of how we are seen by others.

I hope that the Government, with some humility and deeper cultural thinking, might just listen to those who wish to see global justice and peace worked out in this complex world by people who are not driven by claims to power but by the imperatives of mutual human flourishing.

National Security Capability Review

Lord Bishop of Leeds Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

As I said, we certainly want to make our announcement as soon as possible, but I would have thought that it would be even worse if I were to stand here and noble Lords were accusing the Government of making snap decisions, as I have heard criticism to that effect in relation to the 2010 SDSR. We are not in the business of making unconsidered judgments.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, would the Minister agree with me that it is important in any public statement that the people of this country are properly apprised of the fact that, if we say yes to and prioritise some elements of our defence capability, we are inevitably saying no to others, and that we are given a proper appraisal of what our capability actually is? In this country, particularly in some of our newspapers, we still hear statements that imply almost that Britannia still rules the waves. Our rhetoric and prioritising ought to match the reality of the situation in which we find ourselves.

[Earl Howe]

The right reverend Prelate is correct. We need to tailor our capabilities to what is affordable, certainly, but we also need to bear in mind that the importance of the UK acting with its allies will not diminish. As I have said many times, NATO is the bedrock of our national security, and will continue to be so.

Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2017

Lord Bishop of Leeds Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, I hesitate to follow such eloquent speeches on so much detail, but I want to make one or two general points about a more specific area. I do so from an interest that began when I was a Soviet specialist at GCHQ in a previous incarnation, although I realise that that is probably not the right religious phrase to use.

It still seems to me that an SDSR should enable us to be flexible enough to cope with whatever changes are likely to come. My fear, which I have expressed in the House before, remains that in 15 to 20 years’ time we may end up with a force that meets the demands of now but perhaps not the demands of the situation 15 or 20 years down the line because the world changes so much. When I left GCHQ, the Soviet Union was intact, and we see what has changed since then. Therefore, I want to focus on Russia in particular.

It seems pretty obvious that one of Russia’s tactics at the moment, either deliberate or incidental, is to divide the allies one from another—and it seems to be quite effective in that at the moment—enabling the threat against Russia to be diminished, at least in its mind. When we talk about,

“challenges to the international rules-based order”—

the words of the Motion—this begs the question of whose rules. There always are rules, but the question is whose rules they are, on what basis and criteria they are agreed and who adheres to them. What happens if countries decide to change the rules and operate in a different way, which is clearly what is going on at the moment?

Two things that characterise Russia are not only pride and the nature of glory—and there is much more that could be said about that—but the fact that Russians identify themselves through their suffering, which is why I am still a little suspicious of the assumption that the application of greater and greater sanctions will have a big impact. That might be the case in the material West but I think that in Russia a different narrative is running.

How do we look through the eyes of Russia, for example, in determining our response to how we shape our forces for the future? I draw your Lordships’ attention to an article by Richard Sokolsky from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, entitled The New NATO-Russia Military Balance: Implications for European Security. I found this one of the most easily understood and probably most helpful and accurate surveys of the situation at the moment, drawing attention to the political and military challenges or perspectives that we face. One point that he makes is that it is incumbent on NATO to draw clear lines if we are to maintain an international rules-based order. For example, when the INF treaty is violated by Russia, even if we think it will not go back on it, we should at least make it clear that that is a violation of rules—a transgression over lines that have previously been drawn in the sand—and perhaps attention should be drawn to that a little more loudly.

The other point that he goes on to make is the importance of keeping dialogue with Russia open, including through back-door diplomacy, and this could be extrapolated to other contexts. When the divisions are increasing in the foreground, how do we maintain those perhaps unofficial back-door routes where the conversation can keep going? If we are to maintain a situation where the same rules can be adhered to whatever the change in circumstances, that conversation will be essential.

I end, noble Lords will be glad to hear, largely where I began. How do we enable our forces to have the confidence that they are being set up to exercise power in a changing environment that has already changed from the assumptions that were set out when the SDSR of 2015 was established? That is where the challenge lies as we pay attention to some of the dynamics of relations with countries such as Russia.

Immigration Bill

Lord Bishop of Leeds Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, I was recently in northern Iraq, visiting internally displaced people and Syrian refugees. In a meeting with the United Nations office for the co-ordination of humanitarian aid, we were told that despite the generosity promised by many international donors, only 9% of the money had actually got through. That was not specifically applied to the UK. I do not know how much of the UK’s promised aid has gone but it was 9% overall. So when we hear about the amount of money that has been promised, it does not tell us how much has been delivered.

The second background point I would make is that in meeting refugees and internally displaced people, it became clear that there is a divide by generation. The older people still dream of going back home; the younger people and their children do not believe that they have a home to go back to. In the areas where ISIS has been, in many cases it has simply destroyed everything. There is no infrastructure. There are no homes or schools. What has been left has often been booby-trapped. So what does it mean to say that we want to help all these people go home, when home may no longer exist? The communities where for generations they lived together have now been destroyed because of the violence and what has gone on.

My fear in this is that we are going to have tens of thousands of children whose experience of not being welcomed when they are genuine refugees, who have shown extraordinary resilience to leave and get to where they have, will not forget how they were treated. If we want to see resentment or violence among the next two generations in that part of the world, the seeds are being sown now. I feel that the humanitarian demand outweighs some of the more technical stuff that we have heard. I applaud the Government for what they are doing, particularly in relation to the camps out in the Middle East, but they are not addressing the question on our doorstep. I support the amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, like others I recognise the contribution that the Government are making in money and personnel, so far as those are being sent. But I regard the dangers of which we have heard—the situation in which unimaginable numbers of children have been caught up—and our moral responsibility as outweighing everything. The dangers include the risks of trafficking and exploitation. Was that not precisely what the previous Government set out to counter in their flagship legislation? Prevention is the best response so relocating, supporting and welcoming children would contribute to that objective. The Minister says that this amendment is not the best or the most effective way but it is not an either/or. Whatever other countries do or do not do, the UK must not do just what is better than others but what it knows is right. This amendment is in the best interests of the children who are the subject of it.