Sustainable Development Goals
Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, one of the core missions of the FCDO is to end extreme poverty, while also ensuring that all our programmes are reaching the bottom billion—the people most in need of the support that we give through our development programmes. We will continue to develop our programmes, making sure that we are reaching those most in need so that we do not leave anyone behind.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, the World Bank has said that, post recovery, we will need to reschedule debts, tackle climate change more energetically and promote livelihoods. Do the Government agree with that assessment? If they do, will they still ensure that we prioritise gender equality and poverty reduction in achieving those objectives?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, we agree with that assessment and I assure the noble Lord that we will continue to prioritise tackling gender inequality.
Covid-19: Foreign Aid
Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the economic impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, what assessment they have made of (1) their foreign aid, and (2) their development spending, commitments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Sugg) (Con) [V]
My Lords, like nations around the world, the UK is experiencing a severe economic downturn due to the pandemic, which will affect the amount we spend on overseas development assistance this year and in future years. In light of this, we have prioritised our aid spending to respond to Covid-19, focus on poverty reduction, tackle climate change and champion girls’ education.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister for her reply. Integrating development and diplomacy is a major challenge, so how long will it take to achieve that and enable us to build back better post Covid-19? Since poverty is rising, as the Minister acknowledged, the impact of climate change is increasing and we have had cuts to date of £2.9 billion, will the Government publish a strategy for the new department to provide clarity for development partners, some of which are fighting for survival and all of which face an uncertain future? Will that strategy and the Government’s official development assistance be subject to scrutiny by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, working with a dedicated parliamentary committee to ensure that we maintain the UK’s global leadership in international development?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, we plan to set out a strategy in the near future as part of the integrated review. The aim of the new department is to bring the weight of our diplomatic network to support our development expertise and our development programming dealing with the rise in poverty and the climate change that the noble Lord points to. We are committed to working with our partners as we move through the merger, and I assure him that we are indeed committed to independent scrutiny and confirm that we will be keeping to ICAI.
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office
Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I regret that I totally disagree with the noble Lord. The coming together of the two departments as a merger will strengthen the global reach of our development capacity and capabilities. Yes, I can confirm our continued commitment to the 0.7% target. It was a Conservative-led coalition Government who brought that into law.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
I urge the Government to make an early statement of coherent development policy objectives for the new department. I am glad that the Minister has reaffirmed the 0.7% but the Government have given conflicting messages on this issue, implying that the already slashed budget may be diverted elsewhere. The Secretary of State gave an evasive answer to my colleague Layla Moran yesterday, so I am glad that the Minister here has given a straight answer today. The workload of monitoring development and working with ICAI is surely beyond the effective capacity of one committee, so will the Government recognise that we need a dedicated committee to deal with this, which happened when the ODA was within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the time of the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Parliamentary committees are very much a much a matter for Parliament, but certainly my right honourable friend the Prime Minister’s view is that they should reflect departments. The noble Lord mentioned ICAI and that will continue, although this provides an opportunity to review its governance and ensure that it is fully aligned with the new department.
Aid Impact
Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, we are committed to increasing and improving our work on climate. We are doubling our funding to the International Climate Fund and, as the noble Baroness says, we are hosting COP. We are also absolutely committed to making sure that that funding is spent effectively.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s decision on ICAI. I worked with Andrew Mitchell on its establishment and the set-up agreed then has proved successful. ICAI is subject to confirmatory hearings by the International Development Committee and, through the committee, reports its programme and findings. This needs to be maintained if the UK’s global reputation is not to be risked. Therefore, I urge the Government to support a dedicated Commons Select Committee to monitor ICAI and UK aid, and to maintain the credibility of the great work that has been done to date.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for welcoming the commitment to keep ICAI. On the Select Committee point, the Government agree that Parliament has an important role in scrutinising UK aid spending, and Select Committees are of course fundamental in scrutinising the Government’s spending and policies. We acknowledge that, as a consequence of the merger, the House of Commons might have to reconfigure the Select Committee structure, but the Government’s view is that normally the committee structure mirrors the departmental structure.
Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020
Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts(4 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie [V]
My Lords, as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe from 1999 to 2005, I saw the Russian delegation emasculated, changing from a pluralistic group, with liberals, Yabloko and opposition MPs willing to speak freely, to a block of Putin clones. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, as rapporteur on Chechnya, was refused a visa to visit the province, the assembly suspended the Russian delegation’s voting rights—yet, sadly, a week later Tony Blair took Putin for tea with the Queen. Subsequently, the conservative group in the assembly teamed up in the same group as Putin’s MPs and served under the leadership of one of his acolytes.
I became involved in supporting Mikhail Khodorkovsky after Yukos was crushed by the Kremlin and he was arrested in Siberia in 2003 and prosecuted and imprisoned, in reality for his support for opposition parties and his challenge to Putin. At that time, I tried to secure support for the plight of Svetlana Bakhmina, a lawyer advising Yukos who was imprisoned on trumped-up charges and denied access to her young children. Disappointingly, UK MPs and the British media were impervious to her plight. I attended a seminar at Columbia University, where a session was entitled “Are We Back in the USSR?”—to which the answer was, “No, it is much worse, there are many more KGB-trained personnel running Russia than ever was the case in the Soviet Union.”
I then came into contact with Robert Amsterdam, Khodorkovsky’s lawyer, and Bill Browder, whose successful business in Moscow was targeted by the Kremlin. I learned how they were exposing high-level activity and fraud, for which Sergei Magnitsky, as Bill Browder’s lawyer, paid the final price of his life, dying in agony having been denied effective treatment for pancreatitis. The names of those responsible were well documented, and campaigns were begun to ban them from visiting or engaging with democratic countries.
So the Government came late to this process, and it was only with the murder of Alexander Litvinenko that our leadership finally woke up. Today’s instrument is therefore welcome and necessary but, I would suggest, late. I appreciate that the Government make much of unilateral action, but I trust that the Minister will acknowledge that co-ordinated efforts are much more effective. These regulations need to pave the way for further measures against agents of the Kremlin and other hostile agents.
Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development: Merger
Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts(4 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, why is the Minister being so evasive about the role of ICAI? It has been a huge success. It was introduced by Andrew Mitchell. Working with the International Development Committee—which I had the privilege of chairing for 10 years—it has proved an effective way of demonstrating real accountability for UK aid and giving confidence that we continue to be world leaders. Do the Government not recognise that dismantling that arrangement will not leave them with the trust of the aid community or the poor of the world?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I have already answered the issue of scrutiny. I have dealt with ICAI specifically. It has made recommendations on briefs and parts of my portfolio, including PSVI, which we discussed earlier. We continue to respond to all levels of parliamentary scrutiny, as we will with the new department from September.
Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting 2018
Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts(6 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the renewed interest in the Commonwealth and the UK Government’s decision to host CHOGM next month. I very much appreciate the active role that the Minister is playing in promoting that and working for it to be the success that we all wish.
It is also interesting that last year saw the first meeting of Commonwealth Trade Ministers. To me, it is a shame that it took Brexit for something like that to happen, when it could have happened at any time in the last 40 years and perhaps should become a regular event. I am wholly in favour of promoting trade with the Commonwealth, but it is a total delusion to see the Commonwealth as any kind of substitute for our trade with the EU. It is worth pointing out that Germany’s exports to the Commonwealth are more than ours by a margin of around 17.5%, if you take the top 10 of our exports. It managed to achieve that in spite of the appalling constraints of being a member of the European Union.
It would also be a terrible mistake to view the Commonwealth as the vehicle for the Empire 2.0 project, which some of the harder-line Brexiteers have been heard to talk about. We all recognise and welcome the fact that the Commonwealth long ago ceased to be the British Commonwealth. It is not and never will be a trading bloc. As many noble Lords have said, it is a voluntary association of sovereign nation states with a shared history and shared values. Its actions are based on consent; members can leave without negotiation, as the Maldives did, and can also be expelled—and, of course, as we have heard, the Gambia has rejoined.
It is also true that when we joined the European Community we offended some Commonwealth members, notably New Zealand and, to a lesser extent, Australia. But they have moved on and built their economies on their own regional trading blocs. I have no doubt that New Zealand would love a deal that allowed them to pour their lamb back into our markets, as well as the wine produced on what used to be sheep farms. However, I fear for what that would do to our own sheep farmers, who already face the loss of their prime export market for live lambs, mostly to France. In fact, in the month after the referendum, the export of Scottish lambs to France fell by 80%. It recovered because the French could not find the lambs anywhere else, but that clearly indicated that, once we leave the EU, they will not be looking for Scottish lambs.
Frictionless trade is never as simple as it sounds. As president of the Caribbean Council, I know that Commonwealth countries have concerns that the European partnership agreement with Caricom may be compromised by the UK’s exit, especially as we are the prime destination or transmission route for their products. Cane sugar producers in Guyana, Belize, Jamaica and Barbados are concerned that the special status that they currently enjoy will be sacrificed to open up exports from Brazil—something that it appears Tate and Lyle is lobbying hard for—resulting in their severe hardship. Tate and Lyle’s case, of course, failed to mention the consequences for weak Caribbean countries. What assurances can the Minister give that we will give priority to the agreements that we currently have?
So changing trade patterns with the Commonwealth need to be entered into sensitively and realistically—but let me turn away from trade and look at those other aspects of the Commonwealth that are of great value. It is interesting to ask what holds us together. Why does it still exist? The Commonwealth charter shares values and principles, such as democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Less openly stated is a shared heritage of the English language and rule from Britain during the days of Empire. It certainly does not behove Britain to lecture—and I do not think that that is the tone of the debate in this House—but rather to facilitate frank and open discussion. That is why I very much welcome the four forums proposed for the CHOGM summit: the youth forum, the women’s forum, the business forum and the people’s forum. I hope that citizens from across the Commonwealth will be emboldened to highlight controversial issues.
My noble friend Lady Barker in a previous Commonwealth debate mentioned that 40 of the 53 Commonwealth countries outlawed homosexuality. It is nice to know that that number has reduced, but it is still extremely high. Female genital mutilation exists across too many countries, but is especially prevalent in the Gambia and Sierra Leone, is high in Nigeria, Kenya and Tanzania, and exists in Ghana. Child marriage—by that I mean marriage under 15—blights the lives of girls in many countries, notably Nigeria and Pakistan. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, mentioned, access to family planning and safe abortions is not readily available in many Commonwealth countries. So I hope that, through the forum, powerful voices within those countries may be raised so that they can examine the impact of these practices and start campaigning for basic rights.
I welcome the commitment of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, during the election campaign to democracy and development, and I will finish by focusing on development, much of which goes to the Commonwealth. I am concerned that over the past two years development expenditure has come under pressure and, contrary to popular belief, is being cut. Humanitarian aid has nearly doubled, mainly because of Syria and Yemen; 25% of ODA goes through other departments for which development is not a priority—rather, security and prosperity are. There has been a substantial uplift in the allocation of funding available for the CDC, which I do not oppose, and the purchasing power of the pound has fallen by 20% since the referendum. Can I ask the Government to acknowledge this—because, frankly, I do not think that they have acknowledged that development spending specifically is being cut? We have an enviable record of strengthening health and education; we used to lead on building agricultural resilience; and we are helping people, especially women, to acquire skills and access to finance, title to their land and cash transfer payments. But many of these programmes are coming to an end and do not appear to be being replaced.
I praise the Government for the commitments that they have made, but we need to prioritise things such as disability, particularly sensory deprivation for blind and deaf people. Girls especially are vulnerable. I will make my final point on this issue and declare my interest not just in development but in deafness. For deaf and blind girls, the prospect of rape or sexual assault is high. Many of our charities, such as Sightsavers, Deaf Child Worldwide and DeafKidz International, are doing great work with local partners. We cannot bind any country at CHOGM, but we can open their eyes and ears and provide a voice to those for whom development offers hope for a better future. Let us maintain it.
Queen’s Speech
Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts(7 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Luce, that it is a daunting task to sum up a debate with so many contributions which range, literally, over the whole globe—and indeed I will have to cherry pick. I would also like to confirm two things. First, understandably, because of everything that has happened in the last few weeks, the mood of the House is sombre. Indeed, in his opening speech, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, talked about a darkening international situation which we have to confront. Secondly, I echo what many noble Lords said about how welcome it is to see the noble Earl, Lord Howe, opening the debate and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, replying to it in his new role—we look forward to hearing from him. We are very pleased to have two Ministers who engage so well with the House. In his opening remarks the noble Earl, Lord Howe, also said that the commitment to spending 2% on defence and 0.7% on development assistance is a crucial part of how we might address this darkening atmosphere, and I think he was right to say so. Most of my remarks will focus on international development-related issues, although there are a couple of other things as well.
The noble Earl mentioned the strengthening capacity of our international trade department. I would simply say that I think we should all be fairly cautious on two grounds. First, we keep telling ourselves that we are a great trading nation. However, the trade seems to be more in one direction than the other. We have a historically huge balance of payments deficit. That has not happened because we are a member of the European Union, because other members of the European Union have managed to operate within the Union and create a surplus. The reality is that we are a nation of small businesses, and exporting is difficult and challenging unless there is a huge amount of resource and support. I therefore hope that these new people in the trade ministry will be able to give small and medium-sized businesses the practical reality to enable them to trade and export, because for many of them the risks are just too great in the present climate.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, made the point that in his time in the House he has seen a welcome increase in the number of contributions and discussions on the role and importance of international development, and that has certainly been true of today’s debate. The role of the Commonwealth has also featured very strongly and that is welcome.
I want to make a point about trade before I come to speak in detail about development. I happen to be the president of the Caribbean Council, which is made up of business associations promoting relationships between the UK and the Caribbean. I know from my discussions with Caribbean countries that they are really concerned about the consequences of Brexit, the implications of the loss of EPAs with the UK—if that happens—and possible trade deals that we form with countries such as Brazil and the United States, which could disadvantage them compared with their current preferential arrangements. They are seeking assurances that the United Kingdom, in its desire to get trade deals with Brazil or the United States, will not forget the needs of weaker and more vulnerable partners in the Caribbean, with whom we have traditionally had very good relationships. I think that they would want that to be put on the record.
I have put in the register of Members’ interests my connections with international development, which go back quite a long way, and I look for a number of commitments from the Minister. Having welcomed the 0.7% contribution, quite a lot of colleagues, including the noble Lord, Lord Collins, at the beginning of the debate, have also expressed concern about the Government’s desire or intention to try to change the terms or definition of official development assistance. I hope that that will not happen but I also suggest to the Government that, with all the challenges of Brexit, this does not seem to be the right moment to open discussions with other members of the OECD about how to redefine aid in a way that I think suits the Conservative Party as a majority Government but not as a minority Government. It would be good to have an assurance that aid will be spent on poverty reduction and in conformity with current agreements and our own domestic laws, which require it to be poverty focused and untied.
What will happen to our relationship as regards aid spending and our partnerships with the European Union, accounting for £1.3 billion? Again, a number of noble Lords raised this. I understand that the European Union has said that it wants this to continue. Of course, people might say, “What wouldn’t they? It’s 15% of their budget that they are going to lose”. I get that point, but it is also true that our own multilateral review assessed our European partnerships and the European agencies as “excellent”, “outstanding” or “very good”. The logic of that is that we should be able to find a way of continuing to work with the European Union on development co-operation, and it would be good to hear whether the Government have a positive view about taking that forward. Obviously, there must be agreement on the broad principles that would enable that to happen.
The role of DfID—this is a term it uses itself—is a “commissioning agency” for aid and development. There is an existing partnership. I think that my noble friend Lady Sheehan and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned the ODI report, which pointed out that the UK has a huge capacity to deliver aid through the budget provided by DfID and through the policy framework, with accountability, but it is the partnerships with a whole variety of partnering contractors—whether NGOs, private contractors, hybrid organisations or think tanks and so on—that provide real benefit to the UK and help us to be world-beaters, and it is helpful for DfID to acknowledge that.
One organisation with which I have an involvement is the Start Network—a consortium of international NGOs that deliver low-visibility humanitarian responses at a very early stage. They are there before the United Nations and other big organisations have the chance to respond. A recent example of its work was in the DRC, where there was an outbreak of Ebola. It was able to mobilise very quickly through the Alliance for International Medical Action and get people on the ground. It was able to train eight Ministry of Health staff, arrange 58 community relays for awareness and chlorination activities, brief 20 political and administrative authorities, and reach 2,726 people with health advice about how to avoid the disease. This was all done in a matter of days and in a very small number of weeks. It demonstrates what can be done with this kind of partnership. It is very substantially funded by DfID, but it is also supported by the Netherlands, Ireland, Estonia, ECHO and, soon, by Belgium. This kind of partnership is extremely valuable.
Another thing worth mentioning is that the critics of aid do not let go. I do not know how many noble Lords saw this piece in the Daily Mail earlier this week:
“Minister in denial over aid scandals … Seven Daily Mail stories that she could not refute”.
I very much welcome Priti Patel’s defence of her department in the face of these criticisms and her challenge to the media, saying that most of their stories were not accurate. I do not think she needs to refute them, but I could easily pick up a couple of them.
One example the Daily Mail complains about is the amount of cash payments distributed through our aid budget. These programmes have been tried and tested and are the preferred and most effective mechanism for dealing with crises by most international aid donors. The Mail complains that recipients can spend these payments “at will” and has a picture of a queue of people at an ATM. That is of course true, but the evidence shows that people on the edge of survival prioritise food and health when they are given money. It is the most effective way of getting it. Rather than shipping US grain to Africa and paying shippers a huge amount of aid money to get it there, it is much more effective to have the money used to buy services and food locally and help the local economy. I suspect that the Daily Mail probably thinks that the DWP should do this because, after all, all this money is going to feckless, undeserving poor, which seems to be the fundamental attitude of that particular organ.
The Daily Mail also complains that DfID has the highest-paid civil servants. It is a very small department, so I suspect it is a mean figure of £53,000 a year. However, if you are critical of aid being spent in difficult and challenging environments, would you not want highly paid civil servants to make sure that it is well spent? I am glad to say, as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said, that DfID staff work hard and with huge dedication around the world. They are indeed recognised as having done so, in very difficult and anti-social circumstances and conditions.
This has been a debate in the context of Brexit, which will be discussed at the end of next week, but also of our struggling to redefine our relationship with the rest the world. An awful lot will have to happen in the next two to three years before that becomes clear, but one thing that has united the House is that we have something to be proud of in our international engagement, our commitment to 0.7%, our strong defence capacity and a recognition that we have to be engaged with the world and not turn our back on it. That is the flavour that has come out of the debate.
Populism and Nationalism
Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts(7 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
That this House takes note of challenges to the liberal international order posed by the development of populism and nationalism around the world.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to be able to move the Motion in my name. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests.
Tomorrow, President Trump will be inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States. This is something that most commentators did not expect and critics did not take seriously. Indeed, it appears that the majority of American voters did not, and do not, want it. In March, Theresa May will trigger Article 50 to begin the process of leaving the European Union—again, unexpected and not overwhelmingly supported. Because these events were not predicted by most decision-makers, the populist and nationalist rhetoric that fuelled the campaigns were not challenged as forcefully and effectively as many of us feel they should have been.
How did we get here, and what should we do about it? It appears now to be conventional wisdom that globalisation has led to increasing complexity across society and across the world, and this has also led to inequalities of impact, even given that the world economy has grown faster as a result of globalisation. The shock of the 2008 crash has exacerbated all this. Post-war decades of sustained improvement in living standards have been followed by a period of relative stagnation for many individuals and communities. Well-paid industrial jobs have been lost and have been replaced by, in many cases, lower-skilled and lower-paid jobs. Public investment has been cut, services are under pressure, and that is leading to a sense of alienation—aggravated, I would suggest, by the conspicuous earnings and consumption of a few individuals and corporates at the top, who are beyond the reach of Governments, in some cases, being internationally footloose.
Into this ferment, populist and nationalist movements have found opportunity to exploit grievance and fuel anger. The standard analysis from them has been along these lines: “The liberal elite are out of touch. They don’t care about you”. Ironically, these words have been delivered by well-off, expensively educated groups, who have not themselves suffered as those they seek to recruit. Being dedicated to promoting anger and resentment, with a chorus of media cheerleaders behind them, it has been relatively easy to build support in the wake of complacency among those who believed that the benefits of international trade and open liberal societies were somehow self-evident. Misrepresentation of facts, contempt for experts or informed opinion, and the promoting of lies, half-truths and post-truths have gone largely unchallenged, in the belief that established wisdom would prevail.
We have seen the success of the Brexit campaign, the election of Donald Trump and the rise of populist and nationalist movements across Europe. Their success at storming the bastions of the established order has not been replicated by them in the form of any coherent analysis or forward plan. It is characterised by a series of vacuous slogans such as, “I want my country back”, and “Make America great again”, implying some vague, half-remembered and non-existent memory of a golden age. In Scotland, the SNP slogan is similar: “Help us build a better Scotland”.
Now that these movements have secured their place in decision-making, what will they do? The Brexiteers do not agree on how leaving the EU should be achieved and what form non-membership of the EU should take. I suggest that Theresa May has hijacked the referendum, claiming that it meant the end of freedom of movement and leaving the single market, when no such clarity of intent conceivably exists. More seriously, she does not appear to take account of how the other 27 members will react. She seems to think we can leave the EU without making any further contribution or being bound by any of the rules, but retaining most of the benefits. What it may mean for immigration is even less clear. We will end free movement but continue to accept immigrants on our own terms, yet many—but by no means all—of those who voted to leave did so in the belief that we could halt or drastically reduce immigration. It is now pretty clear that that is not going to happen.
Another strand of the argument was that we could bring home the budget and spend it on the health service. Looking at the Trump agenda, we see similar manifestations. Just as leaving the EU appears to mean tearing up not just our comprehensive trade agreement within the single market but all the EU external trade deals, so US international trade agreements are to be torn up or abandoned. On the one hand, we are being lectured that the existing agreements inhibit trade, with no evidence to support that assertion; on the other hand, the new world order starts with scrapping most of the international agreements. In America, restrictions are to be put on Muslim immigrants to the USA, millions of Mexicans are to be deported and a wall is to be built at the Mexicans’ expense. The implication is a bit like a movie being reversed: the loss of jobs and investment in America’s rust belt—or the north of England, the south-west or south Wales—will simply be reversed.
How should we respond to this challenge? First, we must face down lies and misinformation and offer alternative information. We must demand explanations of policy options that can address the grievances that are highlighted. We must also examine policy options which may aggravate grievance and promote those that can offset them. We should not overreact. George Osborne’s alternative budget undermined the case for remain by being far too specific about the likely outcome of a highly uncertain situation. We should surely avoid similarly vacuous or offensive slogans such as, “Brexit means Brexit”, “We will have a red, white and blue Brexit”, or, “If you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere”. Actually, that is precisely how some global corporations choose to behave.
In Scotland during the independence referendum, we had some success in facing down the claims of the nationalists, notably their claim that Scotland could leave the UK and keep the pound. Actually, they asserted that they could keep the pound under more favourable terms than any of the regions of the remaining UK. But post-Brexit the nationalists are at it again. Having spent almost nothing on the remain campaign, leading to SNP voters delivering the largest proportion of leavers, they are now expending a great deal of taxpayers’ money on a fruitless attempt to try to secure a deal that keeps Scotland in the EU as the rest of the UK leaves. This ignores the fact that the UK single market is crucial to Scotland and that the case, conditions and timescale for Scottish accession to the EU—post an independence referendum—are exceptionally uncertain.
Put together, all these arguments amount to: “Never mind the uncertainty. Although we have no idea what future arrangements can be achieved, how long they will take and how much damage will be caused by the long-term uncertainty, we should, to quote Churchill, ‘Just keep buggering on’”. I and these Benches beg to differ. To address Britain’s future responsibly, it is sensible to put the shape of our arrangements outside the EU to the people. Many of Britain’s friends—and America’s, for that matter—are concerned at where we might be heading. Are we turning in on ourselves? How will we work with allies as we dismantle many established co-operative arrangements?
Two issues which can act as litmus tests on how we face the world relate to our overseas aid programme and our membership of the European Convention on Human Rights. On the aid programme, the Government have made it clear that they will maintain their commitment to delivering 0.7% of GNI as aid. However, the Prime Minister has appointed an aid-sceptical Secretary of State and there has been a crescendo of media reporting with the objective of getting the budget cut. It is worth noting that social media and official comments coming from DfID consistently set out the positive achievements of our aid spending, but Ministers seem less willing to defend their department’s record, or at least to set it straight given the partial and inaccurate information in many reports. As it is, the dramatic increase in spending on humanitarian relief in the wake of the Syrian refugee crisis and the conflict in Yemen have led to some cuts in forward development programmes, which are further hit by the fall in value of the pound and deteriorating trade balances between the UK and developing countries. These development programmes are designed to build resilience and capacity, helping countries to better serve their own citizens and, in the long run, reduce their aid dependency. If we were to cut our spending and back away from longer-term commitments, it would reinforce the image of a Britain turning in on itself and away from its long-term relationships, many of which have involved close connections for two centuries or even more.
More alarming is Theresa May’s revival of her earlier ambition to take Britain out of the European Convention on Human Rights. She may seek to make an intellectual case for repatriating those rights and making the Supreme Court the final appeal. However, that would give an awful signal of a UK, which was the architect of the convention, downgrading its commitment to human rights in international law. In 2015, we celebrated the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, Britain’s gift to the foundations of political and human rights and the rule of law. The populists and nationalists whose voices are so loud now have, I suggest, at best a selective view of human rights but mostly a contemptuous one: that we should do whatever we please in whatever, at any given time, we believe to be the interests of the majority, however defined.
In four years, Americans will have the opportunity to throw out Donald Trump; by contrast, Theresa May has resolved that leaving the European Union, a highly complex process that fundamentally changes our constitution and redefines the rights of our citizens and legal residents in the UK, should be determined by a simple majority and resolved as she thinks fit. Few genuinely democratic constitutions can be changed so easily, certainly not the American one. That stance is, I suggest, profoundly undemocratic and entirely justifies the case for putting the shape of the final agreement to the people, whose motives and expectations on 23 June were clearly very mixed. What she claims to be a clean Brexit will be anything but.
We will not simply stand by if we see the Government taking free rein to pursue a strategy that we believe will leave Britain isolated and politically damaged for generations to come. We must not leave the field to the ultraconservative opponents of liberal and pluralist values. We must stand up to malicious populism and nationalism. To those hurting from the fallout of our faltering economies, we must show our determination that values of tolerance, openness and fairness can help to build vibrant and successful communities and opportunities across the whole of the United Kingdom and beyond.
It is not liberalism that has failed but the loss of liberal values, with too many financial and corporate institutions abandoning integrity and social responsibility, and political leaders tearing up the rulebook and undermining essentially liberal institutions. We should not succumb to the wreckers who are now in ascendancy. We should stand up to them and challenge them, with a reassertion of liberal values of fairness, inclusion, openness and tolerance. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very courteous and focused reply. I also thank all noble Lords who took part in the debate, which was thoughtful and wide-ranging. The right reverend Prelates gave us thoughtful and philosophical contributions which added considerably to the debate. I am grateful to the Minister for reiterating her commitment to 0.7%, and I am comfortable with 2% for defence as well. I say gently to the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, that as a consequence of the depreciation of the pound, our aid budget is already being sufficiently cut because of its reduced purchasing power and adverse trade relations with Africa, so we need to maintain it.
The particular point on populism was about addressing the interests of ordinary voters. There is no doubt at all that the populist and nationalist movements have done that very effectively, but I suggest to the House—I think the debate concurred with this—that it is liberal values and liberal institutions that will deliver the answers to those people. We have acknowledged our failings and our complicity in giving them disaffection, but it is up to us now to unite on measures which will show how liberal values can bring them back into the frame and address their concerns. I believe this debate has been a useful and constructive contribution to that.
Iran: Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe
Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, to address the main points there, we share the concerns of this family about the situation. The stresses and strains that they have been through are appalling and we have a great care for not only Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe but her whole family, including Gabriella. Gabriella is not detained in Iran. We have not requested the return of her passport, as her father has decided that she should stay with her grandparents for the time being. With regard to the generality of the noble Lord’s questions about BA, that is a commercial relationship but of course it is part of the development whereby we see Iran coming back into the international community, with all the responsibilities that that involves. Yesterday, when the Foreign Secretary commented on the upgrade of diplomatic relations, he specifically said that it,
“gives us the opportunity to develop our discussions on a range of issues, including our consular cases”.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I knew Richard Ratcliffe when he was an accountant at the National Audit Office. He was seconded to the International Development Committee, which I chaired, and gave us very good work. The only reason why his wife and daughter were in Iran was to visit her family, Gabriella’s grandparents. It was on their return that they were arrested. There is no evidence whatever and no charges have been brought. In the circumstances, should the Government not make it clear that it is unacceptable for Iran to expect an improvement in relations if it behaves like this? The Government have previously forbidden BA to operate, as they did during the Ebola operation in Sierra Leone. They could do so now with regard to Iran.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, it is a fact that we take consular cases very seriously. It is also a fact that Mrs Ratcliffe has dual nationality. We are therefore not able to have consular access; we have our contact through the family. That does not mean that we take no action, it means that we support wherever we can, including pressing for proper access to health and legal representation, and that we do. As I mentioned a moment ago, it is our assessment that by ensuring that we have an ambassador there, we are in a better position properly to press the case for consular access and for proper treatment of people who hold dual nationality. As the noble Lord will know, dual nationality is not recognised by Iran. We find that wrong.