Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development: Merger

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Monday 27th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I totally agree with my noble friend.

[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

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Lords Chamber

[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

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Lords Chamber

[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

Thursday 19th January 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Motion agreed.

Iran: Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[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.

Arms Exports and Controls

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

As this will be our last opportunity during this Parliament to debate a report by the Committees on Arms Export Controls, I start by thanking most warmly my colleagues from the four Select Committees who have served on our Committees during this Parliament for the time that they have given, and most particularly for the tenacity that they have brought to our scrutiny of the Government. I also thank our staff who, because they are so few in number, are exceptionally cost-effective. Most particularly I thank the Clerk, Mr Keith Neary, who has given the Committees exemplary service for the greater part of the Parliament during which he has been Clerk.

I am conscious that the increasing width and depth of our Committees’ scrutiny of this key area has imposed a significant additional work load on the four Departments concerned, especially the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, both of which we have visited as Committees to see arms export control procedures in operation. I thank the officials for how they have responded to that increased work load, and I make it clear that in so far as there are shortcomings in those responses, that is entirely a matter for Ministers. That brings me to the two areas of major shortcomings that I must address in opening this debate, both of which relate to what the Committees and I regard as the single most important area of Government policy: the export of weapons and dual-purpose goods that can be used for internal repression.

The previous Government’s arms export control policy was set out in a ministerial written answer on 26 October 2000 by the then Minister of State at the Foreign Office, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain). It included a key statement of policy, which remained unchanged throughout the life of that Government:

“An export licence will not be issued if the arguments for doing so are outweighed…by concern that the goods might be used for internal repression”.—[Official Report, 26 October 2000; Vol. 355, c. 200W.]

We spent two years during this Parliament going hither and thither with Ministers on whether they adhered to that policy, had changed it, or were seeking to change it. That was brought to a conclusion this year when the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills announced the present Government’s arms export control policy in a written ministerial statement on 25 March. When that statement appeared, the previous Government’s policy wording, which I have just quoted, was dropped. Notwithstanding that fact, the Business Secretary said in his statement:

“None of these amendments should be taken to mean that there has been any substantive change in policy.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 10WS.]

Since March, when the Business Secretary gave his written ministerial answer, the Government have made various attempts to downgrade or outright dismiss the key policy wording on arms exports and internal repression in the original ministerial written answer of October 2000. First, in their latest annual report on United Kingdom strategic export controls, which was published in July, the Government chose to describe the wording in question as “the preamble”, even though the word “preamble” does not appear anywhere in the answer given by the right hon. Member for Neath.

Then, in a letter to me on 6 October, the Foreign Secretary tried to maintain that that key wording did not represent a statement of policy at all, saying:

“The text in question did not contain any substantive statement of policy.”

I leave it to hon. Members to judge whether that is the case:

“An export licence will not be issued if the arguments for doing so are outweighed…by concern that the goods might be used for internal repression”.

That was the statement in the written ministerial answer recorded in Hansard.

I stress to the House that it was the unanimous view of all four Select Committees comprising the Committees on Arms Export Controls that that wording did represent a substantive statement of policy. It was also the view of the right hon. Member for Neath, who came before the Committees to give oral evidence on that very point. When we asked him specifically whether he thought that policy on arms exports and internal repression had changed, he said:

“So I do think the policy has changed. It is a more relaxed approach to arms exports.”

In the light of those facts, as far as the Committees are concerned—we made this clear in our report—only one, regrettable conclusion can be drawn from those important exchanges on arms exports and internal repression: the Government have made a significant change in policy, but have not been prepared to acknowledge that such a change has taken place. I put it formally to the Government that they should consider most carefully whether they should now offer an apology to the Committees and the House for making a change in policy without being prepared to acknowledge that to the Committees.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

My right hon. Friend is making an important point. Hon. Members may be aware that, in terms of development, the UK scores extremely well except on one significant issue: arms exports. That is the issue that drives our ratings down the development index. The Minister might not think that that matters, but will he acknowledge that there is a perception, which the Chair of the Committees is bearing out, that the UK is more inclined than other countries to sell arms to countries and regimes where their use may be questionable? That slightly undermines our reputation for being a pro-development leader.

Commonwealth Day

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

We have to develop our contacts below the parapet. We should be stretching out the hand of friendship to work on contacts and to persuade people so that we can bring those countries to closer assimilation with the Commonwealth’s standards. That will take time, and we cannot plot an exact timetable, but, once gone, countries should not be abandoned and forgotten.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Gambia left voluntarily precisely because it was moving in a direction incompatible with the Commonwealth’s ideals? In one sense, that shows an understanding that we stand for ideals, but leaving the Commonwealth is a pretty cynical annunciation of a country’s unwillingness to conform with those ideals. I agree that we have to find ways of engaging so that, at some time in the future, Gambia can come back and be a better place than it is now.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

There are examples of countries that exited the Commonwealth voluntarily and happily returned some years later, so I do not despair of the possibilities.

The high-profile difficulties, of which we are all too aware, are likely to be besetting our politicians and statesmen. When, as parliamentarians, we understandably dwell on such things, we should balance the picture and remember that there are many organisations in civil society that span the Commonwealth and bind people together in many constructive ways. There are between 90 and 100 such organisations spanning many professions and interests, so it is an ever-intensifying network that, in its own way, vividly illustrates the “team Commonwealth” theme of this year.

We should also acknowledge the work done by other Parliaments and other countries to mark and celebrate the Commonwealth anniversary every March. I have been reminded by the City Remembrancer of what the lord mayor and the City of London corporation, for example, do to involve young people in recognising the Commonwealth and the flying of the flag.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pamela Nash]

The hon. Gentleman has made two good points. He mentioned private conversations. My work through the CPA has allowed me to have such conversations with Members of Parliament and Government Ministers and officials from some of the countries I mentioned, including Uganda. At the time, I found those private conversations to be most helpful in gaining a better understanding of where the movements are coming from. However, with all due respect, in Uganda it has not worked. We have been hearing all the right things—other Members here today will have had those conversations, particularly with Ugandan parliamentarians, and the President and the Speaker of the Ugandan Parliament—but we are now in the situation we are in. Although my fears are mainly about Uganda at the moment, I am incredibly concerned about what will happen across the rest of the Commonwealth.

In terms of the possible knock-on effect, it is not always clear what is happening in those countries. I found it difficult to research exactly what the legislation was in some countries and what the changes were. I will use Malawi as an example. President Joyce Banda, who has been a guest of mine in this House, announced in November that she had suspended all laws criminalising homosexuality, but the Malawian Government have recently denied issuing that statement, and the laws criminalising same-sex acts remain in place. We are stuck in a position where we are hearing one thing in private conversations with legislators, but the reality for people on the ground is something very different.

The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham) also raised the role of DFID as a lever to encourage or discourage partner countries on the ground. Although that is possible, in the case of Uganda we do not, as far as I know, provide any direct Government support, as all our money is directed through NGOs and other projects. There is therefore the difficulty of what levers we can use to influence Uganda. I hope that the Minister will enlighten us about what more the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can do in our conversations with Uganda.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

The hon. Lady is making an important and powerful case. Does she accept that gay rights are not our only area of concern? In a number of countries there are also concerns about the rights of women and the right of access to family planning, and the fundamental issue of unsafe abortions. We do not have the right to impose our view on people. We have to find partners within the country with whom we can engage at all levels. She is right to say that the situation is tricky, because if we start trying to use the DFID budget as a lever, the danger is that those countries will turn round and say, “We do not want your aid.” We have to be careful to find a partner we can work with inside the community and give them the support they need.

[Pamela Nash]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, who has a lot of experience in international development. It is a tricky balance to strike. We should not be frightened of saying what we think, but we must use the correct levers. We should not wield the DFID budget as a weapon but instead should use it to promote the values and beliefs that we have as a nation, the fundamental one of which is universal human rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I thank my hon. Friend, who fired the shot for me without my accent, which was helpful.

The Commonwealth is a unique organisation. It is a worldwide family with a mixture of races, religions, languages and creeds based around the United Kingdom and the Queen. As I said, I come from New Zealand, which is a huge supporter of the Commonwealth and the Queen. If the New Zealand magazine, Women’s Weekly, does not have six pictures of the Queen and the royal family, there has been a misprint along the line.

New Zealand has slight republican moments, and I understand that it is considering a slight variation of the flag, but we will see. It will be amusing because Women’s Weekly will battle to keep the flag and I suspect that elderly New Zealand ladies will rally to the cause.

Next door to New Zealand is another Commonwealth nation—a little island called Australia. It has a few republican problems and, if asked, any New Zealander would explain that being Australian is in itself a difficulty, but it seems to overcome that, particularly in the cricket field.

Those two old Commonwealth nations have a huge rivalry, which can be seen on the rugby field. The insults and jokes between them are phenomenal and racist, but every joke can be turned round the other way, so anything a New Zealander says about Australia can be returned the other way round. However, they work extremely closely with the British Commonwealth, particularly when the United Kingdom is under deep threat. With Canada and South Africa, they are the old Commonwealth. They have a Commonwealth link, reinforced by kith and kin, and a two-way flow of tourism and migration going back two centuries, although that is being stemmed now.

My direct knowledge is obviously predominately of New Zealand, although I have lived in the UK longer than I lived there. I occasionally return there for a refresher course in the accent and attitudes. A touch of history may be helpful. New Zealand’s biggest influx of immigration over the past couple of centuries involved people who went there by choice—I am sure I will receive letters from Australians about this—and were not transported there. That can be seen when wandering around New Zealand, because the place names are a mixture of Maori, English, Scottish and Irish, and there are even a few Welsh names. The people there drive on the left. They predominantly speak English or a version of it, and the parliamentary system, although it has only one House, is much the same as that here. In fact, it mimics it even to the building. It is not quite as spectacular and not anywhere near as old, but it does mimic it.

My parents’ and grandparents’ generations talked of the United Kingdom as home and of “going back”. They still do. What intrigued me was that many of them had never been here, but they still talked about going back. They all have close links with this country and they display that in their houses. My parents’ and grandparents’ generations in particular would have on the coffee table in the sitting room—it was a sitting room, not a withdrawing room or drawing room—a fantastic book or two. Those fantastic books are full of photographs, which are dramatic for two reasons. First, they feature the United Kingdom and its beautiful scenery. The second and even more amazing thing is that the photographs were taken on sunny days. How the photographers managed to get 50, 60 or a couple of hundred sunny days to take fantastic photos beggars belief, especially after the last few months.

The close rapport between the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia is perhaps emphasised most in the farming communities. There are very close links, including educational links, both ways between the farmers, but perhaps it is more educational for the farmers from this country. One of my colleagues in this place asked me whether I could find a farm—he was thinking of a farm in this country, as I belong to the National Farmers Union—for his daughter to spend her gap year on before going to veterinary school. She needed a very good and unusual entry—a star entry—on farming on her CV to get into vet school. I ignored the thought that the farm would be here and rang New Zealand. I spoke to one of the high-country farmers I know there. They said, “Yes, we’d love to take her here—kith and kin etc.” She was over the moon, until she arrived and suddenly realised what she had taken on. The farm has barley, lucerne hay and so on, 1,000 head of cattle, 1,000 head of deer and 23,000 lambing ewes, so when they have lambed—this is the farm I came from—there are 50,000 woolly beasts running around the place. That my colleague’s daughter went there was an example of kith and kin. She had a hard time for the first couple of weeks and then settled into it and came back really educated. She staggered the people who interviewed her for veterinary school, and walked straight in.

Of course, the biggest example of kith and kin is seen at times of conflict. We have the first world war commemoration coming up. In that war, there was the battle of Gallipoli, which led to Anzac day. Here, Remembrance day is important. It is covered on television. Anzac day in Australia and New Zealand is the same. Interestingly, the young people in Australia and New Zealand now go to the remembrance celebration there. They used not to do that in the past. The people of those countries remember the soldiers, sailors and airmen who fought for the United Kingdom as part of the Commonwealth.

I found this hard to understand as a child. My little village—it was a little village, in the north of the south island—had a war memorial. In typical New Zealand style, people were pragmatic about it. It was a superb memorial, but of course they had public toilets underneath it, because they had to use the space there for something useful. The walls of the memorial—one can see this at any of the memorials in Australia and New Zealand, but particularly at the war memorial in Canberra—were covered with the names of the soldiers who had died, and there were hundreds upon hundreds from that little village.

On Remembrance day in this country, I go to the villages in my area, and they read out the names. That is desperately important—it is desperately important that the names are remembered—but people cannot read out the names in the little village that I come from, because that would take up the whole time for the service.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful point. May I share this with him? Recently, my daughter did a first world war project, which involved researching the names on the war memorial in our village. We found that a significant number of them were people who had emigrated before the first world war to New Zealand and who came back to fight for their country and die for their country, their country being both New Zealand and the UK.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention.

This is one of the latest examples of what I am discussing. Some of us will remember that in Afghanistan there was a Mumbai-style attack on the Intercontinental hotel in Kabul. Two vehicles rolled up. Six guys got out, charged in, dealt with the terrorists and came out unscathed. They did look as though they had come out of a Rambo movie, but they were the New Zealand SAS, who had just been called up on spec to go in and deal with the situation. They did that, calmly, and got out. They are dangerous people, those New Zealand SAS.

Some years ago, I visited Monte Cassino, the scene of the battle for Rome in world war two. Between 17 January and 18 May 1944, four battles were fought there. The soldiers involved on our side were called allied troops. There were Polish troops, but the only others were from Commonwealth countries. A total of 54,000 men from Britain, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India and Canada were lost, as well as a number of Gurkhas.

The horrible reality of what happened came home to me during my visit. There were separate cemeteries for the various nations, with thousands and thousands of tombstones, but what really struck me was the ages of the troops buried there. Most of them—these are troops from the Commonwealth countries—were in their late 20s or in their 30s or 40s. Almost all of them would have been married and had families. Those families had no father, because they were over here, fighting for a United Kingdom war. That explains why, when I was a kid, I noticed that in my village there were a lot of single-parent families and a lot of ladies who remained single. That was simply because there were no men.

After the war, shoals of people from New Zealand and Australia came to the United Kingdom on six-week boat trips. Nowadays they fly. Many if not all are skilled. They are doctors, dentists, nurses, farmers, accountants, lawyers and experts in banking, finance or construction. Some stay; others move on to other parts of the world; and some go back. But they all contribute to this country. For decades, university graduates have been among New Zealand’s biggest exports. In the main, they used to come here. However, the United Kingdom has become progressively less receptive in the past few years. Entry is becoming more difficult, and to stay to contribute is becoming more difficult. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will look at that.

People from New Zealand, Australia, Canada and South Africa are exactly the type of immigrants this country needs. In general, they have high skills, earn high net incomes and pay a lot of tax. They are almost invisible to social services, because they never use them. They integrate well into British society. After all, most of them have parents, grandparents or even great-grandparents who came, either directly or indirectly, from the UK. They share the culture. They share the language, mostly. They share the heritage. And they tend to play slightly better rugby, but they blend in and add value to the United Kingdom. Their ability to blend in was recognised at one of the recent grand slam games—I am talking about rugby, ladies. The coach of one of the most successful Welsh national rugby teams has a very strong New Zealand accent.

Distressingly, the United Kingdom, as I have said, seems to be closing the door on Commonwealth immigration. It is losing expertise in medicine, dentistry, accounting, physiotherapy, the law and so on. I find that extraordinary. Highly trained professional people who come to the United Kingdom are being required to sit extra exams so that they can work here, whereas they are welcome in some other nations. The quality of their degrees is every bit as good as—and, dare I say it in hushed tones, perhaps sometimes better than—what is achieved here. If degrees from the United Kingdom are acceptable in those countries—and they are—that should be reciprocated, especially as a disproportionate number of the medical, dental and legal teaching staff in universities here are from those old Commonwealth nations. The same applies to the United States and Canada, but without the same difficulties.

Lord Rutherford began the process. It has continued; and I hope that, with a bit of freedom and a bit of relaxation, it will still continue. I receive many complaints from United Kingdom businesses and from Australians and New Zealanders that they are able to work here for only a very few years—generally two. Perhaps the Government could positively review that aspect of immigration policy.

The Commonwealth is very special for its people. In these difficult days, the United Kingdom needs to build on that family of nations and not destroy the willingness and desire to be in harmony with the United Kingdom in the Commonwealth.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Swire]

We approach this issue in a spirit of agreement, and, in accordance with the pledge that I had given the hon. Lady previously, I was able to raise the issue of political prisoners. I believe that there are still 30 whose cases are disputed.

As for the census, the hon. Lady will be aware that we are providing funds for it, and that it is the first census to take place for a very long time. There are issues surrounding it, but we believe that it is the right course. I believe that our engagement with Burma is on the right lines, but serious issues remain, not least the continuing problems in Rakhine.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

I welcome what the Minister has said, and his engagement with Burma. Of course there are many challenges within the country, but does he not accept that the steps towards peace and democracy deserve our support and wholehearted engagement while the opportunity presents itself?

[Mr Swire]

Yes, I do. I have been able to discuss the situation with Baroness Amos, the United Nations under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, in the last couple of weeks. I also discussed it yesterday in Geneva with António Guterres, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and last night with Peter Maurer, the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

We are all extremely concerned about aspects of what is still going on in Burma, but we believe that, with our support across the board, the Burmese Government need encouragement on the path towards democracy. It was never going to be easy, but we must redouble our efforts to ensure that they deliver on the pledges that they have made.

Burma

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for inviting me to take part in the delegation and for leading it so ably. I congratulate the hon. Members for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on bringing these matters to the House’s attention. The International Development Committee, which I have the honour of chairing, will be producing a report on Burma, and I hope that we will have an opportunity to elaborate on some of these findings and debate them more fully in the House. At this stage, I think that it is important that we hear from the Minister.

Sergei Magnitsky

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful case. Does he accept that one of the problems in Russia is that although those in positions of leadership can perpetrate crimes against individuals by using the full undercover agencies of the state with absolute impunity, the one thing they most value and would not want to lose is the freedom to travel and to use their money, often stolen from the Russian people, in a life of luxury outside Russia?

[Mr Raab]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that explanation of and rationale for what we are trying to achieve. It is precisely that. We are not seeking to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction by depriving anyone of their freedom; we are merely saying, “You cannot come into this country if you have that kind of blood on your hands.” So the motion is not anti-Russia, but pro-Russia.