Sudan: Operational Restrictions on Humanitarian Actors
Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Baroness Chapman of Darlington
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is incredibly precarious. We see increasing gathering of troops around El Obeid, and we see more civilians moving into the city because they are being displaced from surrounding villages and are seeking refuge. This is an incredibly dangerous situation. We are monitoring it very closely, bearing in mind the limitations on our ability to be present on the ground there. I can assure the noble Baroness, because I know she cares deeply about this, that we are talking to our counterparts at Head of State level, and we are all speaking to our counterparts wherever we can, because I think we all understand the way that this stops is for the backers of both the armed groups we are talking about to insist that it stops. They need to stop funding, stop arming, and enable peace to be secured and negotiated.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an adviser to DAI. I welcome what the Minister has said about UK government action, but, as she will know, at an event I hosted recently in this House, we heard how local actors were delivering humanitarian aid on the ground where international agencies could not get. I am glad the Government are supporting those, but will they do more to support the emergency response rooms in Sudan? In some cases, they are the only agencies delivering to the people, and it is worth taking the risk of giving them a bit more money.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord. I have met them, and I think they are fantastic. They are not required to meet the registration requirements of the RSF, so they are able to operate more flexibly. We have increased our funding to them for that reason.
Venezuela Earthquakes
Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Baroness Chapman of Darlington
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My noble friend is right—this is a truly devastating situation, and its true extent is yet to be revealed. The United Kingdom will, of course, play its part in supporting those who are displaced, those who have been separated from their loved ones and those who are unable to continue with their livelihood or access health services, particularly maternal health services, in the current situation.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, we welcome the Government’s response to this truly devastating earthquake. As co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Aid Match, I thank the Government for the £2 million they have offered, but, as the vice-chair of the DEC says, the public have raised £12 million. Will the Government consider raising the contribution from aid match? Will they perhaps also persuade the Treasury that rather than having the money taken out of existing development funds, it should be genuinely additional, so that aid match adds money and the public can influence how our aid money is spent?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am very happy to put money into the Venezuelan response, but we can all work out that every penny we put into one response leaves us less for the next crisis. We have an El Niño year; we are about to start hurricane season. We have food insecurity across Africa because of the conflict in the Middle East. It would be irresponsible for me just to make commitments about what we will and will not do from this Dispatch Box in such a serious situation. It has been a truly global response in Venezuela, and that is very good to see. We have seen a particularly strong response from Latin America, which is encouraging, and the United States has also played a leading role. It has been a good example of how the international community can come together and co-ordinate to great effect.
Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Baroness Chapman of Darlington
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am I happy to make that clear. The failure to reach consensus on this occasion, given the geopolitical situation in which we find ourselves, is not a complete surprise. The President did not put the text for consideration in the end, because it was clear that the US was not going to back it. It was an omission of text, rather than a disagreement over the substance of what was said. That is why that did not happen. It is in no way an indication that the United Kingdom or any of our partners or allies are intending to turn away from this treaty. As the noble Lord said, it is the cornerstone that has prevented proliferation of nuclear weaponry for five decades now, and we are committed to it.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, will the UK Government liaise with France, which is taking over the chairmanship, to ensure that what has been agreed is maintained and that the technical expertise is also maintained? Can the Minister comment on the committee that the Government are setting up in the House of Commons, sadly with no representation from this House, to scrutinise UK nuclear expenditure? Given that the workings of that committee are going to mostly be classified, how does that help public engagement with understanding the issue, or help to secure commitment to maintaining non-proliferation?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am afraid that I know absolutely nothing about the committee that is being set up at the other end of the building.
Women’s Representation in Peace Processes
Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Baroness Chapman of Darlington
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
For a peace process to be successful, it must be inclusive. That includes Palestinian representation, and it should include women, because in just about every example of any kind of agreement withstanding the tests it invariably encounters, it is the inclusive nature of the settlement that gives it the strength to survive.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s and the Minister’s commitment to trying to ensure that women are involved. I am sure that she will agree that in recent years we have seen conflicts mostly promoted by misogynist men who have no interest in the rights of women. Will the Government call on the US, Israel and Iran to include women in the negotiations as the best way to present conflict reigniting? As she says, without women’s involvement, the chances of settlements sticking are very low. Will she pressure those countries to recognise Resolution 1325 and implement it?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not hesitate to support what the noble Lord has said about the inclusion of women. I would go a little bit further and say that peace which is achieved, or pauses in conflict which are achieved, through imposition of agreements that have not been negotiated through the long, hard, diligent, inclusive process that we all know about in this Chamber rarely stand the test of time.
Official Development Assistance: Bilateral Allocations
Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Baroness Chapman of Darlington
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think that is right. I think we need to work more closely with our colleagues in the MoD because there is clearly a high degree of complementarity between our development investments and the work that we need to do to keep our country safe in the field of defence. On quality education, it is one of the next challenges that the world needs to lean into. We have made improvements in getting children into school, and there is a protective quality to that, but what they are coming out with, the skills and the education that they are attaining during that period in school, is not good enough. We need to address that globally so that it is good quality as well as getting attendance up.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an adviser to the aid and development contractor DAI. I am hosting an event in Parliament this evening looking at new and innovative ways to support humanitarian action as traditional funding streams shrink. I am delighted that the Minister has agreed to attend. In that spirit, will she say what progress has been made to use UK trade, investment, philanthropy, the private sector and other routes to deliver real poverty reduction benefits in developing countries, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, either alongside remaining aid programmes or as an alternative?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I very much welcome the question from the noble Lord. He will be aware that we had a Global Partnerships Conference just a few weeks ago addressing specifically that problem. I think it is understood now, if it was not before, that with all the aid spending that there has ever been, we would still be falling far short of our ambitions and the ambitions of our partner countries to achieve the sustainable development goals. We do have to work better together, and we do have to leverage, as the noble Lord said, and we do have to grow economies and enable partners to lead their own development, because that is not just the right thing to do in terms of making the money go further, but it is the right way to be a good partner for the long term too.
Antisemitism in International Human Rights Bodies
Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Baroness Chapman of Darlington
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not find it difficult to draw the line between criticism of the State of Israel and antisemitism. I have expressed my concerns on the record around some of the problems with access of aid into Gaza, for example, and other issues over time. At no point does this criticism ever get anywhere near anything that could be described as antisemitic. People who do not know the difference need to educate themselves, and it is their responsibility to make sure that any comments they make could never be interpreted as being antisemitic. It is perfectly possible to hold strong views about the Middle East without being antisemitic. We need to be clear about that.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, it is disturbing that Jewish individuals and communities feel themselves vulnerable to attacks, threats, criticisms and abuse. It is absolutely right, especially if it comes from within international organisations that we support, that we call it out, condemn it and show solidarity to the community. I echo the words that have been said. There is legitimate criticism of Israel, and it is perfectly possible to criticise. I chaired two committee reports that were very critical of Israel. Never did we stray anywhere near antisemitism. Criticism of Israel should never be justification for making antisemitic remarks. The State of Israel and the worldwide Jewish community are different and separate, and can always be kept separate.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I broadly agree with the comments of the noble Lord.
Media Freedom Coalition
Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Baroness Chapman of Darlington
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I absolutely commend the noble Lord for the work he has done. It was in 2019 that this was set up, so it has gone from strength to strength. His point about expanding membership is really important. One of the things we seek to do, using the leadership we can provide, is to expand that membership, particularly into global South voices, because this needs to be a truly global effort.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, we all need to value the bravery and independence of journalists who operate in really difficult situations and who need the support of the coalition and Governments. What will the Government do to raise the UK’s position on the media index from 10, and on the international one from 23? Given the US is a member of this organisation, how can they square legal action against the BBC that, if successful, would destroy the BBC, the BBC World Service and BBC Media Action? Will the Government ask the United States Government to recognise that?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Obviously, what the United States Government choose to do is a matter for the United States Government. On the World Service, I am very pleased that last Thursday we were able to announce an uplift in our grant funding to the World Service of an additional 12%, even in the straitened fiscal circumstances in which we had to make that choice. It does vital work and I would not want to see anything jeopardise it.
Strait of Hormuz
Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Baroness Chapman of Darlington
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, there are ships still getting through the Strait of Hormuz, but they are of course friends of Iran, which possibly includes China and Russia. I would argue that Russia’s shadow fleet no longer is a shadow fleet if sanctions have been lifted by the United States. It surely comes down to the fact that we will not reopen the Strait of Hormuz unless we end the conflict and negotiate a settlement. It is not safe for the Americans to put their ships in. They certainly should not expect us to put ours in.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We need to resolve this with great care, co-ordination and collaboration with our allies and partners. It is complicated. As the noble Lord said, it is directly related to the conflict in Iran. We are where we are and we will do everything that we can, alongside others, to ensure that ships can travel safely through the strait.
United States: Withdrawal from International Organisations
Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Baroness Chapman of Darlington
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As my noble friend said, it is for the Americans to make their own choices about what they decide to fund. The organisations that he referred to—he mentioned Education Cannot Wait in particular—do a tremendous job, and our commitment to them is steadfast. Our allocations will be announced in the coming weeks, I hope, so there is not too much longer to wait for them, so that noble Lords can see for themselves where the United Kingdom Government are putting their money. In broad terms, my noble friend makes the point very well about multilateralism and the need for countries to come together to address the greatest challenges that the world faces, and I agree with him.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
Does the Minister agree that this latest decision by the Americans is not evidence of isolationism but actually an indication of increasing intervention by the United States without any regard to international co-operation or the implications for the climate, poverty or human rights? It is a determination to act on their own regardless of what anybody else thinks about it.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I encourage noble Lords not to overinterpret a decision such as this. I note the announcement last week of $2 billion from the United States to OCHA, which organises humanitarian support through the UN, which many people had not predicted. It is important that we respect the decisions of our closest ally in terms of funding. It is also important that the United Kingdom is not seen as a defender of the status quo in many of these organisations. Change is needed. We have argued for change for some time now. It is being accelerated because of decisions about money, but we should not allow our views on budgets to obscure the fact that we want change, efficiency and every penny to go to those who need it most.
Greenland
Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Baroness Chapman of Darlington
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I should imagine that, as in this Parliament, there will be a range of views on any issue on any given day. The key principle and guiding point that will shape the UK’s position on that question, and on any others concerning the territory of Greenland, is that those decisions should be taken by Greenlanders and, on the issue of sovereignty, by the Kingdom of Denmark together with the people of Greenland.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, we are talking about the security of the Arctic. The United States of course has legitimate interests, but so does Denmark, Greenland, Finland, Sweden, Norway and, more recently, the United Kingdom. Following my noble friend’s Question, the reality is that, if the US takes a unilateral action against the NATO alliance, it will not increase security but damage it and open the door for Russia and China to make more incursions into our space. Can the Americans understand that they are going down the wrong path?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Any question that starts with “if” is, by definition, a hypothetical—to which I am not in a position to give a concrete response. All I would say is that, clearly, anything that causes dispute between NATO allies would be very pleasing for Vladimir Putin to see, and that is not something that we want to bring about.
Venezuela
Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Baroness Chapman of Darlington
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Of course, I am aware of the events in the North Atlantic. I understand that the Defence Secretary will shortly be making some remarks about this and I think it is better to allow the House to be updated properly in due course on this quickly evolving matter.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, before Maduro was captured, it was about drug trafficking. After he was captured, it was about oil. Now the regime is cracking down and Venezuelans are suffering, but the US threatens Colombia, Mexico and Greenland, not forgetting Canada. Are the UK Government capable of making it clear to the US that sovereignty is not just for the United States and that annexation for personal gain and commercial exploitation is not only unacceptable but incompatible with support for democracy and human rights?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The United Kingdom’s support for international law and for human rights is unwavering and has not changed. The actions of the United States are for the United States to explain, and that includes how it sits in relation to international law.
UK Citizens in Venezuela
Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Baroness Chapman of Darlington
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord knows that I am not going to talk about sanctions or whether we are about to lift or impose them, but it is absolutely true that Europe is one of the biggest markets for narcotics coming out of Latin America and central America specifically. The demand for narcotics in this country is causing misery, despair and the death of children, among others, in that part of the world.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, even though the Maduro Government there may be authoritarian and corrupt, the extrajudicial killings are not justified. Are we confident that British intelligence has not been used to facilitate those? How is military action against Venezuela consistent with forcing a peace settlement in Ukraine? If there is military action, what steps can be taken to protect all citizens there, including the 7,000 from the UK?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I can tell the noble Lord that the UK is not involved in any way in the activities of the US in this part of the Caribbean. I am struggling to see the parallel between the situations in Venezuela and Ukraine. There are very difficult problems to address in both places. Our position on Ukraine is clear. We do not recognise the legitimacy of Maduro’s Government because of the way in which the election was conducted and the failure of the regime to publish reliable results.
British Embassy in Damascus
Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Baroness Chapman of Darlington
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As the noble Baroness said, we have an incredibly strong team in Lebanon, and it is important that that continues. The points she makes about the need for a regional approach, the instability we want to avoid and the importance of our presence across the region are well made; I take those and agree with her.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister explain how UK spending in Syria is helping to build stability and tackle humanitarian crises? What steps are required to reopen the embassy, given that Syria has reopened its embassy in London? Can she also explain how the Government can maintain support for Syria, Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan, and still maintain significant engagement with sub-Saharan Africa?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
There was a lot in that question. On the humanitarian question, we do not work directly on humanitarian issues through the Government in Syria, for reasons I think noble Lords will understand, but through NGOs and the United Nations. At the moment, that is the right approach to take. We look forward to a time when we can have a more normalised presence in Damascus and all the things you would normally associate with the government-to-government and diplomatic relations we seek.
On how we can spend the same in Syria while protecting Sudan, Ukraine and Gaza—and of course the Overseas Territories—the truth is that we cannot. But in a modern development partnership, the test of your effectiveness and impact is not the pound sign next to your ODA budget; it is the quality of your relationships, your diplomatic presence, your defence and security relationships, and your political links. All these things matter hugely. The volume of spend we are able to mobilise through the multilateral system, not least the World Bank and other multilateral development banks, far exceeds anything we could ever have put forward as a bilateral ODA programme.
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Democratic Resilience
Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Baroness Chapman of Darlington
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We talk with very many of our allies and partners, I suppose most notably the United States, France, Germany and Italy, and through the EU and NATO. We have some programming in the region specifically aimed at countering Russian activities and misinformation, and we need to continue to do that. We work also on democratic institutions and strengthening those, including through the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which many noble Lords will have worked alongside in the past.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, the election in the Republika Srpska, which resulted in a margin of less than 2% on a turnout of under 35%, hardly clarifies the mood on the ground in that republic. But, as has been said, Russian interference there is surely a call to everybody to understand that Russia will disrupt European democracy at every opportunity, wherever it can. The idea that we should surrender to its intimidation is just not acceptable.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Lord put that extremely well, and I agree with every word he said.
Ukraine: UK-USA Discussions
Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Baroness Chapman of Darlington(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Sadly, the noble Lord is right in what he says about the United Nations. We are where we are. We believe the United Nations remains the single most important multilateral organisation we have, and we would be inventing it if it did not exist.
We cannot allow ourselves, because of the situation we face with the politics at the UN, to be paralysed by the truth that the noble Lord has just outlined. We are very close to all partners who are endeavouring to move this along and create some conditions and opportunities for important dialogue to take place. We speak closely with our friends and allies in Turkey and with all those others who are endeavouring, as we are, to support those who wish to see peace in Ukraine and an end to Russia’s illegal war.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, will the Government make clear that we support Ukraine and that we stand by the Budapest memorandum, which has been so flagrantly defiled by the Russians? In that context, will we first transfer Russian assets to support the defence of Ukraine, and will we recognise that that £30 billion will be necessary unless peace can be agreed? Peace can be agreed—and the Americans have to accept this—only on terms that the Ukrainians can accept; it cannot be imposed by a bilateral agreement between the United States and Russia.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
There is no peace without the agreement of the Ukrainians; that is absolutely clear. We support President Trump’s efforts towards peace. It is important that we support all those who are trying to bring this dreadful war to a conclusion. On the issue of Russian assets, we are doing everything we can to make sure that the money needed for Ukraine gets there and that Russia pays for the damage it has caused.
British Council
Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Baroness Chapman of Darlington
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure the continued operation of the British Council.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, the British Council plays an important role in supporting the UK’s soft power and interests around the world through its work in the arts, culture, education and the promotion of the English language. We are providing over £160 million grant in aid to the British Council this year alone, which underlines our support for its important work.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, last week, Scott McDonald, the chief executive of the British Council, told MPs that the council was going to sell all its assets and close 40 country programmes unless the Government reschedule a £197 million loan costing £12 million to £15 million in interest. The council has already sold its English language business in India and its school in Madrid, and is withdrawing from the frontier Baltic states. Why, given the crucial role of the British Council as a key instrument of soft power which is technically close to insolvency, has there been no resolution of the loan and grant in aid at all? Why is there—to quote its chief executive—a “complete unwillingness” to help? With these cuts in aid, to the BBC World Service and to the British Council, are the Government just managing the decline of Britain’s soft power from its former position of pre-eminence?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are helping a lot. We provide about 16% or 17% of the British Council’s funding each year. There is an issue with an outstanding loan which was given as part of a Covid package by the previous Government. Terms for that loan were never agreed, and terms need to be agreed. We have organised an extension, in order for work to take place. As the noble Lord rightly says, the British Council is a vital part of the UK’s soft power internationally. It does a fantastic job, and we want to work with it to put it on a long-term, sustainable and stable footing.
Sudan: Protection of Civilians
Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Baroness Chapman of Darlington
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am slightly surprised to hear the noble Baroness pronounce genocide, when she knows, and has supported our position, that we do not do that. That is for a competent court to do. Tom Fletcher is an outstanding leader of OCHA. He clarified what he said, as he needed to, on the occasion that she alludes to. He did the right thing, and I think that speaks well of him. The way that he is leading his organisation and drawing attention to what is happening in Sudan, and putting the resources at his disposal in the right place, speak very highly of him. He has our complete support.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, following my noble friend’s question, after the massacre in Rwanda the United Nations adopted the responsibility to protect resolution. It does not seem to have had any meaningful impact. I understand the Minister’s position, but the question is this: what on earth is the practical measure that can happen? People are desperate and trapped—we do not know how many tens of thousands of people—hoping that somebody is going to come and relieve them, but there is no sign of international action. What can we do to get forces actually on the ground to ease the siege and release the suffering before it becomes a total disaster?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The politics at the UN have evolved in an unhelpful way, I think, since the genocide in Rwanda and the initiatives that followed. I do not think that that is where we will see what the noble Lord wants, which is troops on the ground keeping the peace. We do not have peace. We need everybody who has any kind of influence over either warring party to get those leaders in a room and get them to negotiate. We support all current efforts being taken to bring that about, not least through the United States and the Qataris, but they have so far been unsuccessful. Given what has happened in recent days, the prospects for that seem dimmer, not brighter, but we keep going. All I can say is that this Government will get behind any initiatives designed to bring about a ceasefire.
Official Development Assistance
Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Baroness Chapman of Darlington
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is vital, particularly at the moment, when many of our ideas and values regarding women are being challenged internationally, but we are determined that our work to support women will continue. We want to see this reflected through everything we do, and we are working on the detail of how we responsibly mainstream our work on gender throughout our programming. That is part of the story, but the other thing we need to do is to use our voice and influence internationally to make it clear that our position on these issues remains constant, even though others may change.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, given the impact of cuts in aid and the advance of Russia and China as funders in developing countries, will the Government seek an urgent initiative to promote public and private debt relief to ease the burden in those countries? Will they also do more aid matching to engage the British public, and work with the private sector to encourage development-led partnerships between the public and private sectors?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The private sector has an enormous role to play, and we have a responsibility to enable that to happen in a far larger way than it has in the past. I am leading an emerging markets and developing economies task force with the City of London; we have big players around the table, including the ratings agencies, HSBC and Aviva. We are seeing real success in breaking down the barriers to get that investment into developing economies.
The noble Lord is right to raise the issue of debt. Some countries spend far more on debt repayment than they do on health and education public services. That is not sustainable and we need a solution. Various options are available, and we support all of them to find which are most appropriate for the different nature of debt, to which the noble Lord alluded, in 2025.
Corruption: Low and Middle-income Countries
Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Baroness Chapman of Darlington
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We have had a great deal of success in seizing assets and returning them to those Governments. I remind the House that most people in positions of leadership across Africa are not corrupt and are working incredibly hard for the benefit of their populations. I know the noble Lord agrees with that. We returned millions of pounds recently to Nigeria, where that money has been reinvested into public services for the benefit of those people. That is the work that we will continue to do.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, over 20 years, I saw how development was being undermined by corruption in too many low-income countries. What will the Government do through the international anti-corruption unit to ensure that funds that are being laundered through British administrations are prosecuted, with the funds seized and returned to the people who need them, rather than disappearing into the morass of illegal looting?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are working through the unit, but, importantly, we are also working on prevention. We have a great deal of work taking place, alongside the African Development Bank, to strengthen systems in-country so that countries are able to take measures themselves to deal with this and prevent these kinds of practices, which, as the noble Lord said, so badly disadvantage countries that really need to keep that money in-country so they can spend it well for the benefit of their people.
Western Sahara Conflict
Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Baroness Chapman of Darlington
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s Answer and explanation about the position on Morocco, a position which the Government have recently moved on. Is it not important, with a conflict that has been going on this long, that we do not just take sides but try to resolve the conflict before it degenerates into what could be a proxy war if malign parties choose to intervene? What can the UK do to try to ensure that the support Morocco is getting is turned into a practical result that the international community can support?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I could not agree more with what the noble Lord has just said—he is absolutely right. The way that the UK is conducting itself as we move on is with pragmatism and in accordance with the things we have signed up to and the commitments we have made, alongside Morocco. Importantly, we do this with full transparency.
Sanctions Implementation and Enforcement
Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Baroness Chapman of Darlington(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I hear my noble friend, who also wants us to move on frozen assets. It is something on which we all agree. Along with our partners, we have managed to release the $50 billion in the ERA, but I completely hear that noble Lords want us to do more.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I very much welcome what the Minister said and I am glad that we have cross-party support for this. I wonder whether I could inject a question relating to some of the comments that have been made by the American Administration about the possibility of easing sanctions against Russia, which President Trump has said on more than one occasion. Can I seek clarification and assurance from the Minister that our sanctions regime is under our control and subject to Parliament’s approval or disapproval for any change?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Our sanctions regime is the UK’s and we make our decisions in accordance with our laws. Although we do not comment on future designations or lifting designations, I have no reason to think that it is the UK Government’s intention or that we have any plans, until there is peace between Ukraine and Russia, and Putin withdraws his troops—as he could today—and stops this illegal war, to change our general approach to the use of sanctions on Russia.
Official Development Assistance
Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Baroness Chapman of Darlington(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
To ask His Majesty’s Government how aid priorities will change following the decision to reduce the Official Development Assistance budget to 0.3 per cent of gross national income (GNI), and whether they intend to restore the commitment of spending 0.7 per cent of GNI in future.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, as the Prime Minister made clear, increasing our security and defence spending has demanded the difficult but necessary decision to temporarily reduce our ODA budget from 0.5% to 0.3% of GNI from 2027. This Government remain fully committed to the UK playing a globally significant role on development; it is both in our national interest and in the interest of our partners. We remain committed to return to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA when fiscal circumstances allow.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
First, I congratulate the Minister on her promotion, albeit in somewhat difficult and unexpected circumstances. I will seek to work with her to try to ensure that aid, in its reduced capacity, gets to where it matters most. Nevertheless, I believe that the cut in ODA is a strategic error, which not only gives a terrible signal but is a mistake that threatens our security. Anneliese Dodds, in her resignation letter, said that the scale of the cuts would make it virtually impossible for the Government to deliver their continuing commitments. So may I ask, in particular, how the UK will maintain engagement in conflict prevention, reducing migration pressure and building resilience? On top of the cuts inflicted by the previous Government, how can we prevent Russia and China supercharging their presence within the vacuum left by the US and the UK, pulling most of Africa and south Asia into their sphere of influence, undermining democracy and what is left of the rule of law, and seriously compromising our security? I am glad that she said this was temporary, but how temporary is it? When will we get back to 0.7%?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We will get back to 0.7% when we no longer use debt for day-to-day spending and our overall debt starts to decline. We have not done this because of values or a wish to turn away development; we believe in international development, and we are proud of the record of the United Kingdom on international development. However, I should not have to remind anyone in Parliament that the first responsibility of any Government is the safety and security of our citizens, and we have committed to and will spend 2.5% on defence. That is the decision that the Prime Minister took, and it will not change; it was taken for reasons that I think we can all understand. We do not wish to turn away from our global commitments to development. I am glad that the noble Lord has reached out and offered to work with me on this, and I accept that offer. Undoubtedly, some choices will have to be made, and spending will have to be reprioritised; I will embark on that process today and I look forward to working alongside the noble Lord on it.
Sub-Saharan Africa: Diplomatic Relationships
Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Baroness Chapman of Darlington(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, in line with our manifesto commitment, the Foreign Secretary launched a five-month consultation to inform the UK’s new approach to the African continent during his visit to Nigeria and South Africa in November. Our goal is fundamentally a transformed partnership that engages with African countries as equals. This will promote our economic growth ambitions, including trade and investment, address our migration priorities and draw on our shared cultural and people-to-people links.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
While I welcome that Answer, the UK has disengaged drastically from Africa in the last few years—aid has been slashed, trade and investment have been halved, the investment summit was cancelled, and the World Service and the British Council are struggling to maintain their services. Russia and China have come exponentially into this vacuum, so what are the Government going to do specifically and practically across all sectors to engage with sub-Saharan Africa? Will they follow the example of Japan, China, India and the EU and set up a UK- Africa partnership?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I could not have put that better myself. It was a very helpful summary of where we are. On aid, we are committed to the 0.5%. We have an ambition to get back to where we ought to have been at 0.7%, but noble Lords will understand the inheritance we received—I do not need to mention the £22 billion black hole as my noble friend is here beside me.
The noble Lord is completely right to highlight the World Service and the British Council. He will notice the financial support we were able to provide the World Service in the recent Budget, and we are working closely with the British Council to make sure it is put on a stable footing because it is essential as one of the finest soft power assets this country possesses. He referred to Russia and China, and clearly it is for African nations to decide their own international partnerships, but many have expressed the view that they wish to work more closely with the United Kingdom and we are very open to that as part of our new approach.
Scotland Act 1998: Section 35 Power
Debate between Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Baroness Chapman of Darlington(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, in politics there are those issues about which we should, and do, fight hammer and tongs across these Dispatch Boxes and in the other place—issues of taxation, health, Brexit, schools or foreign policy. Gender recognition and the rights of trans people does not have to be one of those hot-button issues. I am afraid that watching the exchanges in the Commons yesterday will delight those who seek to use this issue as a political football. Sure, there is disagreement, but disagreeing well, with respect, is what is needed. What we have, far too often, is denigration, name-calling and attempts to shut down or silence others.
It has been obvious for a very long time that the Scottish and UK Governments just cannot and will not work together, and this latest stand-off is not going to resolve anything. The shadow Secretary of State, Ian Murray, reminded us yesterday that Donald Dewar, the father of devolution, designed Section 35 to protect devolution. It was intended as an enabling mechanism, allowing the Scottish Parliament to pass legislation on devolved competences without changing reserved functions. That was the point of it. The memorandum of understanding that was agreed in response to concerns that Section 35 could be used as a veto was clear. It stated that Section 35 should be used as a “last resort” and that the UK Government and the Scottish Government should
“aim to resolve any difficulties through discussion”.
Have they? The Secretary of State did not have extensive enough discussions with the Scottish Government before taking this action.
Section 35 has never been needed before, not in a quarter of a century of devolution, despite many disagreements, because, in the end, Governments have known that it is their duty to work together. But now, on this of all subjects, the Scottish and UK Governments have decided to make sure that they are in conflict with one another. The SNP Government in Edinburgh are determined to break devolution; UK Ministers are just not interested in it and are prepared to weaponise it. In the end, it is the public who lose out: trans people suffering devastating discrimination, and women’s groups who want their concerns addressed, are put in the middle while a constitutional fight rages on and on. How is it that the Secretary of State can say that there is a version of the GRR Act that the UK Government could support but then not share an outline of what that Act could look like? Perhaps the Minister will do so this evening.
Extensive and clear guidance will need to be issued—of course it will—if the Act is ever going to be implemented, which the Scottish Government say should be provided by the EHRC. Ministers could instruct the EHRC to provide the guidance; why is this not happening? If they genuinely wanted to be helpful and resolve this, Ministers could publish guidance on how the GRR Act would interact with the Equality Act 2010; is this going to happen? The publication of legal advice—I accept that this would be unusual—would assist those who want to see the situation resolved and who want to build trust. Transparency could demonstrate the good intentions that the Government say they are acting on. Will they consider this, in this unique situation?
The Labour Party is proud to be the party of the Equality Act—unlike the Government, I am afraid, who used to laugh at the Act, even though they now rely on it so heavily. Ministers have claimed that they want to protect women and girls, but if the UK Government care so much about this, will the Minister explain why female homicide is skyrocketing and rape convictions have plummeted under their leadership?
We support the principle of updating the Gender Recognition Act; when it was introduced, in 2004, it was world-leading, but it now requires modernisation. But to put this as simply as I can, if there is no discussion about a way forward, this Bill will fall, without any resolution of the issues or any modernisation of the GRA, and those who want to see it fail on issues of substance will not succeed in resolving anything either. This debate will rage on and on, with more vitriol, more anger and less respect, less care and less understanding. Surely the Government can do better than that.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
Will the Minister accept—I think he has to—that it was a very controversial decision to use this power for the first time since devolution, especially, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, has said, when the Government lack trust in many quarters regarding their respect for devolution? It has generated a predictable response from the SNP, which is itself divided on the issue and struggling to find a way forward in its interminable campaign for a second referendum.
Will the Minister confirm, nevertheless, that the Government accept that the passing of the gender recognition Bill falls entirely within the powers of the Scottish Government? The Scottish Parliament is adamant that nothing in the Bill impacts on the UK Equality Act. The UK Government say that they have legal advice to the effect that it does, although some lawyers—not all—see the grounds as thin and not justifying the scale of this action. However, as the First Minister has indicated, it appears that it will inevitably be referred to the Court of Session and thence possibly to the Supreme Court. Are the Government’s legal advisers confident of success?
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, that it is regrettable that trans people are caught in the crossfire of this dispute. I suggest to the Minister that this is a distraction that suits both Governments, because they are failing to deal with the manifold crises we face in the health service, energy, cost of living, education and transport. These are the central issues dominating the worries and concerns of everyone across Scotland and the whole of the UK. They want their Governments to concentrate on finding ways through the perfect storm that they have helped create. This distraction does not address the needs and priorities of anyone in the UK. Trans people do not deserve to be caught in the middle of it.