Ukraine

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Friday 26th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, for his extremely important statement to your Lordships’ House this morning. It was very well received, detailed and informative for us all. I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Camoys, and wish him well on it and on his time in your Lordships’ House.

As the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, mentioned, it is very important to start such debates by reiterating our full support for the Government and the policies they are pursuing in Ukraine. In doing so, we support and salute, as the noble Lord did, the bravery of the people of Ukraine. There is no difference between us regarding our shared objectives. As has been said on many occasions in the other place, if there were to be a change of government there would be no change in the determination of any such new Government to see this through and stand with Ukraine, recognising that its security is our security, and that its fight is a fight for all of us in this country, in Europe and beyond.

Even today we read in our newspapers of Putin visiting Kaliningrad and saying there that the west needs to be careful. With the UK Government also saying that there is a one in four chance that Russia will attack a UK ally in the next two years, will the Minister outline for us what that assessment is? I think for all of us it is a stark warning of the importance of the debate we are having here today. It is not a theoretical debate or an academic exercise, but the proper function of Parliament and government in looking at the threats that may face our country and our allies. We welcome the comprehensive 10-year UK-Ukraine defence co-operation agreement as a positive step, perhaps representing a model for Ukraine to use with other G7 countries, short of NATO membership—although we ask for more detail on the implementation of its welcome statements and objectives.

We also very much welcome the new military funding announced for 2024-25 of £2.5 billion, which, as the Minister mentioned, is a £200 million increase from last year. We hope this encourages others to make good their commitments, including at the forthcoming EU meeting on 1 February. I believe that with the money just announced we have provided some £12 billion in aid, which has allowed Ukraine to fight the Russian aggression. However, we believe it would help Ukraine in its fight if such funding were done as a multiyear funding agreement, and I wonder whether the Government are considering that.

It appears welcome—again, we look for confirmation from the Government—that Hungary has withdrawn its objections to the EU package of aid to Ukraine. If so, that is welcome news. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that or otherwise. Of course, we look to the US and hope that in due course its aid package for Ukraine will be agreed.

Much as we can rightly be proud of the military support that we have given and are giving to Ukraine, there is no doubt that this war and other threats across the world have acted as a wake-up call to us all in respect of defence. We have long expressed concerns about the reduction in the size of the Army, leading to the calls from General Sanders, which, however right or wrong, ask very important questions. Other questions remain regarding the numbers of planes and ships, including the use or non-use of our carriers; indeed, the head of the US Navy has talked about that in the last 24 hours. We will need to have a debate and discussion about the correct configuration of our Armed Forces.

Ukraine’s most pressing need, alongside personnel, has been the provision of equipment and ammunition. It has been a real struggle to provide sufficient quantities of military hardware while ensuring that we have sufficient in other spheres of activity for our own forces. The Minister may wish to say more about what, if any, rethink is going on regarding our own industrial base and capacity, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, mentioned.

What of the future? Will Ukraine receive all that it needs from us, the US, NATO and others? Importantly, will it receive all the weapons that it asks for? What is our policy on requests for military equipment coming from Ukraine? Speed of delivery and quantity of resource are everything.

There are others here who are much more expert in discussing the military situation, the equipment that is needed or the tactics that should be used. The Minister may wish to elaborate further, as far as he can, on his assessment of the current military situation on the ground and the expectation of any new Russian offensive. What is the latest regarding the Black Sea, where even open-source material, as the Minister mentioned, suggests that we are making some welcome progress?

In debates such as this, it is important for us to continue to make the case loudly and clearly for supporting Ukraine. The British public have done an amazing job in standing with Ukraine until now, and we need to continue to argue the case. It may be that there is virtual unanimity in this Parliament, but we need to make the case continuously to the British public and beyond for why we will and should continue to spend huge sums of money to support Ukraine.

Only last year, as the Minister mentioned, Ukraine stopped Russia from defeating it militarily, installing a puppet Government and bringing Ukraine back into the Russian fold. Since that time, we have supported Ukraine in maintaining its freedom. Putin expected NATO to divide. Instead, in overall terms NATO is stronger, with Ukraine far closer to NATO than to Russia. Perhaps the Minister can update us on the welcome joining of Finland to NATO. As I understand it, the Turkish parliament recently passed a motion allowing Sweden to join. Perhaps there is a timeline for that on which the Minister could update the House.

Let us be clear, as we make the case for our ongoing involvement, that there is no confusion between right and wrong in this conflict. This Parliament, the British public and our friends and allies choose international law, human rights and democratic values over the autocracy personified by Russia’s aggression. We should recognise that preventing a Russian victory in Ukraine will diminish the threat from Russia. Our eastern European allies, particularly in the Baltic states, feel very vulnerable. Ukraine, by its war against Russia and achieving what it is, is preventing further aggression and instability. A Russia staying within its borders is in all our interests. A strong Ukraine will be a strong NATO ally, deter future Russian aggression and keep the peace. Have we not learned the lesson of history that appeasement does not work?

We need to continue to support Ukraine as the outcome will affect our security beyond Europe, in Asia and across the world. Imagine the reaction of China on seeing the US, the UK, NATO and their global supporters fail in Ukraine. Would China not feel emboldened, rather than considering the consequences for itself on seeing a strong West determined to see a conflict through to a successful conclusion?

This is also about the preservation of an international rules-based order. Russia flagrantly broke those rules when it invaded Ukraine. What does it say for us, not only here in Europe but beyond, if international treaties, agreements or rules are to be ignored because they do not suit the ambitions of a particular country?

There is a competition or contest between those who support democracy and the autocracy of others. In Ukraine a democracy is under threat, supported by autocracies such as Iran, China and North Korea. We can see tension in many parts of the world, which is why, as the Minister pointed out, we are taking action against the Iranian-backed Houthis, who are seeking to disrupt our right to free passage by their attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. Imagine how all these countries, with their supporters across Europe and the globe, would feel if the Ukrainians were not successful.

All this, although far away, could have profound effects on the security, safety and living of people in the UK, the rest of Europe and beyond. Instability and war could bring refugees and migrants, huge disruption to trade and energy shortages, as well as security threats.

The debate today gives us an opportunity to make this case. We are rightly focused in many ways on the crisis in the Middle East and the worries about escalation there. We are anxious about what the prospect of a Trump victory in the presidential election may or may not bring. But what I know, and what we should say, is that there is a need for the UK, as a senior member of NATO, a close ally and friend of the US, an important Five Eyes member and a member of the UN Security Council, to stand tall in the international community and say loudly and clearly that we will continue to work to ensure success for Ukraine.

We know that the defence of democracy and freedom is sometimes hard, but we have proved in the past that we do not take it for granted. However difficult, we will not take it for granted now for ourselves, for Ukraine or for others. The defence of democracy, freedom and human rights is our rallying cry, and that should ring out from this Chamber to those who stand against us. The war in Ukraine is of crucial importance to us all, and we should not shrink from making sure that that echoes loudly and clearly from this Chamber and is heard in Russia and beyond. Democracy, human rights and freedom are at stake, and that is what the debate today is about.

Foreign Policy

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, with her usual insightful remarks. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans on securing this debate. I join other noble Lords in saying to the Government that, given the importance of this debate, it clearly should have been in the Chamber. When we are talking about the importance of Britain in the world, of foreign policy and of the future of our country with our allies across the world, and given the nature of the various conflicts and challenges there are, as was mentioned by numerous noble Lords, it is astonishing that it was not held in the Chamber. I hope that can be taken back to the Government as something that is important.

The serious situation in Sudan and the danger in which it has placed thousands of British nationals has been a stark reminder of how interconnected our world is today. Hearing the desperate stories of innocent civilians escaping Khartoum and the welcome efforts of the Government to airlift diplomats and their families, we can all recognise that foreign policy has never before had greater implications for life here in the UK and beyond. That interconnected nature of our world places Britain and our allies at a crossroads, and we have a choice as to how we move forward, hence the importance of this debate.

We can choose to stand isolated from our closest allies or we can embrace the opportunity that the world offers, including with the United States. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that this should not be as a subservient partner. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, is absolutely right: it is important for the world and for the values that we stand for, and it is important for democracies across Europe and beyond that the United States, the United Kingdom and allies in NATO and beyond stand together. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, made this point: that we should stand with the confidence—not arrogance or a belief that we know everything or that everyone should follow us, as though we were some empire-building colonial power again—that the democratic values that we hold and the human rights that we stand for are important. If we do not stand with the United States to deliver that, we diminish that effort across the world. I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Frost, about that.

The challenge is to ensure that, whoever the President is, the United States itself does not turn inwards and that it sees that its own interests are in working with the UK and NATO and standing firm with respect to Ukraine, as we have seen. We have to work with the United States to deliver that.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, rightly, constantly reminds us of the dangers of China. That is a challenge for the Government—what our relationship is to be with China, and what relationship will work with China. Of course we have to speak to it; it would be ridiculous to say that we should not speak to China. But how do you speak to China and what do you say? Personally, I do not think that there is anything to be gained by appearing weak or by saying that these are not the values that we stand for—that somehow kowtowing to the Chinese is what works. But surely there is a common interest in dealing with the problems that we face.

I have got carried away as usual—but let me just say what the issue is here. I do not think that the great superpowers of the world can move forward without starting from asking what the common interest is here. To take climate change, there are difficulties on this—but, if climate change is not addressed, there is drought and famine. There is a moral imperative to act on this issue, of course—but as the noble Lord, Lord Popat, said about Africa, the movement of people that we see currently is as of nothing if we do not deal with climate change, famine, agriculture, food security and water. Millions on millions of people will move to search for water, which will affect China, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Africa, southern Europe, us, the United States, Mexico and South America. It is in everybody’s common interest to deal with that.

Of course, there are issues. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, reminded us about China. I myself have been sanctioned in Russia—but that will not stop him, me or many others in here from saying what we think. The Government should say that we will not be weak on human rights with regard to China—but surely, as has been shown from some international conferences, you can come to some agreement on issues where there are common interests. That is where I would start; that is what we are looking for from the Government. It is not just our country but the world that is at a crossroads here. There are problems that cannot be resolved by individual countries. I shall not get into the Brexit argument, but international co-operation and working together is absolutely crucial, within a framework of individual and national sovereignty. That is what is frustrating.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans mentioned the importance of soft power, which is neglected. As noble Lords will have heard me say in the Chamber, I am a big advocate of defence spending. I do not think that we spend enough on defence as a country; we can argue what that should be, but we need to spend more. Some of the solutions to the problems, as my noble friend Lord Browne said, might come if we could only sort out who was doing what in NATO. We would not all have to have 1,000 tanks or 5,000 fighter aircraft or 20 aircraft carriers. Of course everyone should have an individual responsibility, but the alliance would deliver that power. That is why I think that AUKUS is important and offers a way forward in respect of that.

When we visited the American embassy two or three weeks ago, I made the point about the importance of soft power. That is where the UK has immense reach. I cannot remember which noble Lord mentioned it, but whether you look at the Middle East, Africa or many of the other countries, that soft power is immense and must be given greater priority by the Government. The aircraft carriers sailing around the South China Sea project military power, but my understanding is that it did as much simply by docking at various ports, speaking to people there and trying to understand what was going on. That is why it is so tragic that the Government have cut the aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5%. It was an awful decision from a moral point of view—but also, that aid package is going into all those different areas where there are problems, and that aid is the soft power that demonstrates to countries that we are not only about preaching human rights and democracy, but that human rights and democracy from a country such as ours delivers aid to people when they need it. We have lost that through the cutting of the budget.

The noble Lord, Lord Frost, may have more influence on people in America than me, but I would be saying to them, “I do not understand that America is often criticised for its global actions, yet look at many of the national global emergencies that occur across the world, and whose planes are flying in the aid? Which flag is on the aid packages going in there?” It should be a source of great pride to the American people that often they are right at the forefront of tackling problems when there is an earthquake or a disaster.

There is a need here. The world is at a crossroads. Standing with America, we the West should project democracy, human rights and values, and demonstrate how they work. We should not shy away from that. We should support those fledgling democracies and fledgling movements across the world that are also trying to grow that within their regions. That is hard power, that is soft power, and it is strategic interest.

I go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. If we do not have the confidence as a country, led by our Government, whatever Government that is, to project that with our NATO allies and our alliances, we will not achieve what we all want, and China, Russia and the other autocrats across the world will gain from it. That is the challenge. The Government must be bolder in setting out that vision of where they want us and our allies to go if we are to achieve what we all want.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, in winding up, I start by saying how great it is that we can stand in this Chamber and debate these issues. Even if we fundamentally disagree, we can do that in the democracy in which we live. In talking about foreign policy, defence and development, there are many people who we seek to help who cannot do that. There have been one or two opinions expressed with which I fundamentally disagree, but noble Lords’ right to express them in this Chamber and for me to disagree is something that we should all recognise, as we remind ourselves that this country is an example to the rest of the world and seek to ensure that everyone has those same rights.

As I say often in these debates, it is significant that so many people with so much experience and knowledge can contribute. I start my remarks by reminding noble Lords of some of the principles on which we base our democracy and will focus on them. This Chamber is watched all over the world. It may be 10.01 pm, and those of us who have spent a few hours here may think that only a few people are watching, but these remarks are watched, read, distributed and pored over by countries across the world. As such, the remarks that are made in here, on all sorts of issues, resonate across the world in all sorts of ways. That huge responsibility lies on us and is something on which we should reflect.

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I will not be able to mention everyone and, if I start to, like the famous wedding I will miss somebody out; I apologise in advance, but there has been a huge number of contributions. I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Collins for the remarks in his excellent opening speech, which referenced the huge number of themes being considered. The noble Lord, Lord King, gave me his apologies, as he did the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, but he was right to start the debate by pointing out that we are at a cross-roads as a country, a continent and a world. There are hugely significant issues and which way we go and which side wins, if you like, is to be determined by the decisions we take.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, that never has there been a time when we needed more a Queen’s Speech that was dynamic, visionary and inspiring. The warm words in certain sentences of the gracious Speech need to be turned into that vision and a sense of excitement and dynamism to inspire our own country, and those across the world, to bring about change. But in many of the areas outlined, as we have discussed over the previous few days, those visionary ideas are yet to be set out.

Let me spell it out, because, as I have said, this Chamber is heard across the country and the world—especially on Ukraine. Our country, Britain, has a proud history of combating evil in Europe and across the world. We will never be found wanting when it comes to meeting those needs, wherever they are. Every country, organisation and people should know this, and our country will stand shoulder to shoulder with those fighting for a fairer, more equal and more just world. We will always be on the side of democracy, as we are in Ukraine. Large numbers of noble Lords have pointed out the importance and significance of Ukraine and how it marks a turning point. It is a wake-up call for the continent and for the world. Battles that we thought had been won on democracy and human rights have been challenged by what has happened in Ukraine. We need to ensure that we are not cowed by what happens there and will stand up against that evil, so that we can show that example to the rest of the world. Many noble Lords have spoken about the importance of that.

In every area of trade, defence and foreign policy we are, as I have said, at a cross-roads and we should seize the moment. Too often as a country—I say again to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, that this needed to be addressed in the gracious Speech—we lack the confidence to say some of the things that I am saying at this Dispatch Box. Too often, we fear the consequences of that. We should be proud of our heritage, proud of where we stand as a country and proud to stand up for that and take it forward, not only on defence but on climate change, technology and all the various issues that many other noble Lords have raised. Those were important statements to be made in my opening remarks.

There is clearly a need for the defence strategy paper to be reviewed. That is not out of the ordinary; it is something that the Permanent Secretary said at our meeting: in the light of what has happened in Ukraine, there will be a need to review the defence review that took place. There is nothing wrong in that. I do not understand why the Government cannot say that, in the light of what has happened, we should review whether we got it right. The stupid thing to do is not to review it and to dogmatically refuse to review it in the light of what has happened. No doubt that is what the Permanent Secretary was saying.

The noble Baroness, Lady Davidson, talked about the Army. Who said that the Army was too small? It was not some left-wing socialist like me standing at the side; it was the head of the Army who said that it was too small—not some catastrophic idiot who does not know what they are talking about. The Government’s own outgoing head said that the Army is too small. What is the Government’s response to that? They cannot just dismiss these sorts of things; it is idiotic.

I hope that the noble Lord agrees with his boss, who contacted the Government to say that there needed to be an increase in defence spending. I think we would all like to hear whether the noble Lord agrees with his boss that there should be an increase in defence spending. I wish that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was still in her place. It was even worse for her boss, because he wrote to the Prime Minister on 11 March saying that there should be an increase in defence spending. The Prime Minister’s response to that was not to say to the Defence Secretary, “Quite right, it is a very serious matter that you have pointed out that we will not meet our 2% spending on NATO in 2025 unless there is an increase in defence spending”; instead, the Prime Minister told him to withdraw the letter. Noble Lord after noble Lord has said in this debate that there is a need to review defence spending. In his response, we could do with the Minister explaining whether he agrees that there is a need to review the level of defence spending.

I want to deal with one aspect of this, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fall. It is something that I have said in my own remarks previously, and it is extremely important: namely the need to explain to the British public, and persuade them, that there is a need for an increase in defence spending, rather than for us to say that it is all right to do that. It is really important and needs to be done for the defence of democracy and for the freedom of our country. That needs to be explained and argued for. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fall, quite rightly pointed out, the impact of much of this will be on the poorest people in the country. Who are the people who are facing the biggest squeeze on their living standards at this most difficult of times and a cost of living crisis? It is the poorest people in the country. Yet we are saying to them that, while we may be able to increase spending on benefits, and on this or on that, rather than do that, some of the public spending that may have gone to them will need to be spent on defence. That needs to be explained, argued for and debated with people. Too often—I have said this in remarks that I have made in other debates—we make statements about what should happen, rather than seeking to explain to the public why we think it should happen.

On trade, which has been raised by many noble Lords, I shall say just this—I am going to wind up in a couple of minutes. The issue for the Government and this country is not whether we want trade deals. Of course we want trade deals. The vision for the future is what sort of trade deals we have. I think the country is demanding, and the world is looking for a new chapter which seeks, a greater ethical position with respect to our trade deals. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, talked about it: are we going to continue to trade with countries with, to say the least, questionable human rights policies, with no impact on climate change, where they repress minorities within their countries? Do we want our Government to continue to negotiate and make trade deals with any country in the world, irrespective of where it stands as a country on all these issues? That is the question. It is not whether we have trade deals; it is what sort of trade deals we want. That is the question as we move forward.

There are all the issues around soft power and the fact that the Government reduced aid from 0.7% to 0.5%—a disastrous policy. My noble friend Lady Blackstone talked about the importance of climate change and other noble Lords talked about the importance of linguists—the soft power importance of all of these things. It is not glib statements that people want, it is policies that underpin a fresh, new approach. The world is crying out for change, for a different sort of social order, and it is up to us as the UK to try to once again put ourselves at the forefront of that, to be the leader of that, to be the visionary for that in a reformed NATO, a reformed United Nations and a reformed Council of Europe. All those organisations need reform and change, and we should be the country that provides the dynamism and enthusiasm to do that.

Ukraine and Russia: Military Developments

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Coaker]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of military developments on the border between Ukraine and Russia.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, we are deeply concerned by Russia’s pattern of military build-up in and around Ukraine and are closely monitoring the situation. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has held discussions with her Russian and Ukrainian counterparts, restating the UK’s strong support for Ukraine and urging the Russian Government to de-escalate the situation. We are looking at a package of sanctions to raise the cost of any further aggressive Russian actions against Ukraine. We already support Ukrainian military development and regularly conduct joint exercises.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, we are edging ever closer to a real crisis in Ukraine, with the US Defense Intelligence Agency speaking of a potential 175,000 Russian troops on the border; with emergency talks between President Biden and President Putin; and with the President of Ukraine asking for British soldiers. The Minister will note that this is a very real crisis and one morning we are going to wake up, as the Defense Intelligence Agency says, to a Soviet invasion of Ukraine. What is our response going to be if anything like that happens? What are we doing to talk to the Russians to secure assurances from them about this situation? Are we talking to our European neighbours? Let us get it sorted before we have a very real crisis on our hands.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord speaks from deep insight as a former shadow Secretary of State for Defence. I assure the noble Lord that we are working very closely with our European allies and indeed the United States. As the noble Lord accurately said, recently President Biden and President Putin have had discussions, but over the last couple of days there were also meetings between our Prime Minister and other leaders, including our European allies, where our Prime Minister updated others on his conversation with President Putin. Equally, at the OSCE recently, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, among others, met the Foreign Ministers of both Russia and Ukraine and reiterated the points that I have made. Today, as the noble Lord may know, we are engaging in a strategic dialogue with Ukraine in London.

Afghanistan: FCDO Update

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his kind remarks. On the specifics of his question, there is of course the MPs- and Peers-specific hotline, and so on. I assure him that my approach to testing it is that there is someone within my private office who ensures that at intervals we also ensure that there is efficiency of operation. There is no better way than experiencing it yourself. Those are some of the practices in practical terms that I have deployed.

On the specifics I can share, first, the visits of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary to Pakistan and Qatar and my own visit to Tajikistan in particular but also Uzbekistan have been focused on that specific issue. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, as regards people appearing with the right documentation—these are British nationals—or indeed others, such as those on the ARAP scheme, we are working out some of the specific details. These countries are extremely concerned—this is why they have sealed their borders—that people will flock to their borders, which will then result in them having a humanitarian crisis not just on the border but within their own country. We have to recognise that. So it is not just about the ask of safe facilitation over the border; that is why we are standing up funding quite specifically to help infrastructure in the different countries in terms of border support.

A specific that has happened is that Pakistan has already announced a 21-day visa, now extended to 30 days, for transit for those people entering the country, but it has also had to close the border it had opened because of concerns. Nevertheless, we are working in close, detailed proximity with these Governments, and our rapid deployment teams are now in position and collating information specifically from those people getting in touch with them, particularly British nationals on the borders, so that we can have an exact list of who is where, to help to facilitate progress across whichever part of the border they come to. However, I say again that we are operating under the added challenge that each of these countries has issued official statements that the borders are sealed. It is a test of our strength of diplomacy as to how we can provide workable solutions that do not alarm those neighbours that may well take the brunt of refugees.

The other issue that I share with my noble friend is that the issue of safe passage means that there needs to be unison and unity with international partners. He will have noticed Secretary of State Blinken in Qatar today, working with the Qataris. One area is to see how we can facilitate access into Kabul airport, not just for humanitarian support but to open up safe passage for those wishing to leave. The Taliban have given the assurance that those wishing to leave—foreign nationals and Afghans—can leave, but the proof is in the pudding, and that is yet to happen.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, clearly the immediate priority for the Government has to be dealing with the specific crisis as it is now—those who have returned and those we are seeking to bring back. Notwithstanding that, and building on the question from my noble friend, can the Minister say something, even at this early stage, about the Government’s thinking around how they will take forward the whole concept of global Britain and what this will mean for the integrated defence and security review?

We hear legitimate questions in the Chamber about why the Minister does not meet with regional partners, what it means for NATO, what it means for the United Nations and what it means for the trust that this country has with the allies that we seek to work with. The Minister knows that the battle over the next few decades will be between democracy and autocracy. Where does Britain stand on that? How will we deal with it? My noble friend was saying that it is imperative that the Government give their early thinking—and discuss with Members in both the other place and this House, and people beyond—to how we take that forward.

I gently urge the Minister, whose calm demeanour belies the fact that he knows that we do not want to read in our newspapers or see on our televisions different government departments briefing against each other and blaming each other for what is a crisis: we need a united front from our Government, debating with us how we move our country forward within our alliances for the protection of democracy and human rights across the world.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that when it comes to dealing with a crisis, unity is very much at the forefront of my mind. As I have said, I have worked in very practical terms—I have shared my experience and what I have put in place with noble Lords. I pay tribute to my colleagues across the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence; it was about doing the right thing at a time of crisis, and you need to come together as a Government.

I am conscious of the time, but I fully acknowledge that global Britain is about our place in the world, about alliances, about the United Nations and about our strength as a P5 member and a key member of NATO. As we look towards the Indo-Pacific, what does that mean? For now, on this particular chapter, I conclude with two things: we need to show great humility with what we have achieved and show forward-looking humanity in how we act.

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (Rule of Law)

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

This debate is important because it is about the Prime Minister obeying the law. This is not just about the Leader of the Opposition. Is the hon. Gentleman not surprised, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) said, that the Law Officers of the Government are not here to hear the debate, given, quite astonishingly, that the Lord Chancellor—the chief Law Officer of Her Majesty’s Government—had to see the Prime Minister to seek reassurances about the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom obeying the law passed by the legislature of the United Kingdom? Does the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) not agree that that is astonishing? Frankly, the importance of this debate is reflected in the fact that the Lord Chancellor had doubts about whether the Prime Minister is going to obey the law.

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Gentleman might want to withdraw that remark, because I have seen no comments from the Lord Chancellor that he in any way doubts the word of the Prime Minister—on reflection, he might wish to withdraw that.

The truth is that this is a general debate that is being held for political purposes. Nobody in this House for one moment thinks that any member of the Government is not going to obey the law of the land. My only reason for speaking in this debate was to say that I do not welcome the Act. It was pushed through in an extraordinarily unconstitutional way, and I say with all sincerity to the Leader of the Opposition that if he sits on this side of the House as Prime Minister, he will regret that constitutional outrage.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 4th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

We are leading from the front. As my hon. Friend knows, we are bringing in an ivory ban in the UK. We have formed a high-level political coalition, the Ivory Alliance 2024, and we are urging everyone to tackle something that is extremely urgent, because the number of African elephants has declined by 30% over the past seven years.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

May I ask the Minister, who will share all our concerns about this illegal wildlife trade, to redouble her efforts to get other countries involved as well as her own and to get international organisations involved? What has happened is deplorable, and the wildlife across this planet is disappearing before our eyes.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his endorsement of the work, and we truly are working very energetically and vigorously, following the incredibly important and wide-ranging conference. As I say, 1,000 people attended it, and 57 countries have signed up to the declaration. We are encouraging everyone and leading by example with our ivory ban.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 30th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

T7. Given the concern expressed across the House about Kashmir, will the Foreign Secretary commit to raise that issue at the Security Council, of which we are a permanent member, the next time he addresses the United Nations?

[Mark Field]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He may not have heard it, but I said earlier on that we are making it very clear that it is not our place to intervene or interfere in this matter, but clearly it is a concern. The UN report on human rights has rightly been referred to. We very much take note of former high commissioner Zeid’s presentation to the Human Rights Council in June this year and the clear recommendations for the Governments of India and Pakistan. We hope that those will be adhered to.

Council of Europe

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the work of the Council of Europe.

It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Hosie, for this important debate. I thank the Minister, who I know is very interested in this work, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood). I also thank all the members of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe, some of whom have worked there for decades—I have worked for just months, so I defer to their knowledge and expertise in this area. I pay special tribute to the hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), who has been an excellent leader of the delegation and has been very helpful to us all, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), who leads the Labour delegation. Much of that work goes unrecognised.

All the parties in this House are represented in the Council of Europe, and the way we try to work together is a great tribute to us all. We do that because we know the importance of the Council of Europe. I was interested in introducing this morning’s debate because I have been in this House for 20 years and, to be frank, before that my understanding of the work of the Council of Europe was limited. The British public’s understanding of it is probably even more limited, which is no criticism of them. We all need to think about how we can raise the profile, not only in this country but across Europe, of the important work that the Council of Europe does. That is the purpose of today’s debate.

The Council of Europe calls itself the democratic conscience of greater Europe, which I think is true. I am not a cynical person—cynicism is the great enemy of politics today. That statement is a fundamental aim of the Council of Europe. Let us be clear: this is not about the UK saying that we have everything right, and that we will tell the rest of Europe and the world what to do. We have our own challenges, as we can see from some of today’s newspaper headlines regarding anti-Semitism and the Windrush generation.

Let us reflect on Winston Churchill, Clement Attlee and the great leaders of the past who set up the Council of Europe in the aftermath of the destruction and terror of world war two. Make no mistake: I am not comparing the situation today to world war two. However, I strongly believe that if Winston Churchill or Clement Attlee were alive today and could see what is happening across Europe, they would think, “Goodness me, there is still a long way to go, even some decades after we proposed the establishment of a council of Europe that would work towards the establishment of democracy, the rule of law, freedom of expression and tolerance across our continent, as well as the rest of the world.” That is why it is so important.

Sometimes such rhetoric—stating and restating the principles in which we believe—is seen as remote, and not dealing with the practical realities of the modern world. I say that we should never take for granted the way in which the Council of Europe stands up for and speaks out on the principles on which democratic societies must be based, which it does exceedingly well.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Yesterday I wrote to the Foreign Secretary about the proposed Polish holocaust law, which revises history and is clearly anti-Semitic. Does my hon. Friend agree that it needs to be raised in the Council of Europe with the Polish Government, as do the issues with the Hungarian Government regarding anti-Semitic tropes in the recent election?

[Vernon Coaker]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. He is absolutely right about those issues in Poland and Hungary, but there are numerous other areas in which the Council of Europe continues to stand up and speak out. We should not shy away from that, which is why the statement that the Council of Europe acts as the democratic conscience of Europe is important. When the Council of Europe was established by Churchill and others with great words, they believed that within 20 or 30 years some of those problems could be defeated. Yet my hon. Friend reminds us of something that all of us who participate in such debates, both here and abroad, know: battles that we thought would be won are having to be refought. Things that we thought would be taken for granted are having to be fought for again.

Some of this is difficult, and there is so much to discuss. The Minister gave us an exposition of his efforts with Turkey. We in the Council of Europe would think that much of what happens in Turkey is not right, but what did the Minister do? He did not shy away from it. He went there, talked to them, and tried to say, “You are a democracy and part of NATO, and you were talking about becoming a member of the EU. We know that there are difficulties, but you cannot fight what you regard as terrorism or prejudice by resorting to measures that we regard as authoritarian and anti-democratic.” Such measures, however, do not mean that we turn our back on those countries. The Minister was absolutely right to remind us about how he went to speak in Istanbul—he will correct me if I am wrong—straight after the attempted coup, not to support the Turkish Government but to say to them, “Look, you may deal with these things, but you need to deal with them in a democratic way that adheres to the principles we all share.” That is exceedingly important.

As a body, we are looking at and dealing with many issues of real difficulty. I cannot believe that in 2018 I am speaking in this Chamber about how it is still important for the Council of Europe, which may become particularly important post-Brexit as an inter-parliamentary assembly where we can come together, to stand up for democracy and freedom under the law. From research by Amnesty International, we can see how in individual countries across Europe political sanctions are being introduced, people are being imprisoned for what they say, and people are being denied freedom of expression, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights, and gender equality. I am not saying that we all ought to live a life of gloom and pessimism, but part of the role of the Council of Europe is to talk to those countries and stand up for the principles that we hold dear.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and agree with everything he has said. Does he agree that one good way to raise the profile of the 36 Members of this House and the other place who go to the Council of Europe would be, at the very minimum, an annual debate on the Floor of the House and in Government time to showcase what we are doing as a nation, among the very large number of nations that make up the Council of Europe and its observers?

[Vernon Coaker]

I could not agree more. The right hon. Lady makes an excellent suggestion. I hope that the Minister can take the idea back and talk to his Whips Office—I am sure that ours will also be agreeable to that. We should all continue to think what more we can do in this country and across Europe to reflect the importance of the work being done. For example, the Minister might like to make a statement to the House after the annual meeting of the Committee of Ministers. I am sure that he would enjoy that.

The truth is that this is important work. To give an example, one of the challenges of our time is the migrant and refugee crisis. Whatever our view on its causes, who is to blame and so on, the Council of Europe reminds us that in the end we are talking about people, in particular children, and that whatever the rights and wrongs of individual foreign policy decisions, it cannot be right that tens of thousands of unaccompanied children are struggling across Europe, often with no prospect of being resettled or relocated.

I went to Jordan recently as part of the Council of Europe delegation. What a phenomenal example Jordan is to the rest of the world in the way it tries to deal with refugee and migrant problems. It is a country of 10 million people. It is not one of the poorest countries in the world, but it is not one of the richest either. Two million of those people are migrants or refugees. I went to the Zaatari refugee camp on the Jordanian-Syrian border, where there are 80,000 people. Hundreds of thousands have been through that camp, which was established in 2012. It is now a small town, as the Minister will know, as I think he has been there as well. The Jordanian people are an example to the rest of us in the way that they have supported the needs of the people in that camp and the rest of the country, and helped them to integrate into their society. They are a reminder and a wake-up call to us all to see children as children, with rights, who need others to speak up for them. It is not their fault that they are fleeing war, that they are unaccompanied or that they do not know where they are going to go. Surely, as the Council of Europe has reminded us time and again, we have a responsibility to stand up, work with them and do what we can.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a characteristically powerful speech. He and I are both members of the Council of Europe’s Committee on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons, and there is no better example of why the Council of Europe is about not just the history of our relationship with Europe, but its future. It behoves every nation to address these challenges. Only by being able to talk to our colleagues in other countries will we ever be able to find solutions. What the Council of Europe and that Committee allows us to do is start that process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend has been one of the Members of this House at the forefront of championing the rights of children. That is one example of what the Council of Europe seeks to do. Helped by the hon. Member for North Thanet, I have put down my own resolution on trafficking and slavery, which we hope will help us to make progress.

Is it not also great that we have a body in Europe that has many of the former countries of the Soviet Union as members? We talk to and discuss with them and they are part of a democratic process. There are still issues in some of those countries—I know Members will have been to some, observed elections and seen some of the problems—but we are trying to help and support them and build their democracy. It is just not possible to expect a country that has no democratic traditions or history of inclusion and tolerance, and that still has ethnic clashes, suddenly to pass a constitution and the next day become a beacon of democracy for the world. That is not the real world. The important point is that those countries need help, support and challenge and the Council of Europe can provide that.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Talking of countries of the former Soviet Union that have problems with democracy, one must not forget Russia. Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that jaw-jaw is better than war-war, and that one of the advantages of bringing Russia back into the Council of Europe, however much we disagree with its present Government, is that we could at least engage them in some way and perhaps encourage them into better behaviour?

[Vernon Coaker]

I think that it is really important that the Council of Europe has standards and says that it will not compromise on its principles. I also believe that it is extremely important to continue to talk and discuss with people. I agree absolutely with that, but not with saying, “We will not worry about that, on the basis that we want to keep talking to you.” We have to be tough and say, “This is what we believe,” but that does not mean it is impossible for us to continue to have dialogue with people even if we do not agree with them. That is what I think about Russia.

It is astonishing that even in Europe—this continent that holds itself up as an example to the rest of the world—there are still examples where we have to defend the principle of freedom of expression. It is astonishing that in some countries in Europe journalists have been imprisoned simply for criticising the Government of the day. It is hard to believe. When the Council of Europe was set up in 1949, would those who went to its first meeting believe that we would be here in 2018 and that there would still be people locked up for what they say or write? I do not believe that they would have. The Council of Europe says to the Governments of its member states that they cannot lock people up simply because they criticise a Government, however much they disagree with what has been written or said. It is a fundamental principle that people can organise, write and demonstrate peacefully for something they believe in. Here again, the Council of Europe is standing up and demanding that.

I do not want to speak for too long, because I know that others want to contribute, but I have a couple of further remarks to make. The challenges that the Council of Europe has faced and is facing should not hide its achievements. Sometimes it is criticised for being a talking shop. There is a lot to be said for talking shops. Where else would we bring that collection of countries together and force them to listen to opinions that they might not agree with?

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

I apologise for my late arrival to the debate—I was detained by a constituency issue. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and making such a powerful speech. I am a very new member of the Council of Europe, so it is fantastic to hear. Does he agree that, given the current geopolitical situation and what we are facing in Syria, talking is one of the most important tools in our armoury?

[Vernon Coaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her apology—of course that is fine. I agree that it is about talking, but the Council of Europe also tries to help us understand. Ignorance is not bliss, and in order to solve the problems facing Europe and the world we have to try to understand what is going on. That does not mean that we abandon our principles; it means that we have to try to understand why people are doing what they are doing. I agree with her that that is really important.

The Council of Europe has helped to establish democracy and certain other principles. We should celebrate the fact that it is now a “death penalty-free zone”, as it puts it, which is of huge significance. One of the Council of Europe’s great achievements is the European convention on human rights and the establishment of the European Court of Human Rights. It is important for the country to recognise that, although we are leaving the EU, the European Court of Human Rights is not part of the EU. When we look at some of the cases that have been heard at the European Court of Human Rights, even those relating to our country, we see a body standing up for the universality of a principle and holding even Governments to account. That is not necessarily the most popular thing to say, but I fundamentally believe it. I make that argument in my constituency and tell people that we should celebrate the fact that we have human rights and bodies that stand up for them; we should not abhor them or use populist rhetoric.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

As I discussed with the previous Lord Chancellor, we have a magnificent success record at the European Court of Human Rights. Well over 90% of our cases are dropped or turned away. We should celebrate that to ensure that the ECHR is not seen as vehicle for attack by organisations such as the Daily Mail.

[Vernon Coaker]

I agree. The hon. Gentleman will remember that it was the European Court of Human Rights that ensured that thalidomide victims got the justice they deserved.

Whether it is ending the death penalty, fighting for freedom of expression, strengthening human rights, tackling discrimination, standing up for refugees and migrants, campaigning for and championing gender equality, introducing new laws and conventions, or acting as a forum for debating difficult and controversial issues, we can all be proud of the Council of Europe. I have talked about the challenges that we face in Europe today, but let us remember the challenges that those who established the Council of Europe faced in 1949. We do not face the same challenges, but let us not be cynical. Let us be hopeful and optimistic. Let us believe that by talking to and challenging other countries in the environment that the Council of Europe offers us, we can make progress. In the end, ordinary people’s common decency and desire to achieve what they can for themselves, their families and their countries will move them to believe it is possible to overcome the racism, intolerance and discrimination that still scar our continent today. It is possible to do better. The Council of Europe gives us a real opportunity to make that more of a reality than it is.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson]

I can confirm that we are increasing our contribution to £26 million—another £13 million to tackle the illegal wildlife trade. I have myself seen what UK-financed projects are doing in Kenya to crack down on this vile trade.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I say to the Foreign Secretary that we simply have to give this subject a much higher priority than we do—not only our Government, but across the world. Every week or month we see programmes on our televisions—55 African elephants are poached every day. He has to make this a priority. It is not good enough for us to look at our television screens and feel sorry about it—we have to have a far greater commitment to do something about it.

[Boris Johnson]

I completely share the hon. Gentleman’s zeal and passion. The UK has in fact been in the lead on this for several years now, and we will continue to push the agenda, not just at the G20, as the Prime Minister did, but at the IWT summit that we will host in October 2018 in London.