International Development Strategy
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and, in doing so, draw attention to my entry in the Lords register.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, the Government published their UK strategy for international development on 16 May this year. The strategy puts development at the heart of the UK’s foreign policy. It sets out a focused set of priorities: delivering honest, reliable investment; providing women and girls with the freedom they need to succeed; stepping up our life-saving humanitarian work; and taking forward our work on climate change, nature and global health.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his Answer on behalf of the Government, and I would like to be positive: it is good that we now have a strategy. It is long overdue. It is good to see some clear priorities, and I welcome the recommitment to the sustainable development goals and to long-term, consistent planning. However, the strategy does appear to reverse a long-term commitment—under Labour, Conservative and coalition Governments—to putting conflict prevention and peacebuilding at the heart of this country’s development strategy. It is hard to find references to conflict in the strategy document. There are two, a paragraph on page 16 and a paragraph on page 30, and they appear to be an afterthought. Do the Government understand that those who live in conflict-affected and fragile states have the least opportunities, the least safety and the least hope, and that therefore they should be at the heart of the whole development strategy? What action will the Government take to ensure that the priorities they have outlined do not sideline conflict prevention and peacebuilding?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord makes a hugely important point, and of course the Government share his view. Much of the development strategy is about preventing the kinds of displacement caused by conflict—not least through our work on climate, environment and so on. The focus on humanitarian assistance remains, as the noble Lord will have seen in the strategy, and we are committed to building on the UK’s capabilities, reach and international role in conflict prevention and reduction in order to target long-lasting political settlements; to tackle new threats, including disinformation and cyberattacks, as well as enduring ones such as landmines; to address the causes and consequences of forced migration; and to establish a new conflict and atrocity prevention hub that brings together all UK government capabilities.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, this Government have said in the past that they will prioritise overseas territories—something that becomes increasingly difficult, as so few qualify for ODA. However, with the hurricane season approaching in the Caribbean, can my noble friend simply take this opportunity to reassure your Lordships’ House, and crucially our overseas territories, that should a hurricane happen, the Government will support them through humanitarian assistance and disaster relief?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My noble friend makes an important point. As he says, the majority of overseas territories do not qualify for ODA. However, I and the Government think there is a problem in the way in which the rules are assessed and those assessments are made. As he notes, small island states are particularly vulnerable to extreme weather events and can be plunged from prosperity into poverty literally overnight. We have taken up this issue with our international partners, and I hope we will see movement on the criteria soon. In the meantime, yes, our support for the OTs remains. We have increased our funding for work in the overseas territories, and I am very keen for us to continue to do so.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, on 12 July last year the Chancellor told the House of Commons that
“the Government commit to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA when the independent Office for Budget Responsibility’s fiscal forecast confirms that, on a sustainable basis, we are not borrowing for day-to-day spending and underlying debt is falling”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/7/21; col. 3WS.]
In March the Economic and Fiscal Outlook said the following of ODA, on page 129:
“At this forecast, the current budget reaches surplus and underlying debt falls from 2023-24.”
That is just six months away. Why are the Government not preparing for restoration as, according to the OBR, we have met the fiscal tests?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
It is worth saying that the UK remains one of the largest donors globally. We spent more than £11 billion in aid around the world in 2021, and the Government have committed, as the noble Lord acknowledged, to returning to 0.7% as soon as we can. That is something that I know the whole House, on both sides, supports. In various debates the noble Lord has made the point that in jumping from 0.5% to 0.7% and having the opposite of a cliff edge—a steep mountain to climb in a short period of time—there is a risk of not investing that additional money wisely. This is a very live discussion in the FCDO, and one that I am taking part in. I am not yet in a position to go into detail about what that means.
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)
My Lords, CHOGM takes place later this month in Kigali. Will Her Majesty’s Government assure Commonwealth partners that qualify that they will be priority recipients for UK development assistance?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
All the allocations will be published in due course, but I can tell the noble Lord that a very large percentage of Commonwealth members are small island developing states. We recognise in the strategy the particular vulnerabilities that come with that in terms of various shocks from climate and environment to what we saw in the pandemic recently, where countries that did not even experience Covid nevertheless saw almost total economic collapse as a consequence of policies around Covid. So, yes, we will be stepping up—as we already have—our focus on those small island developing states, many of which are Commonwealth countries. Others are climate-vulnerable countries and they too remain a priority.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, due to increasing conflict and the effects of climate change, the global nutrition crisis is getting worse. The strategy did not include any specific prioritisation of nutrition, despite the Government’s commitment at the recent summit to spend £1.5 billion over the next eight years. So when will we know how the money will be split between nutrition-specific and nutrition-sensitive programmes, and when will the money begin to be disbursed? Will the Government keep to their previous commitment of reaching 50 million children, women and adolescent girls with nutrition-relevant programmes by 2025?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the FCDO’s annual report and accounts will be laid in Parliament before the Summer Recess and will include details of the FCDO’s ODA spending. I cannot give the noble Lord specific numbers, but I can tell him that a focus on land use, which is emphasised in the IDS, will be very much at the top of the agenda as a consequence in the years to come. On women and girls, we have a clear commitment in the strategy to providing women and girls around the world with the freedom and opportunity they need to succeed. We have said that we intend to restore funding to help unlock their potential,
“educating girls, supporting their empowerment and protecting them against violence.”
This remains a key priority area for the Government.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
In relation to the women and girls spending commitment that my noble friend the Minister just highlighted, can he confirm that that restoration of funding will happen in this financial year, and by how much the funding will be increased?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The Foreign Secretary confirmed recently that the FCDO will spend £745 million on bilateral women and girls programmes this financial year. This will restore bilateral spending to 2020-21 levels. As I said earlier, the new approach will be set out in full in the UK’s 2022 women and girls strategy.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will recognise that climate change poses a major threat to progress on international development. Does he also agree that private capital alongside development aid will be critical in tackling it? To that end, will the Government encourage the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero to put far more emphasis on engaging African financial institutions in its work and to focus on delivering real benefits to the 2.5 billion people who will live in Africa by 2050?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord is right that the UK is currently doing all it can to encourage donor countries to increase the finance they make available for climate change and nature, with some success. However, even if we are very successful —more so than we expect—it will not be anything more than a drop in the ocean compared with what is needed, so mobilising private finance is key. We have persuaded the multilateral development banks, including the World Bank, to align their funding not just with Paris goals but with nature. At the G7, the UK was solely responsible, I think, for persuading other G7 members to align all their aid with nature and the Paris goals—something that we did not expect to get over the line but did, thanks to our brilliant negotiators. We are working hard to mobilise private finance from all sources; I would be happy to talk in more detail with the noble Lord in due course.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, why is the strategy silent on the importance of international volunteering programmes, especially by young people? Will the Minister also say whether the FCDO is planning to resume funding for the International Citizen Service, which was suspended in 2020 because of the pandemic?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid I cannot give the noble Baroness an answer on the International Citizen Service. If she will allow me to, I will get back to her in due course.
Nigeria: Killing of Church Worshippers
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat the Answer to an Urgent Question in the other place from my honourable friend the Minister for Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean:
“I was horrified to hear of the attack on a church in Ondo state, south-west Nigeria, yesterday. I have publicly expressed my condemnation of this heinous act and stressed the importance of those responsible being brought to justice in accordance with the law. Our high commissioner in Nigeria has also reached out to the governor of Ondo state to express our condolences and to offer our support to him and his team. I know this House will join me in sending our condolences to the families and communities of those killed.
Rising conflict and insecurity across Nigeria is having a devastating impact on affected communities. I have raised this issue with the Nigerian authorities on several occasions, including in conversations with Nigeria’s Vice-President and Foreign Minister during my February visit. During that visit, I also met with regional governors, religious leaders and non-governmental organisations to discuss intercommunal violence and freedom of religion or belief. It was clear from that meeting that religious identity can be a factor in incidents of violence and that Christian communities have been victims, but the root causes are complex and frequently relate to competition over resources, historical grievances and criminality.
The UK Government are committed to working with Nigeria to respond to insecurity. At the first dialogue in support of our security and defence partnership with Nigeria in February, we committed to work together to respond to conflict in Nigeria. We are supporting local and national peacebuilding efforts in Nigeria, including through our work with the Nigeria Governors’ Forum and National Peace Committee. We are also providing mentoring and capacity-building support to Nigerian police force units to improve their anti-kidnap capacity and supporting efforts to address the drivers and enablers of serious and organised crime in Nigeria. At our inaugural security and defence dialogue, the UK and Nigerian Governments also reiterated our shared understanding and commitment to protecting human rights for all, including victims of conflict.
The UK is committed to defending freedom of religion or belief for all and promoting respect between different religious and non-religious communities. I discussed freedom of religion or belief with the Nigerian Foreign Minister last month. We look forward to hosting an international conference on freedom of religion or belief in July. We will continue to encourage the Nigerian Government to take urgent action to implement long-term solutions that address the root causes of violence.”
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating that Answer. These are horrific killings. The Answer referred to the security and defence partnership dialogue which has resulted in agreements on police advisers being deployed from the UK to Nigeria, as well as wider support for community policing. What assessment has been made of that assistance? Are there plans to extend it even further?
The dialogue also mentioned human rights for all and freedom of religion or belief—or no belief. I raise the case of Mubarak Bala, who was president of the Humanist Association of Nigeria and was sentenced to 24 years for blasphemy. I know the Government have taken the case up, but can I ask what further progress has been made with the Nigerian authorities to ensure that Mubarak is released?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments and for raising the case of Mubarak Bala. The UK Government continue to follow the case closely and the Minister for Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean has raised his recent sentencing with the Nigerian Foreign Minister. The UK Government believe that the right of individuals to express opinions is essential to a free and open society. The UK is committed to defending freedom of religion or belief for all and promoting respect between different religious and non-religious communities. Promoting the right to freedom of religion and belief is one of the UK’s long-standing human rights priorities.
On a broader point that the noble Lord raised, we are concerned about rising conflict and insecurity across the country. That includes terrorism in the north-east, intercommunal conflicts and criminal banditry in the north-west and middle belt, and violence in the south-east and south-west. The data we have from 2020 suggests that only Afghanistan and Yemen experienced more civilian deaths due to conflict than Nigeria. We are committed to working with Nigeria; it is one of our main aid partners and has been for many years. The Minister for Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean discussed these issues with Nigeria’s Vice-President and Foreign Minister during her visit and they agreed that future co-operation is required between our two countries to respond to shared threats and to support Nigeria to tackle security challenges and promote human rights. Our teams are working on exactly what that looks like as we speak.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, no one could see the images and reports of this horrific attack and not be moved. I share in the Minister’s condolences to those affected. This will be a scar for many years to come in that community. I also agree with the Minister’s comments recognising the nuance and complexity of the sources of some of this horrific violence.
My question relates to the UK’s plans. The Foreign Affairs Committee in the Commons wrote to Vicky Ford in January, saying:
“We understand that contracts with ODA funded projects that work specifically with women and girls impacted by violence have been cancelled with very little notice. How will the renewed emphasis on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict, and Freedom of Religion and Belief, affect the level and nature of project funding in the future?”
The Minister’s reply said on funding for freedom of religion or belief and preventing sexual violence in conflict that
“the FCDO is also working through these as part of the business planning process”.
We know that the UK’s support for Nigeria is being cut by two-thirds overall, so are any projects on freedom of religion or belief that require long-term support going to be protected as part of this? Can the Minister say a little more about this business planning process so that those who will deliver some of these projects will have certainty that they will be able to be on the ground?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
As the noble Lord knows, I will not be able to give him numbers on future spending, but a process is happening in line with the vision set in the IDS, which we discussed earlier today. It is for our country offices and regional experts to tell us what they are looking for, what they need and what the priorities are. The FCDO will then respond to that. It is not clear exactly how much money will be going to different areas, but, as he knows, Nigeria is one of the largest recipients of UK aid and has been for a long time. We provided over £100 million in bilateral aid to Nigeria last year. We provided nearly £210 million in 2020-21 and supported a very wide range of issues. I spent a considerable amount of time only two days ago in Stockholm discussing with my counterpart from Nigeria how we can do more to support the ambition Nigeria has to tackle what it regards to be the root cause of some of the conflict, which is a battle over resources, shortage of resources and very serious environmental degradation, which can mean only more human misery to come.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, notwithstanding the Minister’s comment about the shortage of resources, with which I agree, a lack of resources does not walk into people’s homes and behead them. It does not abduct young women such as Leah Sharibu, rape them and impregnate them. It did not walk into a church and kill over 50 people yesterday. Ideology, impunity and insecurity are words that stand together in Nigeria. For far too long there has been indifference to the widespread killings of minorities, especially in the north of the country but now in the south as well. In 2020, the all-party group on freedom of religion or belief produced a report which asked the question: is this an unfolding genocide? The Africa Minister at the time dismissed it and said that this was a wrong appreciation of what was under way. Will the Minister at least undertake to go back and read that report to look at some of the issues around ideology, Boko Haram, ISIS West Africa Province and a multitude of other organisations coming out of the Sahel?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am certainly not going to disagree with the noble Lord. These organisations are a cancer in the region and are born of an utterly perverse ideology. We are doing everything we can, along with allies, to encourage religious leaders to speak out. In fact, religious leaders from different faiths have spoken out in strong terms as a consequence of the barbarity that we are talking about today—including, for example, the Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs under the leadership of the President-General the Sultan of Sokoto Alhaji Muhammad Sa’ad Abubakar III, who condemned in very strong language Sunday’s violence. That is true of religious leaders of many faiths in Nigeria. So I very strongly agree with the comments of the noble Lord. I know that the APPG sent a delegation very recently —I forget which month—to Nigeria, and the feedback that has been provided to the FCDO has been invaluable.
I cannot answer the question on genocide, partly because it is not UK Government policy to unilaterally determine whether genocide has occurred, in line with the Genocide Convention. There is no question in my mind or any of my colleagues’ minds about the extent of the barbarity that took place on Sunday, or indeed that has taken place on many occasions in that country, often as a consequence of the toxic cancer that the noble Lord described in his question.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, do the Government recognise that religious leaders do not always get recognised by some of these ideologically driven so-called religious groupings and organisations? So the condemnation by religious leaders, though important, has no impact on these ideologues. Do the Government have any approach, particularly at the ministerial conference coming up next month, to address this reality and discrepancy?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, if there were a silver bullet, we would be investing in it and supporting it. I would not completely discount the value of hearing very strong condemnation from religious leaders, particularly where those leaders come from a wide spectrum of different religions. But, in terms of what the UK can do, it will require us to continue to do what we have been doing, which is work very closely with our partners in Nigeria to ensure that they have the capability to track down and ensure that those people who are either tempted to take part or who have taken part in the kinds of atrocities that we are talking about today are brought to justice. That requires a particular emphasis on governance in a country that is notoriously corrupt.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend think that there could be a Commonwealth initiative? Nigeria is a member, as is Cameroon next door; they have a lot of similar problems. Co-operation within the Commonwealth might prove a way forward.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point. We of course have a meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of State coming up in Kigali, Rwanda, very soon. I believe that the Prime Minister will be attending—sadly, I will not, but other Ministers will. Security will be a major theme, alongside many of the other issues that we have talked about, at the Commonwealth meeting.
Working Practices (International Agreements Committee Report)
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for tabling this debate and for the parliamentary report. I am grateful to the members of the International Agreements Committee and all noble Lords for their insightful contributions. I note that kind offer by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, which I will pass on to the relevant Minister immediately after this debate.
Having left the EU, the UK is now free, for the first time in half a century, to negotiate treaties in a number of policy areas previously reserved to the EU, so it is right and absolutely positive that Parliament is now taking a heightened interest in how the Government conduct their negotiations on treaties.
The Government consider Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—CRaG—which has been referred throughout this debate, to be fit for purpose. It respects the balance between the need for parliamentary scrutiny and the fundamental right of the Executive to negotiate for the United Kingdom internationally, exercising their powers under the royal prerogative, as noted by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. Our constitutional set-up allows the British Government to speak clearly, with a single voice, on behalf of the UK as a sovereign state under international law.
As noble Lords will understand, negotiating is usually an art. At some stage, compromises must be offered. Acknowledging my noble friend Lord Lansley’s interest in the India free trade negotiations, as he knows and as the Government have been clear, these are a priority for the Government. We agreed, during the PM’s recent visit, to conclude those negotiations by Diwali in October. However, announcing your negotiating positions and possible compromises in advance risks giving your negotiating partner, or partners, an unnecessary advantage. Confidentiality is therefore not always but often key. If we are too prescriptive in the commitments that we make to Parliament, we risk tying our negotiators’ hands and weakening the UK’s approach. However, we fully recognise that for negotiators to represent the national interest to best effect, it is important to understand Parliament’s views and interests.
Any Minister negotiating a treaty should be and is mindful of Parliament’s important role. They know that Parliament can resolve against ratification, and that it may need to pass subsequent implementing legislation. These are ongoing considerations during negotiations and in engaging Parliament. I acknowledge comments by a number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, and the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, and assure them that the Government do not take a high-handed approach to this. We take Parliament’s role and responsibilities seriously and we make no assumptions about views that may be expressed during scrutiny.
What has changed since CRaG was adopted is the level of public interest now that the UK has full control of its treaty policy. The Government acknowledge that increased interest. We accept that this requires full and proper engagement with Parliament and information-sharing within the CRaG framework. We also recognise that the length, breadth, scope and complexity, as well as the impact of free trade agreements, warrants a bespoke approach. We have therefore agreed a number of additional commitments. We accept that engagement and information-sharing will vary according to individual negotiations, and that this could include engagement during the negotiation process before an agreement is formally laid before Parliament under the Act. Equally, we acknowledge that parliamentary scrutiny does not necessarily end with ratification, a point made by my noble friend Lord Lansley.
I am grateful that the committee’s officials are investing their time in discussions with officials at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Department for International Trade. Together, they are exploring how to make these processes more predictable and how to meet the committee’s expectations. However, with the best will in the world, the International Agreements Committee may struggle to apply equal levels of scrutiny to all the agreements that the Government hope to conclude in any one year.
One area where there has been significant recent interest is trade policy. I am pleased to note the positive response to the bespoke approach taken by my colleagues in the Department for International Trade. Their regime of engagement and transparency allows effective scrutiny of trade agreements. My noble friend Lord Lansley referred to the outline approach publications in respect of new free trade agreements. We saw this in the comprehensive outline approach publications before negotiations with Japan, Australia and New Zealand, and more recently with India and Canada. The Department for International Trade will continue to keep Parliament informed of progress through regular updates.
The Government will endeavour to allow sufficient time between finalising a new free trade agreement and laying it before Parliament under CRaG, in order for relevant Select Committees to produce independent reports. Noble Lords will note that the UK-Australia free trade agreement was published before Parliament over five months ago, and the UK-New Zealand free trade agreement more than 10 weeks ago. Neither has yet been laid under CRaG. This open and detailed process will help Parliament and the public more easily to understand agreements and their implications, including on issues around climate change and the environment, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, highlighted.
It is worth pointing out that, while I certainly do not dispute the points that the noble Lord made about the risks around climate change and the environment from poorly constructed deals, equally, there are huge opportunities, as we have seen from our discussions with New Zealand. It is a reflection of the Government’s commitment to transparency. On the comments by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and a number of other speakers, I welcome their having highlighted the trade advisory groups in particular and the important role they play in promoting, among other things and other sectors, the increasingly important agriculture sector.
I would like to address some specific issues that were raised in the committee’s report and highlighted by a number of noble Lords in this debate. The Government are committed to an exchange of letters regarding current commitments on the scrutiny of free trade agreements and, as has been noted, that took place this morning. I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, considered this exchange a significant step forward; that is good to hear, and I hope it also reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and a number of other speakers who raised the issue. We will continue to review our practices as we and indeed Parliament learn valuable lessons from the passage of new free trade agreements, and our processes will undoubtedly continue to evolve accordingly. Going beyond the exchange of letters at this stage would remove this flexibility to implement lessons learned.
The Review of Intergovernmental Relations, published in January 2022, revised the structures and ways of working between the UK Government and each of the devolved Administrations, including structures of engagement on international policy areas. We will continue to apply and practise many of the agreed principles and engagement approaches originally set out in the concordat on international relations, one of the supplementary agreements supporting the 2013 memorandum of understanding between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. I hope that that reassures my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris. These cover areas such as public diplomacy, the organisation of supported visits and representation overseas, and are based on the principles of good communication, consultation and co-operation.
On Explanatory Memoranda, an issue raised by a number of noble Lords, we welcome the committee’s acknowledgement that the Government’s updates to the Explanatory Memorandum template and guidance have improved matters. We are open to further improvements, and I welcome the collaboration between our officials in supporting this process. Minister Amanda Milling will shortly write to Whitehall colleagues asking them to pay close attention to the FCDO’s Treaties and MOUs: Guidance on Practice and Procedures, and to use the Explanatory Memorandum template contained within them, all of which is published on GOV.UK.
On treaty amendments, the Government have previously indicated their intention that the majority of important amendments should be subject to ratification and submitted to Parliament for scrutiny. However, the terms of the treaty, including those on ratification, are subject to negotiation on a case-by-case basis with treaty partners. It is therefore not possible for the UK to take a unilateral position on this issue by way of domestic guidance. The Government do not agree with the committee’s assessment that they have failed in their commitment to publish treaty amendments, including those made by joint committees. We provide a complete, up-to-date and easily accessible record of the treaties to which the UK is a party.
All amendments to the EU-UK withdrawal agreement and to our new free trade agreements are published in the treaty series. In addition, we publish all joint committee decisions on the same GOV.UK page as the relevant parent treaty. Our monthly treaty action bulletins, also published online, provide a summary of the UK treaty actions and command papers, as well as information on treaties for which the UK is the depository. Treaties are distinct from instruments, as has been pointed out, and arrangements that are not intended to be binding under international law, such as those containing political commitments or administrative arrangements.
In response to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Oates, the recent declarations with Finland and Sweden fall within the category of non-legally binding political commitments. Although the committee refers to those non-binding arrangements as agreements in its report, that terminology is more appropriate to describe a legally binding instrument such as a treaty. Considerable care is taken to make sure that non-legally binding arrangements are drafted appropriately, and guidance on this is set out in the FCDO’s Treaties and MOUs: Guidance on Practice and Procedures, as I mentioned before.
As reiterated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, there has never been a convention in the UK whereby non-legally binding arrangements—I am going to put a helmet on for this moment—are routinely submitted to parliamentary scrutiny. In fact, regarding the so called third limb of Ponsonby, referred to today by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and a number of other speakers, the Government do not dispute the statement made by Lord Ponsonby in 1924. However, the Government do not accept that it formed part of the Ponsonby rule as it existed and was practised prior to CRaG.
I recognise that the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was delivered almost on the basis that he has read much of the speech that has been carefully handed to me. Nevertheless, this is the position of the Government. While non-legally binding arrangements are themselves not routinely published, when they raise issues of public importance it may be appropriate to draw Parliament’s attention to them, for example through a Written Ministerial Statement.
Lord Oates (LD)
The Minister stated that the agreements or declarations made with Finland and Sweden are not legally binding. First, does he think that the Finnish and Swedish Governments are aware of that? Secondly, does he think that they are of sufficient public significance that they will be scrutinised by this Parliament?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I would be amazed if they were not aware of the non-legally binding nature of those agreements or declarations. My view is that Parliament has a hugely important role to play in scrutinising these arrangements. I cannot provide that answer with any certainty because it is not in the remit of my department or portfolio, but I imagine that that scrutiny will be applied. I am afraid I cannot go into any more detail than that.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I hope the Minister does not feel that I am being unnecessarily irked if I question the utility of him referring us to the Treaties and Memoranda of Understanding: Guidance on Practice and Procedures from March 2022. I was referring to it quite extensively in my contribution because I have it in front of me. My point was that the Home Secretary recently—just a few weeks ago—was in direct contradiction of this guidance by calling the agreement with Rwanda binding when the guidance is saying that it should not be. I am sure the Minister will say that I have to take the Home Secretary and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, at their word. If these are legally binding agreements, how have they been approved by Parliament and what is their legal underpinning?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the UK- Rwanda migration and economic development partnership, to which the noble Lord refers, addresses the shared international challenge of illegal migration. That issue has been discussed in this House; I have answered a couple of Questions on it myself, as have Ministers from other departments. The purpose is to break the business model of people-smuggling gangs. It is an innovative measure within the Government’s New Plan for Immigration to fix what I think everyone accepts is a broken asylum system and ensure that we welcome people through safe and legal—[Interruption.] I am coming to the context of the question.
The partnership captured in a Memorandum of Understanding builds upon the wider collaboration with Rwanda across a wide agenda, from combating climate change to more effective aid delivery. Everything put in place is compliant with our legal obligations, including under international law. All claims for asylum are considered in accordance with international human rights obligations. A non-legally binding arrangement in the form of an MoU is, the Government believe, the most effective vehicle as it allows the partnership to change and the technical details to be adjusted quickly if required, and with the agreement of both partners. An MoU on—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. What are the mechanisms for the Home Secretary and the Minister in this House to correct the record? They have actively misled Parliament by saying that these are binding obligations and agreements, because the Minister at the Dispatch Box—and this is serious—has now absolutely contradicted what Priti Patel told the House of Commons and what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, told this Chamber. Both cannot be correct.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The truth is that I am not familiar with the wording used by the Home Secretary. I am not going to answer on her behalf, but I can tell, the noble Lord—
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am afraid, as I said, that I am not familiar with the words she used. I am sure that if an error was made, that error will be corrected, but I am not aware that an error has been made. MoUs on international migration are not uncommon. For example, there is a memorandum of understanding in place between the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the African Union and Rwanda on the relocation of migrants at risk in the conflict zones of Libya.
On implementing legislation, the United Kingdom’s dualist system means that treaties do not automatically become part of our law, a point made by a number of noble Lords today. In accordance with parliamentary supremacy, entering into international obligations under the royal prerogative cannot change UK law; that can happen only through legislation. Having said that, not every treaty requires implementing legislation. The Government are always mindful of the potential need for domestic legislation to implement the UK’s international obligations when negotiating a treaty. Where such legislation is required, it is beneficial, and sometimes essential, to have the flexibility to pass it before, during or after CRaG scrutiny of a treaty. This flexibility should, we believe, be preserved.
In several continuity agreements the Government ensured that the relevant secondary legislation was in place prior to beginning CRaG and published the details of the legislation in the accompanying Explanatory Memorandum. We consider CRaG an appropriate legislative framework, providing sufficient flexibility to enable Parliament to undertake effective scrutiny prior to ratification of a treaty. We do not agree with the three proposals for reform of the statutory framework made by the committee in paragraph 94 of its report. These proposals are not suited, we believe, to the UK’s constitutional settlement as a dualist state where treaties are negotiated under the royal prerogative. This may not reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, but I hope it at least answers his question.
I welcome the experience of the EU system that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, conveyed to us in her speech. The Government agree that the UK’s treaty scrutiny system is broadly comparable to other dualist, Westminster-style systems; in particular, those of Canada and Australia. Indeed, in some respects, particularly with regard to free trade agreements, the Government’s commitments to Parliament go beyond what is provided for in other systems. I underscore the point that we consider CRaG fit for purpose, allowing the Executive to negotiate for the UK and Parliament to conduct the necessary scrutiny. Indeed, the Constitution Committee agreed with the Government’s position in its report of 30 April 2019, noting that existing parliamentary mechanisms, supported by the work of the designated treaties committee, should be sufficient to provide effective scrutiny.
That committee also noted that mandates for treaties should not be subject to parliamentary approval. In fact, a number of the issues raised by the committee in its 2019 report were discussed at length by Parliament during the passage of the Trade Act 2021. In particular, amendments regarding Parliament’s role in the objectives and mandate-setting process and pre-signature scrutiny were explicitly considered on a number of occasions and rejected by considerable majorities in the House of Commons.
There have been multiple exchanges between the Government and the International Agreements Committee in the last two years on matters of transparency and predictability. We have listened to the Committee’s views and adapted our processes. These exchanges are clearly working, they are certainly valued and I have no doubt that they will continue. We welcome the committee’s scrutiny and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, once again for tabling this debate and all noble Lords for their contributions.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, the Minister might wish to consider speaking to the Rwandan high commissioner here, who is an august Minister for Justice and will, I am sure, be looking at his overall remarks most closely. He gave us a full briefing about various matters relating to the agreement and understanding. It would be appropriate, if there is to be a strong relationship with that country, that the situation be explained to him.
Hong Kong: Arrests
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat the Answer to an Urgent Question given in the other place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Europe and North America, James Cleverly. The Answer is as follows:
“The Hong Kong authorities’ decision to target leading pro-democracy figures, including Cardinal Zen, Margaret Ng, Hui Po-keung and Denise Ho, under the national security law is unacceptable. Freedom of expression and the right to peaceful protest, which are protected in both the joint declaration and the basic law, are fundamental to Hong Kong’s way of life.
We continue to make clear to mainland Chinese and Hong Kong authorities our strong opposition to the national security law, which is being used to curtail freedoms, punish dissent and shrink the space for opposition, free press and civil society. In response to the imposition of the national security law, as well as to wider recent developments in Hong Kong, the UK took three major policy actions. First, on 31 January 2021, we launched a bespoke immigration route for British nationals overseas and their dependants. Secondly, we have suspended the UK-Hong Kong extradition treaty and, thirdly, we have extended the existing arms embargo on China to cover Hong Kong. China remains in an ongoing state of non-compliance with the joint declaration, which it willingly agreed to uphold.
As a co-signatory to the joint declaration and in the significant 25th year of our handover we will continue to stand up for the people of Hong Kong, to call out the violation of their rights and freedoms and to hold China to its international obligations. The Foreign Secretary is in regular contact with her international counterparts on issues relating to Hong Kong, and we continue to work intensively within international institutions to call on China to live up to its international obligations and responsibilities. As the Foreign Secretary set out in the latest six-monthly report, published on 31 March, the UK will continue to speak out when China breaches its legally binding agreements and when it breaks its promises to the people of Hong Kong.”
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Answer. Of course, John Lee, Beijing’s handpicked choice as chief executive, as Hong Kong’s top security official, oversaw the Government’s strong-handed response to the 2019 pro-democracy protests and the first year of its national security crackdown. Lee has already indicated his intention to bring further restrictions on Hong Kong’s freedoms and suggests that these arrests will not be the last. When this issue was raised in the Commons, James Cleverly was unable to explain why the Government have not yet implemented Magnitsky sanctions against Hong Kong and Chinese officials responsible for these serious breaches. Will these arrests bring a change of approach by the UK Government? Will we see speedier action? The Minister in the other place was also unable to confirm whether any urgent representations had been made to the Chinese embassy on this matter. I hope the Minister can assure us today that this has happened.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, on 9 May we released a joint statement with our G7 partners and the EU underscoring our grave concern over the selection process for the chief executive in Hong Kong as part of a continued assault on political pluralism and fundamental freedoms. Together, we urged the new chief executive, John Lee, to respect protected rights and freedoms in Hong Kong, as provided for in Hong Kong’s own Basic Law. The current nomination process and the resulting appointment are clearly a stark departure from the aim of universal suffrage, as set out in Hong Kong’s Basic Law. This further erodes the ability of Hong Kongers to feel or be legitimately represented.
On sanctions, on 6 July 2020, the former Foreign Secretary announced the global human rights sanctions regime, which was welcomed across both Houses. We will continue to consider designations under the global human rights sanctions regime, but I am not able to speculate—and nor should I—on who may be designated in future. That would undermine the impact of those designations, but I note the noble Lord’s comments.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the Minister when he says that this is unacceptable and I support the three measures, but while these gross breaches of human rights are being carried out, the UK is actively promoting financial direct investment from Hong Kong authorities into the UK and UK investment into Hong Kong. Investment from the UK to Hong Kong has gone up by 8.6% and from Hong Kong to the United Kingdom by 31%. I have been trying to pursue this with the Government. Are there any triggering mechanisms on human rights abuses that the Government would act on to close market access for Chinese investment into the UK? We are not acting strongly enough.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the Government monitor the operation and functioning of the financial sector and its participants on a regular and ongoing basis, across a wide range of matters. Fundamentally, it is for businesses themselves to make their own judgment calls and the Government do not comment on issues relating to individual companies. The sentiments and the message of the noble Lord will have been heard by colleagues in the Foreign Office.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, given that the 612 Humanitarian Relief Fund did little more than fund legal aid for protesters from the 2019 pro-democracy movement and closed its operations in 2021, is it not an outrage that one of those arrested, along with other trustees, should be 90 year-old Cardinal Joseph Zen? With Cardinal Zen being, as the noble Lord, Lord Patten, has said,
“one of the most important figures in the Catholic Church in Asia”,
I ask the Minister to state in his own words, as clearly as possible, that this is utterly unacceptable and further undermines the rule of law in Hong Kong. What interventions have been and will be made to protect religious freedom or belief in the territory?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I strongly echo the right reverend Prelate’s comments. I know that any government Minister would willingly do so as well, were they standing at the Dispatch Box. What has happened to Cardinal Zen is truly appalling on every conceivable level. It fundamentally undermines every aspect of the agreement we reached with China at the handover and any sense of plurality or freedom of religion in Hong Kong. We are committed to defending freedom of religion for all and promoting respect between different religious and non-religious communities. Freedom of expression, religion or belief is explicitly included in the joint declaration, which China agreed to uphold. China is in clear breach of that declaration. We have seen its use of the national security law to curtail freedoms and suppress any dissent.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I am sure the House will welcome the integrity shown by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reed, and Lord Hodge in no longer legitimising Hong Kong’s broken judicial system by continuing to sit on those courts. Other Members of this House continue to give cover to it by continuing their connection, and we wait for them to reconsider their roles.
My brief question to the Minister is this: will the Government consider the report by Hong Kong Watch that proposes to conduct an audit of UK assets owned by Hong Kong officials and lawmakers? According to Hong Kong Watch, five officials and six lawmakers who are complicit in these ongoing human rights crackdowns hide their wealth in this country. If we are to prepare for future Magnitsky sanctions, we need to start conducting that audit now.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for raising an important point. On 14 March this year, the current Foreign Secretary issued a statement on the unjustifiable action taken against the UK-based NGO Hong Kong Watch. The action is clearly an attempt to silence those who stand up for human rights in Hong Kong. Attempting to silence voices globally that speak up for freedom and democracy is unacceptable and will never succeed. I will of course convey the noble Baroness’s request back to colleagues in the FCDO.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I too roundly condemn the arrest of the five members of the humanitarian support fund. So that the House knows, they have been charged with an offence under the national security law, the new law that has concerned this House in previous debates. The allegation is that they have been in collusion with foreign forces, which means that many of us who would want to be in contact with people are not because we are fearful, as parliamentarians in this country, of in any way putting in difficulty people in Hong Kong who are pro-democracy. I strongly endorse what the right reverend Prelate said about the cardinal, which is a shameful business.
Margaret Ng is a world-renowned rights defender— a great lawyer and barrister, and for 18 years a parliamentarian. As a great democrat, she is celebrated for her work and honoured for it globally. Only in 2019 were she and Martin Lee honoured by the International Bar Association as senior counsel in Hong Kong. Judges from this jurisdiction should no longer be sitting in Hong Kong and I hope that the Government will make a statement about their position. We should also now be calling a halt to, or pause on, trading negotiations with Hong Kong and China until the situation in Hong Kong improves.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, we have repeatedly stated our very strong opposition to the national security law and will continue to voice our concerns about the legislation, which is in clear breach of the joint declaration. I think it is not a coincidence that the four people about whom we are having this urgent debate were arrested. These are people who have stood up for democracy; they are therefore standing up for Hong Kongers as a whole. The authorities there have made a decision, which is clearly unacceptable, to target those leading pro-democracy figures. The right to peaceful protest, which is protected in both the joint declaration and Hong Kong’s Basic Law, is fundamental to Hong Kong’s way of life. We will continue to raise our concerns at every opportunity.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I did not ask my question. Will there be sanctions against—
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a patron of Hong Kong Watch and vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong. Is it not outrageous that this has happened to a venerable and holy 90 year-old man, with immense global moral authority, and his fellow trustees? Is it not a terrible indictment of the CCP, illustrating the fear that has led it to criminalise most forms of dissent under the national security law, which was introduced by Carrie Lam and John Lee? I say to the House that as someone who, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, has been sanctioned by the CCP, I find it passing strange that Carrie Lam and John Lee have not already been indicted under Magnitsky sanctions, even though the Minister cannot name them as people who will be, given their responsibility for the destruction of “one country, two systems”.
I agree with what was said about the need for an asset audit, which I have previously called for, on CCP apparatchiks who own property assets in London. I hope that the Minister, who has said that he will take this back to the department, will do so as a matter of urgency. Given that the UK trade and economic deals through JETCO were suspended in response to the national security law, and with human rights in freefall, does the Minister agree that there can now be no possible reason to suspend the prohibitions on those trade arrangements?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, again, I strongly endorse the noble Lord’s comments on Cardinal Zen. Arresting a 90 year-old person of any standing, but particularly someone of his standing, is obscene. It has been condemned, and rightly so, across both Houses and the world. I suggest that the noble Lord wears his own proscription by the CCP as a badge of honour. I cannot go into any more details around the sanctions regime but I assure him, and others here today, that I will convey the strong feelings of the House to colleagues in the FCDO.
Bilateral Relations with Caribbean Countries
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, the UK and the nations of the Caribbean have strong and enduring relationships based on mutual respect, trust and shared values. Through increased ministerial engagement and the UK’s diplomatic network in the Caribbean, the Government continue to develop modern partnerships across the region that deliver on our priorities, including the rules-based international system, climate change, advocacy for small island developing states, development, trade and security.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he agree with me that realm status in the Caribbean, and indeed elsewhere, confers considerable mutual benefits? Although decisions about the monarchy’s future in these realms are for the people of those countries—after a referendum, we hope—surely the FCDO should not be neutral in this but keep stressing the substantial benefits of the status quo. Does the Minister also agree that, in the recent tours they carried out, the Cambridges and the Wessexes showed good judgment and good humour and did both their country and their monarchy proud?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his comments; I absolutely agree. As he said, decisions about the future relationship between Caribbean countries and the United Kingdom are ultimately for the people themselves. That is the bedrock of our arrangement through the Commonwealth and the associations that he talked about. The approach we take is a model for other powers around the world when it comes to states and Governments with which they are associated.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the UK’s trading relationship with the Caribbean is under a rollover European Union agreement—an EPA. The European Union has subsequently updated its Cotonou agreement so there is now a new deep and comprehensive relationship with the 15 CARIFORUM nations. Looking forward, does the Minister agree that we should move at pace for a deep and comprehensive free trade agreement with all 15 CARIFORUM nations that goes beyond simply tariffs, trades and history and looks forward to a new trading relationship that includes sustainability and closer people relationships?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right: the Caribbean is a region of huge importance and potential to the UK. We have asked Darren Henry MP, our Caribbean trade envoy, to focus specifically on building the pipeline of UK capability. We are keen to better engage the diaspora on trade and investment opportunities in the region. We look forward to the continued implementation of the CARIFORUM-UK EPA trade agreement, which covers the largest number of countries—14, plus Haiti as an observer. In fact, it is the largest agreement we have apart from the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU. It is our most comprehensive trade agreement with developing countries and covers areas ranging from goods and services to public procurement and sustainability.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the considerable—and increasing—Chinese involvement and engagement in the Caribbean states? It is happening not only in the Caribbean but in the South Seas as well. Is he aware that this is about not just trade agreements, double taxation agreements and loans, which often cannot be paid back, but weapons training and officer training? We have now reached a point where the Chinese are seeking to establish in another Commonwealth realm a full naval maintenance base, including a police and military presence. This has gone very far indeed. Will my noble friend remind his colleagues in the Foreign Office that, while we are neglecting many parts of the Commonwealth, other countries—notably China—are realising the strategic value of these states and moving in fast? We need to have a better understanding of the vital security nature of the Commonwealth and give it proper attention.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My noble friend makes an extremely important point in relation to the Caribbean which could just as easily be made in relation to small island developing states in the Pacific, for example. The 2021 integrated review noted very clearly that China’s increasing power and international assertiveness is likely to be the most significant geopolitical factor in the 2020s. China now has one of the largest diplomatic presences in the Caribbean after the UK, US and Brazil. China continues to expand its engagement in the region as part of its broader strategy to secure support for its belt and road initiative and to reduce support for recognition of Taiwan. Unfortunately, the Caribbean’s infrastructure needs, which are significant, provide an opportunity for China to increase its influence, and much of that comes through Beijing’s loan strategy, which my noble friend just alluded to. All this makes it even more important that the UK steps up its support for, and partnership and engagement with, countries across the Caribbean and, for the same reason, the Pacific region.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, can I touch on the issue of influence and values that the Minister mentioned? Human Rights Watch has reported that seven countries in the eastern Caribbean still maintain anti-LGBT laws, a relic of British colonialism, as Theresa May once said at a previous CHOGM. Can the Minister tell us, ahead of CHOGM 2022 in Rwanda, what steps the Government are taking to encourage them and others to end this appalling discrimination?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord makes a hugely important point. I cannot say is it true of all the engagements that we have on a bilateral basis with members of the Commonwealth, particularly those countries that take the regressive views that he has outlined in relation to LGBT issues, but certainly in most of those exchanges this issue is raised and the UK has always stood up internationally, as we do domestically, for the rights of LGBT communities.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, in welcoming the Government’s plans, which my noble friend has outlined, may I ask him to clarify whether these extend only or mainly to the English-speaking Caribbean, or to other countries such as Cuba, the Dominican Republic or Haiti?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
Obviously, the UK has a particularly strong and valued relationship with those English-speaking countries with which we share a very close history, but our involvement and interest in the region goes beyond them. For example, the Prime Minister had meetings yesterday with a number of leaders of Caribbean countries, not all of them English-speaking. We have many issues in common, not least the question of China but also climate change, which is regarded by most Caribbean countries as literally existential.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, small island states of the Caribbean do not qualify for ODA, yet they have real needs. Might not the Government’s policy carry more conviction if it addressed more realistically the understandable demands of the Caribbean for reparations for slavery?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point about ODA. In the current system, the unique vulnerability of small island developing states to issues such as climate change and shocks such as Covid is not recognised. It was made very clear over the last couple of years that they are uniquely vulnerable, and consequently their economic ranking can change very quickly. That is not reflected in the system of recognition, which means that you have countries which, for all intents and purposes, should be ODA-eligible but are not according to the current rules. This is an issue which we are raising robustly in the OECD. I hope that we can see some changes there. Additionally, the UK is working with Fiji and other countries on a global taskforce on access to finance. One of the problems is that it is incredibly complicated accessing finance from the multilateral institutions. They are bureaucratic, time-consuming and so on. We are working very hard on that too, and that is recognised by the small island developing states in question.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, rightly, the Minister has just mentioned the significance of climate change in the Caribbean. The hurricanes in the region are much more extreme and frequent than they used to be, but can be tracked across the Atlantic. The United Kingdom was behind the curve when it came to Hurricane Irma, for example, not holding a COBRA meeting until several days after it had hit. Can the Minister reassure us that the Government are far better prepared to help the overseas territories if and when they are hit by similar hurricanes?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I can. The United Kingdom, not least through its presidency of COP, has raised the issue of adaptation to climate change. We know that, whatever we do in mitigation, change is inevitable whether we like it or not. Enabling vulnerable countries to adapt as well as they can and to deal with natural disasters, which are happening with increasing intensity, is a top priority. Although we have not set a forensic target, our view is that the balance of investment in climate change issues should be more or less 50:50 between mitigation and adaptation. Other donor countries are increasingly following us on that.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, further to that question, I declare my interest as honorary colonel of the Cayman Islands Regiment. Both the Cayman Islands Regiment and the Turks and Caicos Islands Regiment were created by this Government after Hurricane Irma in 2017 to ensure that there is on-island capability to deal with post-hurricane events. I am sure the noble Baroness is deeply reassured by the Government’s action, which directly addresses her question. I remind your Lordships’ House that there are not only Commonwealth citizens in the Caribbean but British citizens in the overseas territories. I simply ask for reassurance from my noble friend that those citizens are properly consulted when legislation is passed through your Lordships’ House.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am sure many noble Lords are envious of the noble Lord’s job and would be willing to swap, but he makes a good point. I can certainly provide that reassurance.
Worldwide Displacement of Refugees
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the number of displaced people and refugees worldwide; and what steps they are taking to convene an international initiative to tackle the root causes of mass displacement.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, in November 2021, the UNHCR estimated that the number of people forcibly displaced globally exceeded 84 million by mid-2021. Since then, another 11 million people have been displaced within Ukraine or abroad as refugees. The UK has led the way in forging innovative solutions to refugee crises and championing a longer-term international approach to displacement. Ultimately, political efforts to build and sustain peace are the key to resolving displacement.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Does he recall the Cross-Bench debate in January of this year to which he answered and the calls made for urgent consideration to be given to the root causes and push factors that have led to the more than 80 million people that he has just identified being displaced, 50 million of whom are displaced because of violence or conflict, everywhere from Ukraine to Afghanistan, Burma and Syria, and some of whom spend their entire lives in camps? What consideration have we given to following up the calls made in that debate for the United Kingdom to convene a COP 26-style summit to identify and support durable solutions that enable refugees and displaced people to rebuild their lives and live in safety and dignity, rather than seeking perilous journeys or festering for years in squalid conditions where they can become fodder for traffickers and insurgencies?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right, and of course I very much remember the debate and the message that was conveyed by a number of noble Lords in that debate. He mentioned COP 26 which, while ostensibly focused on climate change, is every bit as relevant to the debate we are having today as it is relevant to climate change. We are in a world that is increasingly unstable. The majority of refugees are displaced as a consequence of violence, but we know that the environment is becoming an increasing factor. So the solution is not to focus purely on the issue of refugees but, using every tool at our disposal, to do everything we can to ensure that the world addresses those gigantic challenges that I know the noble Lord is as concerned about as I am.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned climate change. Is he aware that the expansion of the Sahara was partly what fuelled the conflict in Darfur, as people were displaced from that area? That was an early warning of the global instability likely to follow climate change, yet we hear that the funding on climate change in his department is about to be decimated. Does that make sense?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The commitment that we have made as a Government to not just maintain levels of funding for climate change but in fact to double our international climate finance to £11.6 billion remains intact. So I am not sure where those rumours are coming from—more so because, as part of that commitment to spend £11.6 billion on climate change, we are also committed to spending around £3 billion of that on nature-based solutions to climate change, specifically so that we can tackle the kinds of issues that the noble Baroness has just mentioned.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, what estimate has been made of the number of these refugees who are fleeing or have fled religious persecution? It must be a very considerable figure.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that I do not know the answer to that, but I would imagine that the noble Lord is right and that it is a very significant figure. However, with his permission I will convey his question to the Home Office and get back to him.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the real challenge lies not in identifying the causes of migration, which include poverty, repressive regimes and, yes, conflict and climate change, but rather in forging an international consensus to tackle those root causes? What initiatives does the Minister have in mind?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord is right that the solution is a global one, but that is precisely why the UK is putting in so much effort, not only through the duration of our presidency of COP, which of course did not end in Glasgow—it ends when we hand the baton to Egypt at the end of this year—but also through the CBD nature COP, which is being hosted by China in Kunming. I do not think there is any country in the world—and I would even include the host country—that is putting more effort into seeking the highest possible ambition. In addition to that, a great friend of the United Kingdom, Andrea Meza, a former Environment Minister of Costa Rica, is now running things in the UNCCD—the desertification COP—and we will be working extremely closely with her to ensure that there too we get the highest possible ambition.
Baroness Cox (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the growth of Islamic jihadism in many areas of Nigeria, which has caused massive displacement? Recently, I visited the Middle Belt. In that region alone, there are an estimated 3 million displaced people, and we personally witnessed their suffering and destitution. Does the Minister therefore acknowledge that, if there is not a systematic, effective international strategy led by global Britain to tackle the root causes, we will see an exponential growth in human suffering caused by mass displacement?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right, and that feeds very much into the question from my noble friend Lord Cormack. I of course agree that the UK has an enormously important role to play, and I think we have demonstrated, particularly over the past year, our ability to convene and to provide that leadership, not least through our stewardship of the COP conference. So, yes, I agree, and I know the Government agree, too.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, earlier this month, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees warned that the Government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda violates international law. What impact does the Minister think that will have on the forthcoming CHOGM in Rwanda? Does he not agree that this unworkable, unethical and extortionate policy will undermine our influence on fellow Commonwealth countries to comply with international law?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I do not recognise that. The Government are convinced that the approach we are taking in relation to Rwanda passes all the legal tests that it might be subjected to. I understand where the noble Lord is coming from, but I suggest that there is a myth that doing nothing is the kind option. Doing nothing absolutely guarantees a continuation of the kind of suffering that this deal is designed to ameliorate.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
As we heard the Minister say, the UN estimates that more than 11 million Ukrainians have been displaced from their homes since 24 February, more than 5 million have fled the country and approximately two-thirds of the country’s children are now displaced. We would do well to remember that these are not just numbers; each of them represents a human life. The outpouring of concern from the British public and willingness to host refugees in their homes has been a powerful statement of love amid this extraordinary tragedy. Indeed, many across the diocese of Chelmsford, which I serve, and across the country, have gone to great lengths to welcome refugees with open arms. Can the Minister expand on what is being done to address concerns raised about delays and complications in processing asylum applications through the Homes for Ukraine scheme?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I start by echoing very strongly the comments of the right reverend Prelate on the generosity of the British public. We are forging ahead as a Government, doing everything we can to ensure that our doors are open and the country is welcoming to those people fleeing violence in Ukraine as a consequence of the Russian invasion. We have two bespoke humanitarian routes for people in Ukraine. They have been announced and they respond directly to the needs and requests of the Ukrainian Government. There is no limit on the number of people who can come here as of 21 April, and more than 71,000 visas have been issued under both those schemes. The family route has been extended. It is difficult to know the numbers—no one knows them—but an estimated 100,000 Ukrainians may join their family members in the UK. Although there have been delays—there is no point pretending that there have not—it is very much the view of the Home Office and the Foreign Office that the systems are now in place to ensure the smooth functioning of the approach we set out.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
Does the Minister agree that the wonderful response of the British public to the Ukraine crisis illustrates their willingness to help when they are sure that those concerned are genuine? Secondly, in the wider context of the review that he mentioned, will the Government include another look at the refugee convention, now many years old and facing entirely different circumstances?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
Again, I strongly agree with the noble Lord. Clearly there is a recognition of the acute needs of people needing to flee Ukraine for obvious reasons—likewise Afghanistan—but there is also a recognition that, often, underlying the movement of people en masse around the world is a criminal network of almost indescribable brutality and ruthlessness. That is exactly what this Government seek to undermine because, until we remove those incentives, such organisations will continue to go from strength to strength. I will convey the noble Lord’s message about the convention to the Home Office.
Zimbabwe: Elections
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts(2 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oates, for tabling this debate and for his continued interest and tenacious advocacy as co-chair of the APPG on Zimbabwe, which has been of huge benefit to the House. I thank all noble Lords for their insightful contributions.
The by-elections of 26 March were the first that Zimbabwe has held since the start of Covid regulations in 2020. While the delay in convening the polls was a concern, we welcome the Government of Zimbabwe’s subsequent actions to ensure that 28 parliamentary seats and 122 council seats have now been filled. As noble Lords will expect, the UK does not support any particular candidate or political party in Zimbabwe—it is for the people of Zimbabwe to determine and for them to choose their Members of Parliament and councillors—but clearly it is also our very strong view that this choice should be a real one and that it should be exercised through free and fair elections in line with Zimbabwe’s constitution. Indeed, respect for democratic principles, alongside human rights, the rule of law and civil society space, is central to Zimbabwe’s stated desire to see the UK sanctions regime lifted and to rejoin the Commonwealth.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, raised the question of the Commonwealth, as did other noble Lords. As noble Lords are aware, the decision about whether Zimbabwe rejoins the Commonwealth is for all Commonwealth members. In due course, we would of course like nothing more than to see Zimbabwe rejoin. However, Zimbabwe cannot yet credibly be said to meet the principles set out in the Commonwealth charter.
On the by-elections themselves, we welcome the largely peaceful manner in which the by-elections of 26 March took place and the calm reaction to the results. Like numerous Zimbabwean citizens and noble Lords here today, I also note several serious concerns about the pre-election period and the management of the elections. On the right to freedom of assembly, we were concerned that, ahead of the by-elections, the police prohibited two rallies—as already noted in this debate—requested by the newly created party, the Citizens Coalition for Change, otherwise known as the CCC. This was ostensibly on security grounds, despite the party requesting the necessary police clearances. The CCC was able to hold 10 rallies in the pre-election period, but it is clear that the state has been seeking to frustrate the opposition’s ability to campaign.
We are also concerned about the language used by senior political figures, language which appears to be designed to incite violence. The noble Lord mentioned Vice-President Chiwenga’s call on 26 February for the CCC to be “crushed like lice”, which was perhaps the most alarming language that was used. While we acknowledge President Mnangagwa’s subsequent call for peace, the lack of accountability for the vice-president’s language is clearly a problem. Let me be crystal clear on behalf of the UK Government: language like that has no place in any country or any elections ever. Given the potential for tensions to increase ahead of nationwide elections in 2023, we call on all parties to keep their language measured and conducive to an atmosphere of peaceful and fair campaigning.
We are also concerned by the increase in political violence in the build-up to 26 March. The death of Mboneni Ncube at a CCC rally on 27 February, allegedly at the hands of ZANU-PF supporters, is of particular concern. We welcome the police investigation into the incident and await the outcome of forthcoming legal proceedings. The alleged beating of CCC campaigner Godfrey Karembera while in police custody on 17 March is also of huge concern. Zimbabwe’s constitution is crystal clear: all security forces should remain neutral in all political activity and any incidences of violence must be fully investigated. These efforts to frustrate the opposition’s right to free assembly and to incite violence are not in keeping with President Mnangagwa’s commitments or Zimbabwe’s constitution. It is in that spirit that we call them out, seek accountability and ask that lessons be learned.
On the voters’ roll, we welcome the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission’s efforts to ensure that each polling station had a full voters’ roll published outside for public viewing. However, we are concerned at the confusion regarding the publication of the final voters’ roll in the build-up to the 26 March by-elections. Combined with insufficient voter education, this resulted in some voters being turned away from polling stations after having registered after the official cut-off date. We are also aware of the accusations of voters being moved into new constituencies without their knowledge and of abnormally large numbers of voters being registered in individual homes. A transparent and accessible voters’ roll is clearly essential to build trust in the electoral system.
Following the by-elections of 26 March, and reflecting on the international observer missions after the 2018 elections, we are joining others in pressing the Government of Zimbabwe to make far greater efforts on reforms and to ensure free, fair and credible presidential and parliamentary elections in 2023. The 2018 observer missions called for a number of measures, few of which have yet been seen through to completion. Clear voter registration and publication of an accurate voters’ roll, transparent use of state-owned resources and more effort to demonstrate the independence of the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission are essential to the elections’ credibility. The Government must also fulfil their commitment to allow equal access to state-owned media. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, raised a point about election monitoring. We are pleased that election monitoring has been offered. The initial indications are that the Government of Zimbabwe are open to that and we will keep pressing very hard to ensure that that follows through. The UK, with our international partners, stands ready to support Zimbabwe to make progress on these important issues.
In relation to the question on sanctions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and, coming from a different angle, by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who I thank for his support of the Government’s position, our designations seek to hold to account individuals responsible for egregious human rights violations and corruption. The sanctions do not target and seek to avoid impact on the wider economy and the people of Zimbabwe. They will be retained as long as accountability is lacking and the human rights situation in Zimbabwe justifies them. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, raised the spectre of China and Russia. Although we do not have time in this debate to go into the details, he makes an important point and one that is very much on the radar of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in relation to Zimbabwe and numerous other countries in the region.
With national elections due in 2023, we are also concerned by the Government of Zimbabwe’s gazetting of the Private Voluntary Organisations Amendment Bill. If passed into law and implemented, the Bill may be used to restrict the ability of civil society to operate in a way that would be out of line with the Government’s commitment to reform. We have asked the Government to re-examine the provisions that appear to restrict these freedoms and are out of step with Zimbabwe’s constitution. We have raised our concerns with the Government of Zimbabwe, including with the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 16 February, and we will continue to do so.
I shall briefly address the comments by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, about climate change, a hugely important issue. He is right that Zimbabwe is very much on the front line. In fact it is one of the countries in the world that are most vulnerable to the impact of climate change and extreme weather. Equally, with its abundant clean and renewable energy sources, Zimbabwe has a real opportunity to capitalise on its natural assets and act as a regional leader in reducing global emissions and tackling climate change. Zimbabwe made a number of commitments at COP 26 at the end of last year in Glasgow to reduce its emissions, tackle deforestation and increase the use of renewable energy. As the noble Earl and other noble Lords know, tackling climate change is a priority of the UK Government, not just because we hosted COP 26 but in our policies across the board. Indeed, we doubled our international climate finance to £11.6 billion, and a big focus of that will be on nature-based emissions which, again, lend themselves to countries such as Zimbabwe.
However, I think it would be a mistake to attribute many of the issues that we are talking about today in this debate to climate change. I do not seek in any way to diminish the impact or threat of climate change to countries such as Zimbabwe, but the issues that we have been discussing today, or could have discussed today, such as the fact that Zimbabwean women experience more violence directed at them for being women than almost any other country on earth, are clearly not climate change issues. They are issues of governance and go far beyond the issues that we are discussing today.
I echo the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, who has been a great advocate for Zimbabwe for as long as I have known her. Zimbabwe is an extraordinary, beautiful and wonderful country, and its people reflect that. The potential for that country, in the right hands and with appropriate levels of governance, is extraordinary, and that potential has simply not been capitalised on or realised for very many years.
I do not want to disagree with the comments that noble Lords made about the urgent need to restore the 0.7% commitment that we have had in this country. That is a topic for another day—a debate for another time. However, I do not think that anyone in government does not want to return to that 0.7% as soon as we possibly can. That message has certainly been heard loud and clear from this House ever since the decision was made.
The history of the UK and Zimbabwe is long, complicated and well documented. I want to be clear that the UK wants absolutely nothing more than to see Zimbabwe prosper for the benefit of all Zimbabweans, and we will continue to engage in this vein.
We welcome the Government of Zimbabwe holding the by-elections on 26 March and the positive aspects of the polls that I noted earlier. However, as I also indicated, there are areas where we hope the Government of Zimbabwe will make real progress. That progress is badly needed so that, ahead of 2023, the Zimbabwean people can be confident in a free, fair and transparent election process. As ever, we stand ready to support.
Falkland Islands
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Trefgarne
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what their policy is towards the future of the Falkland Islands; and whether their policy will be determined by the views and wishes of the Falkland Islanders.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, the future of the Falkland Islands is one that only the people of the Falkland Islands should decide. The United Kingdom’s relationship with the Falkland Islands and the rest of the UK overseas territories is a modern one, based on partnership, shared values and the right of the people to determine their own future. As evidenced by the overwhelming result of the 2013 referendum, the people of the Falkland Islands wish to retain their status as a self-governing UK overseas territory. The UK will always support the Falkland Islanders.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Should we not now recall the conflict of 1982 and, above all, the 253 British personnel who gave their lives on that occasion, including 22 from HMS “Ardent”, commanded by the then Commander Alan West?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, in this poignant anniversary year we will continue to defend the Falkland Islanders’ democratic rights and celebrate the modern and diverse community they have built. We remember all those who lost their lives in the conflict, and those still affected to this day. These memories are an important reminder of the long shadow the conflict casts and we remain committed to working with veterans’ organisations on both sides.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for his kind words. Forty years ago this week, a task force sailed to the South Atlantic. Within about 12 weeks, it had managed to expel the Argentine forces, capture the others and retake the islands. It was an incredible military achievement, even though it was nip and tuck at times. The message that had been given to the Argentines by cuts to our defence forces made them think they could do something—and we could do this only because we had not yet made the planned cuts. In the context of what is going on in Ukraine, we can see that oppressive, dictatorial regimes that invade close neighbours take note of defence forces. Will the Minister go back to Cabinet and point out that it is not Ukraine’s health or social services that are keeping the people going in their bravery; it is their military forces? Nothing extra has yet been spent on our Armed Forces and, in the final analysis, no matter how good all the other things are in your country, if you do not have those then I am afraid you suffer.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord makes an extremely important point. It is worth saying, as many have said in the past few weeks, that the bravery being shown by the people of Ukraine, playing out day after day, is staggering. I am pleased also that one thing that has enabled Ukraine to achieve what we hope is success—it is hard to know exactly what is going on—is the contributions made by this Government. That point was made emphatically yesterday by Ukraine’s President. On the Falkland Islands specifically, as noble Lords would expect, we conduct regular assessments of any military threats to the Falklands on a routine basis. We are always aware of the need to retain appropriate levels of defensive capabilities.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I agree with noble Lords that this is the appropriate time to honour the 255 British deaths, the 649 Argentinian deaths and the three Falkland Islanders who also died during the conflict. But, as the noble Lord has rightly indicated, we need to be very wary. Has the Minister seen the article by the Argentinian Foreign Minister stating that, although they wish to maintain good, strong diplomatic and trading relationships, they were seeking to make linkage between sovereignty of people who are in the Falkland Islands and our relationship, going forward. Will the Minister put on record that we will not link the sovereignty and the choice of those people with the good relations we wish to seek to have with Argentina?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I did see the op-ed, and obviously that has been shared around the FCDO and Government. But the reality is that this is not a bilateral issue between the UK—or, indeed, anyone—to be negotiated between our two countries. This is about the islanders’ wishes, and those wishes are paramount.
I mentioned in my opening remarks the referendum: I cannot think of a single referendum in the history of referenda where the result has been as emphatic, with nearly 100% turnout and nearly 100% support. It is very clear what the Falkland Islanders want, and it is our duty to ensure that that is what they get.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I endorse that entirely. Should we not take this opportunity to salute the memory of three exemplary parliamentarians: the Prime Minister at the time, Margaret Thatcher, for the courageous leadership she gave; Michael Foot, Leader of the Opposition, for ensuring that the other place was as united as possible by his support for the task force; and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who adorned this House for so long and whose resignation was one of the most honourable in British history?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am very, very happy to enthusiastically echo and support those remarks. I particularly point to the support that Margaret Thatcher received from the Opposition at the time, which made all the difference. It really showed the importance of politicians speaking with one voice in the face of an obvious and unambiguous threat.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend mentioned the heroic efforts of the military forces, and other noble Lords have mentioned that, but Help for Heroes recently warned that, 40 years on, many veterans of the Falklands War are still suffering from mental health problems resulting from their involvement in the conflict. Could the Minister tell us what the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office actions have been in support of the Government’s veterans strategy action plan—could we have a little bit more detail?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord can certainly have more detail, but I am going to have to follow up this discussion with a letter providing that detail—not least since most of the actions that are taken in relation to our veterans, whether from the Falklands or elsewhere, are the responsibility of other departments.
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)
In the 40 years since the victory in the South Atlantic, the UK has monitored the state of preparedness of Argentinian forces much more closely. Could the Minister please tell the House when was the last time Her Majesty’s Government reviewed the state of preparedness of British forces in the Falkland Islands in reaction to that changed threat—and, if he cannot tell us, could he please write?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I cannot provide a date, but I can say that the MoD conducts routine and regular assessments of any threats to the Falklands and it is our policy that we must retain appropriate levels of defensive capabilities at all times. To my knowledge, that is the case: that is certainly the position of the Government.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Minister’s confirmation that the wishes of local people should be paramount in determining the future of the Falkland Islands. Is this a principle that we should extend more widely so that, in territorial disputes across Africa, Asia and elsewhere, we try and give paramountcy to what local people want? That is not to say other claims are meaningless—that geography and history have no force—but that the world would be a better place if people lived in units where they felt enough in common one with another to accept government from each other’s hands?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I strongly agree with the noble Lord. I think that the position of the UK Government, and our historic position, in relation to countries that are part of our family is a model for the world to follow. Where those arrangements are based on genuine consent, I think the relationship will always be a happier one. It is a model that many other countries would do well to learn from.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, individual overseas territories have differing needs. Nevertheless, there are similarities, which the Minister, along with others who have contributed today, has identified in his remarks. But what is the status of the current negotiations regarding Gibraltar between the Governments of the United Kingdom, Spain and Gibraltar, and the European Union? If there is an agreement, will it need to be ratified by the respective legislatures?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his question; I will follow up with a letter. This issue is obviously associated with but not directly relevant to this Question. I am confident that an update will be provided in due course, but I just cannot tell him when.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, do the Minister’s remarks about the prevalence and importance of local people also apply to the future of Hong Kong?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I think I caught the first part of the question; it was a follow-up to the noble Lord’s question about local democracy. The reality is that Hong Kong is in a very difficult position, under the control of a gigantic state whose intentions towards the people of Hong Kong appear less than benign. It is the view of the British Government, as it is my view, that local democracy should prevail and that countries, or even regions, should be able to determine their own future in the way that our policy applies to the Falkland Islands—but it is not something that is entirely in our control.
Animals (Penalty Notices) Bill
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park ExcerptsFriday 1st April 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Animals (Penalty Notices) Act 2022 View all Animals (Penalty Notices) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, for so ably introducing the Motion on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, who has so well steered it through this House so far. I also pay tribute to Andrew Rosindell, who sponsored the Bill in the other place.
We welcome any increased measures against those who break animal welfare laws deliberately, so we are pleased to see this Bill passing into law. But can I ask the Minister some questions about some other animal welfare legislation we are waiting on? It will be good to see the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill pass—fingers crossed—next week, and I was pleased to see that the Leader of the House in the other place has confirmed that the kept animals Bill will be carried over to the next Session. However, I am concerned, as are many others, about the fate of the animals abroad Bill, which would look to ban foie gras, fur imports and trophy hunting imports. Many people right across the parties support these Bills, and I would be grateful for an update from the Minister.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friends Lord Randall and Lord Shrewsbury on progressing the Bill to this stage. I echo the thanks to Andrew Rosindell, not only for stewarding the Bill we are discussing today but for his efforts on behalf of animal welfare over many years.
This Bill is one of several animal health and welfare reforms being supported by the Government. Before I move on to the specifics of this Bill—although I will keep that very brief—I will address the comments and questions put to me by the noble Baroness. She is right that the kept animals Bill is progressing, is safe and is happening. I am very pleased, as she is, that that is the case. The sentience Bill, too, is in good shape, and I cannot see any obstacles to that Bill. She will be aware, as other noble Lords will be, that we set out much broader plans in the animal welfare action plan, which included measures relating to protecting animals abroad, as she might imagine. A number of those proposals are moving ahead well, so I can provide absolute reassurance in relation to trophy hunting, for example. Our commitment to ban the import of hunting trophies, as described by the Government in the paper they produced, is on track and will happen. I say “on track”, but there have been delays. It would be foolish to pretend that there have not been delays, but it is on track and the commitment remains absolute. I assure the House that that proposal will go through, and I hope that it will become law, subject to the approval of both Houses.
In relation to other measures in what would be the animals abroad Bill, we have discussed in detail measures to ban the import and export of shark fins. We are working through those measures, and the noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear that I am completely committed to making sure that those measures go through. Likewise, on fur, foie gras and low-animal-welfare entertainment, we see masses of campaigning on this issue and some really shocking images—for example, of elephants being broken in in an utterly depraved manner in order to provide entertainment for tourists who often do not know the back story of those animals. So, all these measures are progressing, and I give the House my assurance that I will I do everything I can to ensure that they make it into law. I thank the noble Baroness very much for her positive pressure on these issues and for her co-operation.
As was discussed at Second Reading, penalty notices will serve as an important tool to encourage animal keepers to follow the rules and discourage those who break them from committing more serious offences through this early redirection. Continued engagement by noble Lords, both at Second Reading and today—of course, we also had plenty of engagement in the other House—testifies to the importance of this Bill and highlights that animal health and welfare is and will continue to be a key issue for this House. The Bill will directly benefit this country’s farmed and kept animals, including zoo animals and companion animals, and it will increase accountability when our biosecurity is put at risk. Penalty notices will bolster our existing enforcement measures and will give enforcement authorities more options to influence positive behaviour when it comes to caring for our animals.
I am very grateful for the support this measure has received. A number of the organisations which have engaged closely with us and invested much of their time have already been named by my noble friend. I am grateful to them as well for carefully considering how this will work in practice and for sharing their views so that we can make this measure as effective as possible. In particular, I echo the thanks to the RSPCA, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home and the National Farmers’ Union, as well as many others. Their support has been invaluable.
I also thank the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its report on the Bill. I completely agree that appropriate parliamentary scrutiny is necessary, both for this Bill and, of course, for all others. That is why the guidance will be laid before Parliament and why we will work closely with stakeholders to ensure that we get it right.
I echo the thanks of my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury to the Whips’ Office and to all those who have worked on this Bill. I hereby conclude on behalf of the Government.
Direct Payment to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2022
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That the Grand Committee do consider the Direct Payment to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2022.
Relevant document: 30th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, I hope it will be useful to your Lordships if I speak to all the instruments, beginning with the draft Direct Payment to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 3 February 2022. The matters in these instruments are closely related. Made using powers under the Agriculture Act 2020, they implement important aspects of our new agricultural policy, as set out in the agricultural transition plan published in November 2020 and updated in June 2021. The three instruments apply only in relation to England.
The Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2022 apply progressive reductions to direct payments to farmers in England for the 2022 scheme year. By doing so, it continues the process of phasing out direct payments in England which began in the 2021 scheme year. The Government remain committed to phasing out direct payments in England over the seven-year agricultural transition period. We are doing so as area-based payments are unfair: they go primarily to larger landowners, artificially inflate land rents, stand in the way of new entrants to farming getting access to land, and offer little return for the taxpayer.
To help farmers plan, we initially committed in 2018 to phase out direct payments. The specific reductions provided for in this instrument were announced in November 2020. As was the case for 2021, higher percentage reductions will be applied to payment amounts in higher payment bands.
Although direct payments are reducing, total funding to farmers is not. We will make money from the reductions available to targeted schemes, which will increase farm productivity, improve the health and welfare of animals, and enhance the natural environment. In the coming year, that reallocated money will be used to meet the rising demand from farmers for countryside stewardship, our current environmental offer, which has seen a 40% increase in applications. That funding will also be used in the launch of the first of our new environmental land management schemes: the sustainable farming incentive. Further, we will also fund the initial wave of the landscape recovery scheme, with projects focused on supporting native species and restoring rivers.
We are also making available free business advice to farmers and will continue to offer a range of popular grant offers so that farmers can invest in their businesses and become more efficient and sustainable. We will also be offering a new suite of opportunities for farmers, supply chains and researchers to collaborate on researching and developing innovative but practical solutions to the challenges and opportunities that farming faces. This is an essential reform that puts England on track to meet its legally binding environmental and net-zero targets, while creating a thriving and self-reliant farming sector.
The Agriculture (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Regulations 2022 amend the Agriculture (Financial Assistance) Regulations 2021, approved by this House on 22 March 2021. Those regulations put in place financial data publication and enforcement and monitoring requirements for four new financial assistance schemes established under the Agriculture Act 2020. This amending instrument extends the range of financial assistance schemes covered by the 2021 regulations to ensure that any new financial assistance scheme launched in 2022 and thereafter is subject to the same checking, monitoring and enforcement requirements that applied to the original schemes launched in 2021.
The 2021 regulations gave Defra the opportunity to test, refine and develop these new requirements. The amendments made by this instrument will now allow the Government to move on to the next stage of agricultural policy set out in the agricultural transition plan.
This instrument also strengthens the investigative powers in the 2021 regulations to ensure that where there are suspicions of offences in connection with financial assistance —for example, fraud offences—the Secretary of State can, where appropriate, fully investigate the matter. The amendment will allow the Secretary of State to investigate not only agreement holders but applicants, and in certain circumstances the employees or agents of an applicant or agreement holder. These investigative powers mirror powers Defra holds in relation to CAP schemes, while allowing Defra to use them in a more proportionate manner, reflecting the objectives of the Agriculture Act.
This instrument also removes a reference to grants in Regulation 13 of the 2021 regulations. The amendment will ensure that “financial assistance” is not limited to grants and can include other forms of assistance, as provided for in Section 2(1) of the Agriculture Act.
In drafting the 2021 regulations, Defra engaged with key stakeholders in a targeted consultation exercise between 4 August and 1 September 2020, giving stakeholders the opportunity to review Defra’s proposed approach and express their views. Feedback gathered during the consultation exercise was used to inform the content of the 2021 regulations and this amending instrument.
I turn to the Agriculture (Lump Sum Payment) (England) Regulations 2022. As part of our wider agricultural reforms, we want to support farmers who wish to leave the industry, as well as those who want to stay. We know that some farmers would like to retire or leave farming but have found it difficult to do so for financial reasons. That is why this instrument allows a scheme to be introduced in 2022 which provides lump sum payments to farmers in England who wish to leave the sector. These payments will be in place of any further direct payments to the recipient during the remainder of the agricultural transition. This is not new money and will not impact the funding of other schemes. This scheme should also free up land, creating more opportunities for new entrants and farmers who wish to expand.
These instruments implement provisions in the Agriculture Act 2020. They continue the transition away from the inefficient direct payments model of the CAP and they build upon the already implemented financial assistance framework to cover new schemes, in line with the agricultural transition plan. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I thank my noble friend for introducing these regulations. I would like to put one or two questions about each in turn.
Could my noble friend the Minister clarify an issue that has been raised? The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said at Blackpool, if I have understood correctly, that farmers have more than made up for any income lost since these new provisions came in—or, in fact, since we left the European Union. My contacts told me over the weekend that is anything but the case. It would be welcome to know the basis for the Secretary of State’s remarks; perhaps there is something I am misunderstanding.
Regarding direct payments to farmers, the subject of the first regulation before us, as my noble friend said, this is putting us on the path to reducing the direct payments until we eventually come into ELMS. What has been identified, I think by the CLA especially, is that there will potentially be a 50% gap in the funding that farmers have been receiving between the regulations before us this afternoon and the end of the transition period. If that is the case, and I am sure my noble friend’s department will be aware of that, I would like to understand how that gap will be filled so that farmers do not lose out.
I am concerned that there is a lack of understanding. We are meant to be levelling up the economy and unleashing the rural economy. I think, at the moment, the rural economy is performing below par. One reason is that we simply do not have the tools.
I will take the North Yorkshire moors as an example, or the Yorkshire Dales, where my brother lives: we still have woeful broadband internet connections there and the mobile signal contacts are often potentially extremely dangerous. We learned at a recent meeting that masts have apparently been put in by two providers—I believe it is O2 and EE—but these have not been linked up in this rather broad area of North Yorkshire. My noble friend’s department is responsible for rural affairs—it is in its title—so perhaps he could use his good offices to ensure that, as we leave direct payments and move to an alternative form, farmers will be given the tools to do the job.
To conclude on the first regulations, there is also a lack of understanding that tenants are unable to qualify under the new schemes. I would be interested to know to what extent that is reflected in contacts that the department has had with tenants. I know that our honourable friend the Farming Minister in the other place, Victoria Prentis, is aware of this. I commend the work of the Rock review on tenant farmers, but tenants are being evicted as we speak. There simply will not be that many of them left, if we carry on at this pace, when we reach the end of the transitional stage for direct payments to farmers.
I make a plea to my noble friend: will he help me to understand how, when it is gone, the direct payments relief will be replaced for those tenants who cannot claim for anything other than farm schemes owing to the nature of their farm tenancy agreements? Those are enshrined in a great many agricultural Acts, not least the 1947 Act. Can he put my mind at rest on the plight of tenant farmers?
I add that on common land graziers and those with shooting rights are trying to compete side by side. I am sure my noble friend will be aware that there is currently an issue with food security, not least because we understand that Ukrainians have been picking most of our fruit and vegetables in the last two or three years. It appears that, added to the cost of wheat, we may perhaps soon have in this country a local shortage of such staples. I wonder how my noble friend expects to address that.
I turn briefly to the Agriculture (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Regulations. Paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that the department will perhaps try to look more favourably and proportionately on how the offences are to be inspected; I think my noble friend alluded to this. However, the first sentence does not entirely fill me with confidence. It states:
“The instrument also expands the power of the Secretary of State to investigate suspected offences in connection with applications for, or receipt of financial assistance.”
That will not go down well, particularly with the owners of small family farms, who have said at every turn how they are finding that, if anything, the administrative burdens are increasing. I would like to hear a little more detail from my noble friend about how these regulations will applied. How will the full force of Defra be applied more proportionately?
The third and final instrument before us states clearly that direct payments are to be replaced. My noble friend referred to a lump sum payment. This might seem very attractive, particularly to older farmers. I refer again to my experience of North Yorkshire in this regard. The difficulty they have asked me about is: if they apply for this lump sum grant, how will that affect their tax situation? Did I understand my noble friend to say that it could be up to £100,000?
We have a shortage of affordable homes in the countryside. Very few new houses being built across North Yorkshire—and, as far as I can see, in other rural areas of England—are one- or two-bedroom, which would be ideal for farmers who have moved off the farm and want to stay in a village. If we do not make it more attractive for them, we will prevent newer, younger farmers coming in, which is a desire of Defra. With those few remarks, I look forward to my noble friend’s responses.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I will do my best to answer the many questions that have been put to me without exceeding my time slot.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked a number of questions in relation to the reduction of direct payments. We do not plan to consult further on the reductions, but the Government have published an evidence paper, updated in September 2019, setting out the expected impacts of removing those direct payments, and that included an analysis by sector, location and type of land tenure. It provided an analysis of how farm businesses across all sectors can offset the impact of reductions in direct payments. An update to that analysis was due to be published shortly, and it has been delayed—only slightly, I hope—in light of what is happening in Ukraine and the impact this will have on farm business incomes; that point was made by a number of noble Lords. We are reviewing this to ensure that the analysis remains fit for purpose.
All funding released from reductions in direct payments in England is being reinvested into delivering other schemes for farmers and land managers in this Parliament. I hope that is some reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, as well.
The noble Baroness raised other issues about reductions to direct payments. A small number of farmers leave the industry each year; that has been the case for some years now. They do so for a whole variety of reasons. According to the data we have from the Rural Payments Agency, in 2020 around 1,000 basic payment scheme claimants in England can be assumed to have exited the industry. It is too soon to produce equivalent data following the 2021 scheme year, but for the basic payment scheme 2021, the reductions for most farmers were modest. Around 80% of claimants would have received a reduction of around 5%, which is within the scope of the year-to-year variance experienced historically in any case due to currency fluctuations.
On the impact on the internal market from phasing out direct payments, these payments are largely decoupled from production and therefore they should not be trade distorting. Within the UK, there are already significant differences in the implementation of direct payment schemes, and while direct payments currently form an important contribution to farm income, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, said, in many cases it is critical—the reason they are still in business. They can nevertheless hamper productivity growth in the agriculture sector and drive up land rental prices. Removing them should raise our agriculture sector’s productivity across the board, leaving our farmers in a better position to compete.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, also asked what tests would have to be met before the Government agreed to deviate from the rollout of the basic payment cuts. Defra regularly gathers and publishes statistical data on the current state of the industry; for example, the results from the 2021-22 Farm Business Survey, which will cover the first year of progressive reductions, will be published this autumn. Data is also gathered through bodies such as the Animal and Plant Health Agency and the Rural Payments Agency, and that includes information on various aspects of the sector, such as the impact of reductions in direct payments. That allows the Government to monitor the sector and to make better decisions on the future of farming.
The Government are committed to phasing out untargeted direct payments. We do not believe that they are the best way to support farmers, as I tried to explain in my introductory remarks. The noble Baroness also asked about the savings being made from the first year of the basic payment reductions. For 2021, approximately £178 million was freed by reductions to the payments. This is being redirected into delivering other schemes for farmers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, also asked for reassurance, as I think did my noble friend Lady McIntosh, that none of the allocated money from direct payment reductions has been reclaimed by the Treasury. All the funding released from reductions in the direct payments is being reinvested into delivering other schemes for farmers and land managers during this Parliament; it is not being hoarded for long-term future use. That amounts to an average of £2.4 billion a year over the period 2021-22 to 2024-25.
We have been clear all along that we will spend money where it delivers for the environment, alongside food production, and we need to support changes across the entire farm landscape to deliver those broad and connected ambitions. That is why we have increased the countryside stewardship payments by an average of 30% and introduced the sustainable farming incentive. Direct payments are not about food production. The decoupling of payments from food production took place around 15 years ago. Our evidence suggests that the removal of direct payments in England would have only a marginal effect, if any, on overall food production.
With regard to the Agriculture (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Regulations 2022, a shared enforcement framework was previously established by the Agriculture (Financial Assistance) Regulations 2021, ensuring that powers of entry will be exercised, and inspections carried out consistently across the schemes. This instrument extends that framework to cover additional new financial assistance schemes and broaden the investigative powers of the Secretary of State, in a manner consistent across the different schemes. Training and guidance will also be provided to those authorised with powers of entry or to carry out inspections to ensure that these are exercised in a consistent way.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about the tree health pilot scheme and the annual health and welfare reviews being exempt from publication requirements; she wanted to know why that was the case. Specific location details and personal information identifying a land manager or landowner in relation to tree pest and disease findings will not be published. This information is considered to be sensitive and potentially damaging to the individuals or businesses concerned. It could also inhibit the reporting of future cases of pest and disease outbreaks. We will, however, publish aggregated data for these payments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, also asked about the level of fraud in the farming community and overpayments. These regulations offer a range of enforcement measures to deal with fraud or breaches of scheme rules, including the withholding of financial assistance, recovering financial assistance previously awarded, and prohibiting a person from receiving financial assistance for up to two years. Appropriate sanctions will be available and applied where there are clear cases of misuse of public funds; for example, through neglect, serious cases of non-compliance or fraudulent behaviour. The noble Baroness asked for specific numbers but I am afraid I will have to get back to her on that because I do not have them, but the point she made, echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will have been heard loud and clear.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked when the guidance will be published for each financial assistance scheme. I understand the importance of giving farmers as much time as possible to plan. Detailed guidance for stakeholders will be published in good time ahead of each scheme being launched, giving farmers support to implement the standards and understand the new rules. This guidance will be written in plain English, which will set out and explain the detailed scheme rules and requirements. Some schemes, such as countryside stewardship and landscape recovery, are already live and appropriate guidance has been published. For other schemes, guidance will be published in good time ahead of their launch. For example, for the SFI scheme, we will publish final details of the offer for 2022 and scheme information later this spring—some might say we are in spring now, so shortly—ahead of opening for applications later in the year.
Without the Agriculture (Lump Sum Payment) (England) Regulations 2022, we will not be able to meet our public commitment to offer farmers a lump sum exit scheme this year. This would limit the options we can provide farmers as direct payments are phased out; it would also limit structural change in the farming sector. We believe that the calculation of the lump sum payment is fair. Our calculation means that, for most farmers, the lump sum will be approximately equivalent to the amount they might otherwise receive in direct payments for the years 2022 to 2027, as these are phased out over the remaining years of the planned agricultural transition.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about the rationale behind the stipulation to retain five acres. Well, farmers will be able to keep up to five hectares of agricultural land. This allows, for example, a farmer to keep some land around or near their farmhouse. We feel this flexibility will help with uptake of the scheme, which will create more opportunities for new entrants and expanding farmers. In relation to the question that she asked about trees, all publicly subsidised planting has to comply with the UK forestry standards. They are based on a UN-sanctioned approach to sustainable forest management. The UK forestry standards are, in effect, a live document that is being updated all the time. At the moment, the emphasis is placed heavily on the need to use public money to deliver the maximum possible public good. This means not just having monoculture conifer plantations, but ensuring we have a genuine yield in biodiversity and numerous other public benefits, such as flood management and flood prevention. As it happens, the overwhelming majority of woodland creation supported by the Nature for Climate Fund grant schemes will be native broadleaf. That can be judged by the applications coming in, even though this very new fund is in its first year.
Returning to a question put to me by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Jones, which I realise I did not answer, we think that the lump sum exit scheme will free up land for new entrants and expanding farmers. It is about providing opportunities for farmers, rather than aiming for a particular balance between those entering the sector and existing farmers who wish to expand. We recognise the importance of providing additional support for new entrants alongside that lump sum exit scheme. Attracting new talent into food and farming is vital, if we want a sustainable and productive agricultural sector.
As set out in our agricultural transition plan for 2021 to 2024, we will provide funding to create lasting opportunities for new entrants to access land, infrastructure and support to establish successful and innovative businesses. In January this year, the Secretary of State announced the development of incubator pilots for new entrants, with council farms playing a key role. The details of the pilots are currently being designed and we hope to launch the pilot scheme later this year.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh made a number of comments and raised questions, some of which overlapped with points made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, particularly on small and tenant farmers. At the end of January this year, the Secretary of State announced an independent review, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, dedicated to looking at how Defra schemes can better support the tenanted sector, as farming in England is reformed to be more sustainable. The review period is expected to be six to nine months, and it will publish its findings and recommendations later this year. I will not go into all the details on the group of experts—who has been selected and how, or who they represent—but it is a broad range and I am happy to provide that information if the noble Baroness would like me to. I could tell her now, if she asks, but I am worried about the time.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I have that already. I am just slightly disappointed that the working group will not now report for nine months; it was meant to report within six months.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I said six to nine months; I am afraid that is the answer I received. I shall check on the timescale, but I assume six to nine months is correct, since that is what my colleague, my noble friend Lord Benyon, has told me.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, raised a broader point beyond tenant farmers, about small farmers. He is right: small farmers are the backbone of our countryside, and any policy that results in a reduction in the diversity, breadth and viability of our small farmers is not a good one. They are critical to the future sustainability of our countryside. Farmers will be supported throughout the seven-year transition period to the new system. We are reducing direct payments, as the noble Duke said, but that will be gradually over the seven years, which will give farmers time to adapt and take advantage of the new offer. Money saved by direct payment reductions will be reinvested directly into English farming and agriculture through our new schemes. The Government are committed to providing the same cash total to the sector in each year of this Parliament. Some £10.7 million of funding has already been awarded through the interim phase of the future farming resilience fund. That provides, among other things, free business support to farmers and land managers to help them navigate the changes during the early years of the agricultural transition period.
Upland farmers have a particularly important role to play in addition to that of food production, and that is in land management. In their contribution to alleviating the threat of floods, which blight so many communities in this country, there is almost no one in a more important position than those farmers. They are absolutely in the mix when it comes to the new system that has been designed.
I turn to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and my noble friend the Duke of Montrose. My noble friend asked what proportion of the money would be spent on schemes which are not related to farming and are purely conservation. Again, I cannot give him a direct number, but there are schemes beyond the system being described today which are designed to support, for example, natural regeneration or tree planting, most of the funding for which comes from the nature for climate fund. We are talking here about a slightly different system which the nature for climate fund supports, but ultimately this is all about good land management.
The Government published a paper, which was updated in September 2019—I may have mentioned it earlier—setting out the impacts of removing the direct payments. That paper is being updated as we speak. The delay is caused by the conflict in Ukraine.
My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, talked also about the impact on consumer food prices. The analysis that we have made in Defra suggests that any effect of direct payments on consumer food prices is limited. However, we are doing a full impact assessment on food security up to 2024, and the results will be made available and will inform future policy design.
It is important that we continue with the transition as planned. Applying reductions to direct payments frees up money which we can use to pay farmers and land managers to encourage environmental protection and enhancement, public access to the countryside, and the safeguarding of livestock and plants. We must also provide opportunities for farmers who wish to leave farming to do so in a managed way. These instruments will allow the Government to ensure that this can be done. I hope that I have answered the key questions put to me today. I beg to move.