Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

I reassure my hon. Friend that Ministers, particularly my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East, do make clear our concerns about the rights of human rights defenders and the importance of their work in every part of the world.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Brave human rights defenders are alerting us to a terrible new wave of persecution of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people in Chechnya. What steps will the Government take to remind the Russian authorities of their responsibilities, including publishing an independent inquiry into this issue? They are signatories to the European convention on human rights and these abuses cannot be allowed to continue.

[Mark Field]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are and remain deeply concerned by the recent reports of the renewed wave of persecution of LGBT folk in Chechnya. Both the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and the Americas have in the past week made it clear to their Russian counterparts that we must stop such persecution and hold those responsible to account.

Tuberculosis

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Thursday 7th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House recognises that tuberculosis (TB) remains the world’s deadliest infectious disease, killing 1.7 million people a year; notes that at the current rate of progress, the world will not reach the Sustainable Development Goal target of ending TB by 2030 for another 160 years; believes that without a major change of pace 28 million people will die needlessly before 2030 at a global economic cost of £700 billion; welcomes the forthcoming UN high-level meeting on TB in New York on 26 September as an unprecedented opportunity to turn the tide against this terrible disease; further notes that the UN General Assembly Resolution encourages all member states to participate in the high-level meeting at the highest possible level, preferably at the level of heads of state and government; and calls on the Government to renew its efforts in the global fight against TB, boost research into new drugs, diagnostics and a vaccine, and for the Prime Minister to attend the UN high-level meeting.

The motion stands in my name and that of the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), and I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to have this debate on ending tuberculosis.

I believe that this is the first time that this issue has been debated on the Floor of this House for 65 years. Responding to an Adjournment debate in 1952, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, Commander T.D. Galbraith, said:

“Tuberculosis is still the major health problem in Scotland…we must press forward…with every weapon that is available to us until the disease, which is said to be preventable, has been eradicated.”—[Official Report, 29 January 1952; Vol. 495, c. 158.]

At that time, people were optimistic because antibiotics had been discovered and put into mass production, housing was improving and there was no longer any reason to believe that tuberculosis would not be beaten. Tuberculosis was the great killer of history. A disease that dates back at least 7,000 years, it has killed 2 billion people in the last two centuries alone. John Bunyan said that TB was

“the captain of all these men of death”.

TB—otherwise known as consumption or the white death—is caused by a tiny bacteria. When it was first identified in 1882, it was still killing one in seven people. Indeed, TB killed more people in the United States in the late 19th century than any other disease. It is a disease that has killed kings, poets and paupers throughout history. Tutankhamun, Edward VI, Cardinal Richelieu, Eleanor Roosevelt, Keats, Chekhov, Emily Brontë, D. H. Lawrence, Orwell and Chopin all died from TB. Of course, the heroines of the operas “La bohème” and “La traviata” notoriously die from tuberculosis. That was expected in that age, which was not so long ago. Millions of others down the ages have suffered from TB—notably, Nelson Mandela, who suffered greatly from it.

With better housing, better nutrition, the discovery of penicillin by Fleming in 1928, and the mass production of antibiotics in the 1940s, it was thought that tuberculosis would be beaten. In 1962, a Nobel laureate virologist said:

“To write about infectious disease is almost to write of something that has passed into history.”

But TB was not eradicated or eliminated at all. It resurged on the back of the AIDS epidemic. TB is a bug carried by a third of the world’s population that can exist in our bodies latently, but strikes when immune systems are compromised.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on HIV and AIDS, and he knows that we very much share his concerns about TB and are pleased to work with his all-party parliamentary group on global tuberculosis. Today, we met the chief executive of the he Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that organisation is doing excellent work, not least on co-morbidity, as people live with HIV/AIDS and TB? People living with HIV are 30 times more likely to develop active TB, and TB is the leading killer of people with AIDS.

[Nick Herbert]

I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman that the diseases must be treated together. However, great progress has been made on tackling AIDS, partly because of the tremendous new tools available. By comparison, less progress has been made on tuberculosis. Last year, 1.7 million people died of tuberculosis. That is more than AIDS and malaria combined. The single fact that most people do not realise is that tuberculosis is now the world’s deadliest infectious disease, and it deserves more attention than it gets. Some 10 million people globally are falling ill each year as a result of this disease.

TB was declared a global health emergency by the World Health Organisation 24 years ago. Since then, 54 million people have died. That is not a great advert for the declaration of a global health emergency. Three years ago in New York, the world’s leaders set the sustainable development goals. Target 3.3 was to eliminate these major epidemics in 15 years. At the current trajectory, TB will not be eliminated for 160 years, so another 28 million people will die in the sustainable development goal period alone, costing the world economy $1 trillion cumulatively. Middle and lower-income countries will be the most severely hit, with lower-income countries experiencing a reduction of something like 2% of their GDP.

On top of this, there are new threats. I mentioned that TB strikes when immune systems are compromised, and they can be compromised in new ways, including by the acquisition of diabetes. In Indonesia, TB is striking people with diabetes, which is a growing problem.

Above all—this should concern the House greatly—is the growing risk of drug resistance. TB is the only major drug resistant infection that is transmitted through the air. It is already responsible for one in three deaths worldwide from all forms of drug resistance. Drug resistance generally now kills 700,000 people a year, but Lord O’Neill’s commission, set up by David Cameron, predicted that drug resistance would kill 10 million people a year by 2050, and that those deaths would fall in the west and advanced economies, not just in poor and middle-income ones. That compares with, for instance, 8 million deaths a year from cancer. We are talking about catastrophic loss and catastrophic economic cost, with a cumulative GDP loss of $100 trillion, knocking 2% to 3.5% off global GDP. It is significant that a quarter of those deaths from antimicrobial resistance would be due to tuberculosis, which is already responsible for a third of antimicrobial resistance deaths; that is 200,000 deaths a year.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. Will he also accept the connection between TB and conflict? In the parts of the world where TB is rife—including South Sudan, which I know very well—conflict is adding to the complexity for people suffering from disease.

[Nick Herbert]

That is a very interesting point. TB is a disease of poverty. This opportunistic infection will strike if there are no basic health systems and if nutrition and housing are poor, and all those conditions would probably exist in areas of conflict.

Drug-resistant TB is a terrible affliction. It can be dealt with, but even in an advanced healthcare system, it requires a course of treatment in which some 14,000 pills have to be taken. This treatment is appalling, as it can cause patients to become deaf and creates a lot of suffering. Only half of drug-resistant TB patients are successfully treated. In fact, there is a lower survival rate for drug-resistant TB than for lung cancer.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Just to step back, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned diabetes. In this country, we can change our lifestyles as we have access to lots of food and other things to reduce diabetes, but people in third-world countries where TB and diabetes are rampant do not have the same choice. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this complicates issues?

[Nick Herbert]

I do agree. There is a growing list of reasons why we should act, and that is one of them.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful speech. He is right to draw attention to the scale of the problem in the developed world as well as the developing world. In my constituency, the incidence is now about the same as in Sudan, at just over 80 per 100,000. Does he agree that it is important that people realise that, notwithstanding drug resistance, this is a treatable and curable condition and that people need to get help when they are suffering from it?

[Nick Herbert]

Again, I do agree. The scale of TB in London makes it one of the TB capitals of Europe. We have some 5,000 cases of TB in the UK. That figure is coming down with the new public health strategy, but it is still too high. The right hon. Gentleman is right. This disease is easily and cheaply curable, and it has been since the discovery of antibiotics, so why are we not doing it?

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his very powerful speech. Further to his points about the importance of public health, would he urge the Government, in their future strategy, to make sure that we look at NHS public health and social care as part of a single system?

[Nick Herbert]

Yes. My hon. Friend is probably aware that there is a collaborative TB strategy that was introduced by the Government, urged by the all-party parliamentary group on global TB, which the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall and I co-chair. That strategy shows very promising signs. It represents exactly the kind of partnership that we need between Public Health England and NHS England. I commend the Government for having introduced that partnership.

Most people do not realise that there is no vaccine for tuberculosis. There is a child vaccine, BCG, that some of us had when we were young, but there is no adult vaccine that works for tuberculosis—and no epidemic in human history has been beaten without a vaccine. The reason there is no vaccine is that there is market failure. Unlike HIV/AIDS, this is primarily a disease of the poor. With HIV/AIDS, there were people dying in western countries as well. The pharmaceutical companies do not have a commercial incentive to invest in the new tools that we need—better drugs, better diagnostics and a vaccine. Without partnership funding that comes from the Government, and Governments around the world who can afford it, we will not develop these new tools and we will not beat TB in the requisite timeframe.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work he does on TB. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on malaria and neglected tropical diseases, I would like to point out that there is a malaria vaccine, which is being deployed for the first time. We are not sure how effective it is. It is clearly quite effective, but a lot more work needs to be done on it. Companies such as GSK, which is behind this vaccine, are prepared to invest in these things even though they have no commercial return from them. Let us hope that a similar approach will be taken by commercial companies and Governments in respect of TB.

[Nick Herbert]

I agree that some companies are willing to take a non-commercial view, such as Johnson & Johnson and Osaka Pharmaceuticals, but many other major pharmaceutical companies are not developing new TB tools because there is no commercial incentive. Therefore, we do need that partnership funding to make this happen.

I would argue that there are three powerful reasons for us to act: a humanitarian reason because of the number of deaths, an economic reason because of the cost to the global economy of not doing so, and a global health security reason because of the risk of drug resistance.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

May I make a practical suggestion? We sometimes hear that the overseas aid budget struggles to find the best possible causes in which to invest our 0.7% of GNI. Could the rules possibly allow for an investment from that funding in the sort of research that is necessary to find a cure for TB?

[Nick Herbert]

My understanding is that they already do. That is a good example of how we already—although we need to do more—deploy the resources that are available to us. Indeed, the commitment that we make as the second biggest donor to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria—£1.2 billion in the last replenishment—has been made possible because of the increase in aid spending and the target that has been set.

At last, this disease is commanding greater political attention. It has got on to the G7 and G20 agenda, partly because of the lobbying that is being done by the Global TB Caucus, which I co-chair with South Africa’s Health Minister, and now numbers 2,500 parliamentarians in 130 countries. In November, there was a WHO ministerial summit in Moscow. In February, Prime Minister Modi of India announced a TB strategy.

Above all, there is a reason to be optimistic because, at the United Nations on 26 September, there will be, for the first time ever, a high-level meeting on tuberculosis that it is intended that Heads of Government and Heads of State will attend, where a new declaration will be launched, with a commitment by the world’s leaders to act. That has to address the current funding gap whereby we are $6 billion a year short of the funding needed properly to eliminate TB by the SDG deadline in 15 years’ time. It also has to introduce greater accountability so that Governments are locked into proper targets to ensure that they really do reduce TB. In addition, there needs to be a dramatic increase in research and development to develop the new tools that I mentioned. All this requires leadership.

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

I am hoping to speak later in the debate, but my right hon. Friend is already making a powerful case. Has he had any indication from the Prime Minister on whether she intends to attend that high-level meeting, because it would seem to be of great significance that she does?

[Nick Herbert]

My right hon. Friend asks a very pertinent question. Last month, 100 Members of this House and the other place wrote to the Prime Minister to ask if she would attend the meeting. The motion before the House specifically requests that the Prime Minister attend, as the UN General Assembly has asked. So far—understandably, I believe—the Prime Minister is not committing to attend.

In the time remaining to me, I would like to make the case for the Prime Minister to attend this meeting. It would be completely consistent with UK Government policy. We have made that major investment in the global fund. We are world leaders in international development. We set the agenda on antimicrobial resistance. We have a leadership position, and we should take it on this issue. TB is now the world’s deadliest infectious disease. This needs the support and attention of the world’s leaders. The UK is in a very powerful position to show that leadership and to give that support. Indeed, it is very difficult to see what would be the downside of the Prime Minister attending. I believe it would be all upside, and it would send a very powerful message to other world leaders. It is completely consistent with the ambition for a global Britain. Indeed, it is worth noting that TB is an issue in 19 Commonwealth countries, and 17 of the Department for International Development’s priority countries are high-burden.

This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. The high-level meeting is the chance, at last, for this disease to get the attention that it needs. It is an easily and cheaply curable disease. Frankly, it is a global scandal that so many people are losing their lives completely unnecessarily when since the 1940s they need not have done so. We can act and we should act. The UK can play a major role in this respect. Speaking at the UN on Monday, I was asked what was the single message that I would want to send to the world’s leaders about whether or not they should attend. I simply said this: if 1.7 million deaths a year is not enough to encourage the world’s leaders to attend, what is?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

This has a been a good debate, with a large degree of consensus across the House and many well-informed contributions from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides, including the Front Benchers. I am grateful for that and for the help that hon. Members are giving to raise the profile of this disease.

I pay tribute to the work of the co-chair of the all-party group on global tuberculosis, the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma). He was expecting to speak, but was taken away from the House for something else. However, I am sure that he would have wanted to draw attention to the huge progress being made in India, where the Prime Minister, as I mentioned earlier, has shown real leadership by getting India to commit to eliminate TB on a tighter timescale than the one in the sustainable development goals. That has shown the kind of global leadership that will be necessary, and if we can encourage other global leaders to follow that lead, we will make huge progress. I congratulate the Government on what they have been doing. I accept the Minister’s description of all the things that DFID and other Departments are doing, and I note that the International Development and Health Secretaries have personally committed to the issue, for which I am grateful.

TB has been the orphan disease. Despite its terrible record of claiming lives, it does not have the celebrity champions or the pop stars of other diseases, and it does not get the same media attention. Although the disease claims more lives every year than any other infectious disease, I can guarantee that the media will pay no attention whatsoever to this debate. That needs to come to an end. Today, we in this House have at least played our part in raising the profile of the disease, helping to make TB truly a disease of the past.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House recognises that tuberculosis (TB) remains the world’s deadliest infectious disease, killing 1.7 million people a year; notes that at the current rate of progress, the world will not reach the Sustainable Development Goal target of ending TB by 2030 for another 160 years; believes that without a major change of pace 28 million people will die needlessly before 2030 at a global economic cost of £700 billion; welcomes the forthcoming UN high-level meeting on TB in New York on 26 September as an unprecedented opportunity to turn the tide against this terrible disease; further notes that the UN General Assembly Resolution encourages all member states to participate in the high-level meeting at the highest possible level, preferably at the level of heads of state and government; and calls on the Government to renew its efforts in the global fight against TB, boost research into new drugs, diagnostics and a vaccine, and for the Prime Minister to attend the UN high-level meeting.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords]

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 1st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I agree; I do not think that there is a single Member of this House who does not have profound respect for the people of Russia and for the country of Russia, and for what it has given to us culturally and in so many other ways over the centuries. But what a pain it is to us to see a country that was reaching out for liberty suddenly find itself crushed under the heel again. It is a country that should be one of the great advancing economies of today, but it is in stagnation, with barely 1% growth. That is why all of us, from all parts of this House, have campaigned to take a robust attitude to Russia.

Finally, the Russian ambassador tweeted the other day that he wants to meet the all-party group for Russia, which I chair. He is not answering his phone—I am not sure whether he is busy on something else—but we will have him next Wednesday afternoon at 2.30 pm if anyone wants to hear his view of things.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I was pleased to add my name to new clause 6, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on bringing it forward. I will not repeat the powerful arguments that have been made for transparency today—they were also well made on Second Reading—other than to say that progress has been made in the overseas territories. Central registers have been introduced, but that is not sufficient for the reasons that have been given. We need that transparency to shine a light on what is happening. I suspect that there has been relatively little interrogation of the central registers by law enforcement authorities. There also needs to be a step up in law enforcement action as well as in these measures.

Two principal concerns were adduced to explain why we should at least hesitate before we compel the overseas territories to act. The first is the potential economic damage to the overseas territories. I argued strongly on Second Reading that that should not be an impediment to act. It can never be an argument that, where something wrong is being done, we fail to act simply because there might be some economic consequences. We do, however, have a duty to ensure that those economic consequences are addressed and that we help to mitigate them.

In accepting the new clause, there is a strong responsibility on this House, and now on the Government, to ensure that there is no damage to the economies of the overseas territories for taking action, especially as they may now be taking it more rapidly than they wished to, particularly when we consider, for instance, the impact of the hurricane damage on the British Virgin Islands. That concern should not prevent action, but it should be taken seriously.

The second concern is the constitutional objection: is it right for us to intervene? That is a serious argument. Again, on Second Reading, I argued that if the harm that is being done is so great that it can no longer be ignored, there is a justification to act, and there clearly is a power to do so. These are not just domestic matters for the overseas territories in which we have decided to intervene; they have a global impact. It is therefore very important for the Governments of the overseas territories to understand the reasons why this House has felt it so important to move. If they can act voluntarily, ahead of any action being taken legislatively, that would be very welcome.

[Robert Neill]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way on that important point. Does he accept that it is for that reason, and that reason only, that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar wrote the letter in the way that he did—because it is the constitutional convention that we do not normally legislate without the territories’ consent? And it is for that reason, and that reason only, that the Crown dependencies, which have a good record of compliance, had concerns about this form of legislation undermining the long-established doctrine that we do not legislate for them without their consent. It is not the objective that anyone objects to in any of those jurisdictions, but this should be done through the normal constitutional process.

[Nick Herbert]

The Crown dependencies do not fall within the ambit of new clause 6, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield pointed out. They are in a different constitutional position.

The wider point is this: I would have been minded to accept the Government’s compromise amendments and new clauses had the House had the opportunity to consider them. We should have avoided, if at all possible, dictating to the overseas territories what to do, but that option was not available. None the less, I welcome the fact that action is being taken.

In agreeing to new clause 6, the key concession that the Government made was that it was no longer acceptable that the overseas territories should move only at the pace of the rest of the world. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and the Americas said, the key concession was that he accepted that the will of the House was that the overseas territories should move ahead of the pace of the rest of the world for reasons that have been very well made by Members on both sides of the House. That said, we should not lose sight of the objective here. The objective is not to force the overseas territories to take action, but to ensure that we tackle corruption where we find it, and that has to be done on a global basis.

The arguments that there will be displacement should not be an impediment to action, because we can never argue that we will not tackle a crime on one street corner in case it moves to the next. That can never be a moral argument or a reason not to take action. Nevertheless, it is a serious argument. What are we going to do to avoid displacement? The imperative is therefore on the Government and on this place, which has now forced this action, to support every effort possible to mobilise the global community behind transparency for everyone.

This House and the UK will be taking a lead, and we will be requiring our overseas territories to take a lead, but we now have to step up. That may mean taking initiatives such as having another global summit to encourage action, as the anti-corruption champion, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), suggested. Whether it is through means such as the G20 or the G7, we must now drive action on a broader basis than simply the overseas territories or the Crown dependencies.

[John Penrose]

I completely back up what my right hon. Friend is saying. The time for global action must be now. We need to use the lead that we will create by imposing this measure to drive and exert a global leadership. It must be about not just the transparency of company disclosures but the transparency of trust disclosures and other kinds of asset classes as well as company shares.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Herbert]

I agree. In taking this action and ultimately, if necessary, requiring the overseas territories to act, we will be taking a grave step—one that has only been used twice before, in relation to the decriminalisation of homosexuality and to capital punishment. It is a serious move. The justification must therefore be that we use this step to encourage action globally, and that is what I urge the Government to do.

[Sammy Wilson]

On behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, may I welcome the changes that the Government have made regarding the Magnitsky amendment? It is likely to have an impact on those who think that they can get away with human rights abuses and hide behind and use their wealth in the United Kingdom. However, I am disappointed that we have not discussed on the Floor of the House the Government amendment and new clauses that were tabled as alternatives to new clause 6.

I have two main concerns. Coming from Northern Ireland, I know the impact on devolved Administrations of interference in devolved matters by the Government at Westminster, and I also know the impact that this can have on those with nationalist tendencies. New clause 6 presents a real danger in this regard. People have had to do constitutional somersaults in the House today. The Scottish National party, which has vigorously defended the rights and independence of the devolved Administration in Scotland, now suddenly has no difficulty supporting interference in the overseas territories.

Maldives: Political Situation

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that a situation under the guise of a state of emergency in which judges are arrested, the normal business of courts is suspended, Members of Parliament are arrested and Parliament too is suspended makes a mockery of any notion of democracy, and, furthermore, constitutes an affront to human rights? Should not Members on both sides of the House of Commons condemn that action in the strongest possible terms?

[Sir Hugo Swire]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Unfortunately, there can be no pretence that democracy is alive in the Maldives at the moment.

The Maldives Government also continue to condemn foreign criticism of their actions—no doubt they will now be criticising my right hon. Friend for his intervention—asking members of the international community not to chastise them publicly, and to visit the Maldives to assess the situation on the ground for themselves. However, when a delegation of EU Heads of Missions did visit Malé, the Government refused to meet them. Similarly, members of a delegation from LAWASIA—the Law Association for Asia and the Pacific—were detained and deported on their arrival at the airport in Malé on Tuesday, 27 February, although they had informed relevant Government authorities in ample time of their intention to visit.

My fourth point concerns the possibility of regional conflict. In recent years, China has been sending more tourists to the islands and investing in the economy. In neighbouring Sri Lanka, we see China building a port at Hambantota, an 11,500-foot runway capable of taking an Airbus A380, and docks where oil tankers can refuel. That has caused understandable nervousness in India, and it is difficult to believe that the Indians will allow the Chinese to gain a similar foothold in the Maldives. It is also reported that the Japanese navy recently spotted a Maldivian-registered tanker, which allegedly is linked to President Yameen’s nephew, transferring suspected crude oil to a North Korean tanker, in violation of UN sanctions on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s response to that.

I have seen the statement put out by the European External Action Service on 6 February and the Foreign Secretary’s statement of 5 February, but will Her Majesty’s Government now go further, building on the calls made on the Government of the Maldives by the International Democrat Union on 21 February? Will they call for the release of, and access to lawyers for, all political prisoners? Will they lobby for a UN-backed mission, led by someone like Kofi Annan, to go to the Maldives without delay? Will they call for free and properly convened elections later this year, to be overseen by an international body? Will they provide support and assistance in the wholesale reform of judges and the judicial system? Will they work with other like-minded countries to counter Islamic radicalisation in the Maldives? Will they raise the issue of the Maldives at the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting here in London in April? Will they ask the opposition parties to provide a list of resorts owned by President Yameen’s circle, so that they can be publicised and boycotted in the event of none of the above happening? At the same time, will they put plans in place to increase targeted sanctions against the Yameen regime if the Supreme Court ruling is not fully implemented?

As we exit the European Union, this is a good opportunity for the United Kingdom to show that we have our own foreign policy, and are working with like-minded friends.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [Lords]

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 20th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I agree with what the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) said in welcoming the measures in this Bill. I would go further and welcome the steps that the Government are taking to tackle corruption. However, I also agree with the right hon. Lady and my right hon. Friend that we need to go further now on the issue of transparency in our overseas territories—an issue I spoke about almost exactly a year ago in this House. Specifically, it is necessary in the fight against corruption that a public register of beneficial ownership of companies is established.

Much has been made of the effect of criminal activity, the ability of those engaged in such activities to launder money and the impact of the lack of transparency in supporting crime and corruption. The right hon. Lady pointed out that the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development estimates the cost of tax havens to developing countries to be some $100 billion a year. These are costs that are falling on the poorest developing countries. It should also be pointed out that tax avoidance costs us, too. It costs taxpayers in developed countries. A 2014 United States Senate report pointed out that the US loses some $150 billion in tax revenues a year because of offshore tax schemes.

The Panama papers, and subsequently the Paradise papers, revealed the extent of the problem. However, as President Obama said after publication of the Panama papers, the problem is that most

“of this stuff is legal, not illegal.”

That goes to the heart of the issue. Companies are able to operate perfectly legally in environments where there is not sufficient transparency. The losses are legitimate in the sense that they are not unlawful but they are avoiding taxation; the activities may be legally possible, but they are illegitimate morally. They may also, however, involve criminal activity. All of those are reasons why transparency is so important.

That is why it was such a major step forward when David Cameron announced in 2013 that action would be taken and when, in April 2014, he wrote to the leaders of the overseas territories, following the action taken in global summits, and said that Britain wanted the overseas territories, in partnership with us, to publish public registers. As he argued, these were the gold standard in transparency and would support law enforcement. That was the Government’s position at the time, but does it remain their position? They have never said that they will insist that the overseas territories produce public registers, even though the then Prime Minister urged them to do so in the strongest possible terms. I will explain why that is a necessity.

It is not clear to me whether it remains the Government’s position to urge the overseas territories to introduce public registers as soon as possible. That does not seem to be their position any longer. I think they are now saying that the overseas territories should move towards the creation of public registers once that becomes the gold standard globally. If hon. Members and non-governmental organisations have noticed this change of emphasis, surely the overseas territories will have noticed it, too. What progress can we reasonably expect them to make if they have sensed that the pressure from the UK Government to introduce those registers has eased?

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

I agree with many of my right hon. Friend’s points about transparency. I also agree with some of the fine points made by the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge). My right hon. Friend mentioned a change of emphasis. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee. I understand from speaking to some of the United States authorities that there has clearly been a change of emphasis. We are getting quite a clear picture from the United States that it is not intending to go all the way with public registers of beneficial ownership, and certainly not as far as we would like to go. Therefore, we need to be clear about where we want to show leadership, but, at the same time, we have a duty to our overseas territories to ensure that, if we limit their economies in some way, we think about other measures that can support them in the short run.

[Nick Herbert]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is necessary for us to show leadership, and I will say more about the support that we will need to give to the overseas territories in that respect.

A number of arguments have been advanced as to why it is not a good idea to require the overseas territories to introduce public registers. The first is that others will take advantage, and that criminal activity will simply relocate if we say that it can no longer take place in the overseas territories without visibility.

That argument is completely without moral credibility. It is also an admission that such activity is taking place in those areas. To say that we should not act because there might be an economic effect as a result of a reduction in criminal activity would be to argue that the Government should never take action against crime. We have to look at what steps might be necessary to compensate for and mitigate those effects, and to support the overseas territories, to whom we have an obligation in many ways. Simply to say that we will not insist on these changes because their economies would be damaged by the ensuing reduction in criminal activity would be akin to arguing that there would be no point in the police arresting a major drugs dealer in the UK because another drugs dealer might sell drugs in his place.

That argument cannot be sustained. If we believe that a wrong is being done to developed and developing countries—as it is—by the absence of transparency enabling tax evasion and worse, it is our responsibility to tackle that wrong by any means we can. If we simply stand back and wait for change to happen, we cannot expect it to do so.

The second argument that is put forward is that the measures are unnecessary because allowing law enforcement agencies specific access to information on the beneficial ownership of companies is better. It might be the case that law enforcement agencies require a particular level of information, and they can get it through the introduction of central registers, which is a welcome initiative, but if people are seriously arguing that transparency is unnecessary for law enforcement, why did we introduce transparency in the UK? It is self-evident and intuitively obvious that transparency is an aid to law enforcement, because law enforcement agencies cannot be expected always to go after criminals. Criminal activity has to be exposed, and publication is a way of exposing and preventing it. It is telling that a lot of this activity has surfaced only because of leaks. We cannot rely on the law enforcement agencies alone, even with the assistance of central registers and the exchange of information, to deal with all these issues. Also, they cannot deal with tax evasion issues that might be lawful but morally illegitimate. If it was right for the UK to do this, it is right for others to do it, especially our overseas territories.

That leads me to the third argument, which is an important and difficult one. To what extent should the UK insist that the overseas territories do anything? Would we be behaving in a neo-colonialist manner if we did so? This argument has surfaced more recently in relation to the decision by the legislature in Bermuda to reverse a decision of the Supreme Court relating to same-sex marriage. The UK Government made the difficult decision that it was not proper for them to intervene and that this was a matter for the Bermudian authorities. However, we took action in previous years when we reversed the colonial laws that we had bequeathed to the overseas territories in relation to the criminalisation of homosexuality. The very fact of the relationship between us and the overseas territories—and the very fact that we can change the law there by orders in the Privy Council—reveals a relationship that requires us to hold to certain standards.

I accept that there could be unusual circumstances in which the UK Parliament would seek to intervene, but when it comes to global law enforcement, the harm that is being done is so general that it surely justifies action. There is a danger that, if the Government are seen to be stepping back in relation to human rights issues and to corruption, far from winning praise for allowing the devolution of power and the expression of local democratic decision making in the overseas territories, we will actually be harming ourselves and our international reputation for not upholding our obligations to the highest standards. Therefore, on balance, the argument is made not only that we have the power to intervene but that we have a duty to do so if the harm that is being done is otherwise so great.

Let us be clear that the tide is now turning in the direction of increasing transparency. As we have heard from the official Opposition, the EU is adopting measures to ensure that that takes place, and it is significant that the developing countries—those that are most harmed by the absence of transparency—are often the most supportive of these measures. Countries such as Kenya, Nigeria and Afghanistan are committed to introducing public registers of beneficial ownership. Are we really saying that our own overseas territories will not be required to do so when developing countries such as those are committed to taking that action?

The uncomfortable truth is that some of our overseas territories are the worst culprits when it comes to tax havens. Everyone knows that; the papers that have been published reveal it, and the time has come to deal with it. I agree with the right hon. Member for Barking that the time has come to insist that our overseas territories deal with this issue because frankly we will not make progress unless we press them. That is why, if a sensible amendment is tabled to the Bill to set a reasonable timetable for the overseas territories to produce registers of beneficial ownership—an amendment that has cross-party support, that includes commitments to ensure redress for any economic harm and that is respectful of the great economic damage done by the terrible hurricanes to some of our overseas territories—I will support it. I hope that such an amendment will command support on both sides of the House. This is, after all, the policy set by a Conservative Prime Minister and this Conservative Government, and it is the right policy.

Tax havens harm the world’s poorest most of all. Tax havens harm developing countries, and they harm us. They harm us economically, but they also harm our reputation. We live in an age of accountability and transparency. We must continue to lead this argument and not be behind it, which is why I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to take very serious note of what is being said in the House this evening and to act.

Same-sex Marriage: Bermuda

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s interpretation of our liability in the sense that he has expressed it. As I explained, the human rights legislation, as we understand it, does not involve, as he would have it, the right to recognition in quite the terms that he suggests. There will be, if the law goes through, civil partnership, which is what we had just a few years ago. It is a law that extends rights that the mere recognition of marriage did not extend in terms of pensions, inheritance, tax, and other such equalities. The Government are giving careful consideration to Bermuda’s Domestic Partnership Bill to assess its implications in relation to our collective international obligations and our constitutional relationship with Bermuda. I will update the House when the Government have had time to finalise their position on that.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Before my right hon. Friend finishes, will he say what his assessment is of the likelihood that the Supreme Court in Bermuda will revisit this position? As he has suggested, a very anomalous position is being created between the rights of some gay couples who were married under the existing provision and those who will not be allowed to do so in future. Did not the Supreme Court itself say that this historic and insular perspective on marriage was

“out of step with the reality of Bermuda in the 21st century”?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I am not in a position to know what the Supreme Court is likely to be asked to do or will do. All we know at the moment is what lies on the table—the passage of the Bill.

I will end by reiterating this Government’s absolute commitment to promoting equal rights and fighting discrimination across the globe. We are fully committed to striving for a safer, fairer, more tolerant world where everyone has the opportunity to achieve their potential and live the life they choose.

Question put and agreed to.

UN Vote on the Independent Expert for the LGBT Community

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I am pleased and delighted to agree wholly with the hon. Lady. I can assure her that no stone will remain unturned. We are looking at a complete starburst of diplomatic effort to try to corral votes for this purpose in the General Assembly. Indeed, we are starting from an alliance of considerable diplomatic effort. We are proud to be a member of the new equal rights coalition, which is made up of more than 30 states, and we also contribute funds to support LGBT rights projects globally.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I was honoured to be present on behalf of the all-party group on global LGBT rights, which I chair, at September’s high-level United Nations meeting. At that meeting, the Secretary-General applauded the appointment of the independent expert, saying that it was an “historic step”. Is it not the case that so many of the groups that face discrimination across the world regard the stance of the United Nations on this matter as an immense encouragement in the promotion and valuing of human rights, and that the continuing appointment of the independent expert to translate international principles of humanitarian law into practical action and ensure that they are enforced will be immensely important?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I wholly agree with my right hon. Friend, whose question gives me the opportunity to say that the chosen person, Mr Vitit Muntarbhorn, is a well-respected human rights campaigner of the highest quality and character. There are absolutely no grounds whatsoever for questioning the choice of him for this purpose.

Government Referendum Leaflet

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Monday 11th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Clearly I would want to understand what exactly has gone on and whether what he has observed is the result of a policy decision or something that has been done by an individual deliverer, but I will certainly draw the attention of the Electoral Commission to what he has described.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Those who are mounting an objection to the public provision of information at the taxpayer’s expense appear not to have noticed that getting on for double that sum will be made available by the taxpayer for the officially designated leave campaign. If they have a principled objection to such provision of taxpayer funding, they will presumably refuse to accept that funding—or does my right hon. Friend think that they are simply making Juncker points?

[Mr Lidington]

I tend towards my right hon. Friend’s second interpretation. The basic problem is that those who perfectly properly and honourably advocate a British departure from the EU wish that the Government were neutral and silent, but they are not. The Government believe that there is a compelling case for continued British membership of the European Union and that that is in the economic and political interests of the United Kingdom.

European Affairs

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am about to come to that point. I hope that my remarks might provoke some of my hon. Friends to put some flesh on the bones of what leaving might mean. I will say something about the consequences of, respectively, a vote to leave the EU and a vote to remain.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

[Mr Hammond]

Let me make my point, and then I will happily give way to my right hon. Friend. A vote to leave is a vote for an uncertain future. That is a simple fact. That uncertainty would generate an immediate and negative reaction in financial markets; on that, all market commentators agree. Indeed, the mere possibility of a leave vote will have a chilling effect on business confidence even before the referendum.

[Mr Hammond]

As the right hon. Gentleman suggests from a sedentary position, we have had a foretaste of that this week in the currency markets.

A vote to leave would trigger a fixed two-year time period under the treaty for the UK to negotiate the terms of our exit from, and our future relationship with, the EU. We would, of course, seek to reach agreement with the other 27 member states during that two-year period. In the meantime, however, we would be able to offer British businesses that wanted to invest no assurance at all about their future access to EU or other markets. We would have nothing to say to Japanese, American or Chinese companies that come here looking for a base from which to produce for the EU market. That would be truly a leap in the dark, and the effect would be to put the economy on hold until the negotiations were completed. At the end of those two years, there is no guarantee that agreement would have been reached, but our exit would be automatic unless every single one of the remaining member states agreed to an extension of the negotiating period.

[Nick Herbert]

My right hon. Friend is rightly drawing attention to the potential impact of Brexit on our economy, but may I take him back to the issue of security? It was suggested earlier that there would be no adverse consequences for security from our leaving the European Union, because we would remain members of NATO. Did he hear the remarks this morning of the former Secretary-General of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who said:

“If the UK were to leave the European Union, the voice of the UK would be weakened”?

He concluded:

“I would strongly regret if Britain were to leave the European Union. A lot is at stake when it comes to security.”

Should we not listen to former Secretaries-General of NATO, as well as to former military commanders, and have some respect for their views?

[Mr Hammond]

Mr Fogh Rasmussen is not merely a former Secretary-General of NATO, but a former Prime Minister of Denmark. That country can tell us something about the binding and enduring nature of protocols that are made in EU negotiations. It is important to acknowledge that security comes in different parts: military security and defence, but also security against organised crime and against terrorism. The EU makes its most important contribution to our overall security in the latter two.

UK’s Relationship with the EU

Lord Herbert of South Downs Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The straight answer is no, because the European Court of Human Rights is not part of the European Union. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor is working on proposals to deliver the Conservative manifesto commitment to a British Bill of Rights. I am sure that he will make an announcement in due course.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

Is it not significant that the proposals to give us a legally binding exemption from ever closer union and to protect the UK from deeper integration within the eurozone that might discriminate against us would, if implemented, give us the best of both worlds? We would be outside the eurozone but able to access the single market, and we would retain the advantages of being outside Schengen, such as maintaining our borders, but still have access to the world’s largest market of 500 million people. Would it not be unwise of us to throw away those unique advantages for an alternative that is unknown and risky?

[Mr Lidington]

I agree completely with my right hon. Friend.