Commonwealth

Debate between Lord Judd and Lord Collins of Highbury

Thursday 28th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

The noble Lord will remember that our visit to Uganda together was very difficult in some ways. There was a profound feeling among British parliamentarians about the treatment of homosexuals in Uganda. We had to handle this very prominently during our visit. When we talk about common values, we must be more honest about what are common values and what are not.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

I thank the noble Lord and my noble friend for their interventions. They might mean that my contribution will go on a little longer, so I hope I shall be forgiven for that. The point I am trying to make is that it is not a matter of us simply imposing or even saying that we are right and they are wrong. By engaging in economic activity and making the case for diversity and equality, we are saying that business will do better and people will be more productive. That is what I want to hear every time the noble Lord meets the President of Uganda or anyone else. Certainly there is a strong business case: the United Nations business case for diversity and equality. I hope all our trade envoys are making this case because we want not just the noble Lord to say it but for the private sector and investors to say it. That is when we will see proper change.

At Oral Questions on 13 March, the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, sought assurances on whether the $500 million spent on projects and programmes initiated since CHOGM was being spent wisely and effectively. He asked about monitoring and oversight procedures. The Minister responded:

“Each of the four thematic areas identified at CHOGM—fairness, sustainability, prosperity and security—is overseen by the UK Commonwealth envoy. Quarterly steering board meetings assess progress and beneath that is a raft of other structures”.—[Official Report, 13/3/19; col. 1016.]


But what of accountability? Surely we can improve on what the noble Baroness told the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey. I would hope that, as a minimum, the briefing initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, could be put on a regular footing so that we engage with parliamentarians of both Houses on what progress we are making in our position as chair-in-office. Seeing how we succeed will make the Commonwealth more relevant to parliamentarians.

We have heard a lot about trade, and certainly, following the EU referendum, the importance of trade within the Commonwealth has been stressed. I agree with noble Lords: trade with the Commonwealth is something that we should talk up as much as possible, irrespective of the debate about the European Union. It is a vital element for us. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, member states have a “Commonwealth advantage”, where shared values, regulatory systems and language have the potential to increase intra-Commonwealth trade. Incidentally, I do not think we should talk about promoting trade simply in the context of the UK’s interests; we should talk it up more loudly.

I think the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, referred to the fact that at Commonwealth ministerial round tables there has been an agreement to increase intra-Commonwealth trade, with a projected increase to $1 trillion by 2020. A year ago, my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland said that the Commonwealth is likely to miss that target. She predicted a figure of around $700 billion. What are we doing to engage on that? What is the Government’s assessment of how to overcome trade barriers facing Commonwealth countries? At CHOGM in London last year—the first since the Brexit vote—I would have liked to hear a louder declaration of that. Sadly, the noble Lord, Lord Marland, is not in his place, but at CHOGM and today, as chair-in-office of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council—I have heard his arguments many times—he talked about the barriers to trade, including abuse of the rule of law, lack of trust in trading partners and so on. He has argued today, as he has before, that we should focus on building the capacity within the Commonwealth to ensure that businesses confronted by such obstacles are supported.

No mention has been made of development and the CDC, for example. I welcome the Government’s potential increase in investment for the CDC, but that leverages more capacity in the private sector. We need to see how its activities are linked to sustainable economic growth and not just one-off investments. That is the problem with a lot of Chinese investment. I was in Zambia before Christmas and witnessed some of the impact of Chinese investment, with fridges being built entirely by Chinese labour. There was no local, sustainable employment. We can do better than that and we should be focused on it.

I conclude by making a plea. We have the anti-corruption strategy and we have had anti-corruption summits. According to the World Economic Forum, corruption is the single greatest obstacle to economic and social development around the world. Every year, $1 trillion is paid in bribes, while an estimated $2.6 trillion annually is stolen through corruption. That sum is equivalent to more than 5% of global GDP. We would not need ODA if we tackled corruption. We could have stronger economies in Africa. I should like to hear from the noble Baroness how we are committed to tackling tax havens and international finance policies that have resulted in developing countries haemorrhaging billions of dollars in taxable financial resources.

I am sorry to have gone on for so long but I was interrupted twice.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Judd and Lord Collins of Highbury

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I did not want to tempt myself to get up too soon. I appreciate what the noble Lord has just said but I was struck by what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said—namely, that when using these powers the Government should proceed only with the fullest scrutiny. The amendments in this group, particularly those in my name and that of my noble friend, are designed not to limit the Government’s powers but to ensure that we scrutinise the Government’s actions. We want clarity on our commitment to humanitarian law and that we are implementing the international treaties to which we are signed up.

I am sure that the Minister will again ask whether these amendments are necessary, as he did on the first group of amendments. It could be argued that they are not. However, I argue that it is important that we state our beliefs in fundamental values, particularly human rights, democracy, the rule of law and good governance. A number of our allies and friends do not comply with those principles and we should be seen to be doing so. That is why we have tabled these amendments. We do not seek to limit but rather to empower Parliament and others to be able properly to scrutinise the powers that are used and measure them against the principles set out.

Amendment 7 asserts that when these powers are used the appropriate Minister must set out how sanctions are consistent with the UK’s objectives. Again, this is to enable effective scrutiny. The problem with executive powers is that often Governments simply assert them; they do not allow for proper scrutiny to measure their actions against the principles we set out. I hope that the Minister will put up a cogent argument. If he simply says, as the noble Lord did, that these amendments might be restrictive and are not necessary, I ask him to look carefully at Amendment 7 and ask what mechanisms can help improve scrutiny of the exercise of these powers and how we ensure that we can scrutinise them.

We heard in the previous debate that everything is going to be hunky dory because the House of Commons and the House of Lords will have a vote on statutory instruments, but we know that is a case of take it or leave it. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said, you can agree with 90% of something but how do you measure the other 10%? I want the reasoning to be set out more fully, not just in terms of having a vote on statutory instruments. I hope noble Lords will understand that we do not seek to include these words simply to make us feel better and that we are not doing so unnecessarily. We seek to include them to aid proper scrutiny of the powers exercised by the Executive.

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

Before my noble friend sits down, does he agree that one of the reasons that British standing in the world is diminishing is that there is the growing feeling that we use all the right words about human rights and the rule of law but are pretty slow to add muscle to ensure that something is done? I believe the time has come when our credibility rests on making sure that we not only make the right statements in principle but have the arrangements in place for proper scrutiny and ensuring that action is taken.

I pick up the liberal position. Speaking as a former defence Minister, overseas development Minister and Foreign Office Minister, I have in my more senior years come to the firm conclusion that sooner or later we have to change our ruling culture on the export of arms. Arms have become lethal, highly dangerous and destabilising. As you get older, you can become a bit more irresponsible in the best sense in terms of holding inconvenient beliefs. I believe that the only people to whom you should export arms are those with whom you are in a close, specified alliance—NATO, for example —or where there is an identifiable, specific reason for doing so to increase stability in a particular place. Anything else is a liability, given all the problems with end-use. I do not doubt the current Minister’s commitment to human rights but we need to be able to demonstrate that this is not just a case of wishful thinking but an issue about which we are serious.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

I thank my noble friend for his intervention and wholeheartedly agree that actions speak louder than words. However, at this stage, we are discussing how we can ensure the effective scrutiny of these powers. What are we measuring them against? That is important. Earlier, noble Lords said that we could not just rely on the words used. We all admire the Minister’s good intentions but this issue concerns the future. I place on record that the next Labour Government will put human rights centre stage in all their actions. We will certainly take up my noble friend’s point but that is not what we debating. I do not want to make an election manifesto call just yet but I want the Minister to consider the mechanisms that can be included in the Bill to enable us properly to measure the use of executive power.