Belarus: Elections

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Grand Committee

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. We have just been debating in Grand Committee matters relating to the democratic state of India—a country of 1.4 billion people and a far cry from what brings us together now.

I intend to broaden the debate. I fear that President Putin will not be persuaded by the question before us. Free and fair elections in Belarus would be followed by an increasing call for free and fair elections in Russia, presenting existential threats to the personal survival of both leaders. While it is to be applauded, therefore, I fear that the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, is mission impossible in the short-term. However, he has presented us with a helpful opportunity for a road map in the longer term. The challenge was articulated in an interesting recent piece in the Financial Times, which said:

“Nationalist autocrats need enemies abroad to justify political repression at home, and the Russian president has long found his in the west.”


If perceived wisdom is correct, Moscow is targeting de facto absorption of Belarus into Russia. The situation in Belarus has now become, therefore, a test of autocracy over democracy, tyranny over decency, and self-preservation. The Kremlin’s gameplay of taking control of Belarusian security institutions—the KGB, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the armed forces—is, in addition to the aim of ensuring that Lukashenko retains power, demobilising the protest movement through mass repression.

Messaging from Minsk or Moscow about constitutional changes and new elections will only ever be on Moscow’s terms. Any proposed constitutional changes will only ever be paving the way for greater economic integration with Russia, with the omnipresent risk of invasion—either under cover of darkness, or, more radically, in order to discourage all such countries from moving geopolitically westward.

How, therefore, can we support the people of Belarus while managing the relationship with President Putin’s Russia—recognising that the ploy of disruption is Kremlin gameplay, but still responding to it with a tough approach on ground and sea, not just with words? The recent Black Sea right of passage exercise is clearly a starter for things to come, as part of a grand strategy. We must be prepared to stand up for what we believe in, beating the drum with parallel savvy engineering and diplomacy. The principle of critical dialogue must on all accounts be maintained. We must be consistent, and address the fundamental lack of trust on both sides.

President Macron and Chancellor Merkel—with her somewhat conflicting messaging—suggest that a culture of automatically blaming Russia for everything is wide of the mark, and a consequence of the current relationship. They are making heavy weather of it. News today that the United States and Germany have reached a truce over the Nord Stream 2 pipeline has sent shock waves through energy security concerns. This could conceivably put Ukraine back on a journey into the Russian fold, notwithstanding a surety from Berlin to impose sanctions on Russia if Moscow threatens Ukraine on energy security. If I were President Putin, I would see this as a potential chink in the armour, with the West undermining its position.

I do not profess an immediate solution to the desperate Belarusian issue, other than to publicly urge President Putin to support ideals built on decency and accountability, which could be turned into a quick win for Russia and lead to a more constructive relationship throughout.

Global leaders must learn from history. The time has come to understand what has happened to put us in the situation in which we now find ourselves, based on the many examples that exist—Myanmar being just one current example—and to devise whatever channels that, with strict conditionality, could be best made to work, including, if necessary, a surety of freedom from prosecution in return for free elections.

The international community should then enact a “citizens first” global charter with a courts-based system to adjudicate when leaders clearly demonstrate failure to uphold their responsibilities to their people. We must not give up on this, but the time has come for like-minded actors to up their game and to be more smart—but not Machiavellian—about it. A fundamental reset is required. Now is the time for a new world order, supported by actions, not words. Let Belarus be the test. Failure will spell trouble.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, whose name is next on the list, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Northover.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Balfe for tabling this debate and all noble Lords for their valuable contributions. The Government share the many concerns that have been raised in today’s debate about the situation in Belarus. I hope that my comments and responses to the questions asked provide further clarity on many of the salient points that were made.

As noble Lords acknowledged, it has been almost 12 months since the presidential election in Belarus. The Belarusian authorities manipulated that process for the sole purpose of ensuring that Alexander Lukashenko retained his grip on the structures of power he has held since 1994. To be frank, there was nothing democratic, free or fair about those elections. Such was Lukashenko’s fear of a genuine, open, contested popular presidential election that other candidates and their supporters were jailed during the campaign. Others were prevented even from registering as potential candidates. As a consequence, I join the noble Lord, Lord Collins, in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and his consistent raising of such issues. I will come on to political prisoners, in a moment.

We saw tens of thousands courageous Belarusians take to the streets in peaceful protest, whose voices were suppressed simply because they called out their right to determine how they are governed. Lukashenko’s regime has flatly refused to listen to them. Instead, it launched a brutal and sustained crackdown against peaceful protesters, democratic opposition leaders and supporters, as well as independent media, journalists and civil society. It has been a devastating assault on democratic principles and the rule of law, and it continues to this day.

The consequences for the Belarusian people have been extraordinary and the scale of the brutality is truly shocking. Just reflect on what has happened since: more than 35,000 people arbitrarily detained, more than 550 people imprisoned on politically motivated charges, the forced expulsion of opposition leaders and countless credible reports of physical mistreatment and torture by security forces, which the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights noted in her report to the Human Rights Council in February 2021.

As noted by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, this shameful charge sheet existed before we even consider the forced landing of Ryanair flight FR4978 on 23 May and the subsequent arrest of journalist Roman Protasevič and his partner or the raids on human rights organisations. I know the noble Lord, Lord Collins, feels passionately about the role of civil society organisations, and rightly so. Sadly and tragically, those raids included the detention of members of the internationally respected NGO Viasna.

Noble Lords are aware of the role of Russia, which was alluded to by my noble friend Lord Balfe in his opening remarks. Russia and Belarus have close historical, cultural and economic ties, and Russia has been one of the few countries to continue to back Lukashenko. Putin was one of the first leaders to congratulate him on his alleged electoral victory. He also continues to host visits from Lukashenko and has provided more than $1.5 billion of loans, amid talk of closer economic integration. Clearly, Russia has influence on Lukashenko, but we do not foresee Putin using his influence constructively—as alluded to by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley—to resolve any human rights issues in Belarus peacefully or to address the injustices around last year’s flawed election.

The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, raised the specific issue of those who are prisoners and have been imprisoned in Belarus simply for exercising their right to peaceful expression. He mentioned the case of Stepan Latypov and the recent charges and sentences imposed against political prisoners. They are indeed tragic examples of the repressive actions of the Belarusian authorities, which are criminalising opposition voices for the sole purpose of protecting Lukashenko’s regime. I assure all noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that the Government continue to call on the authorities to release all those wrongfully imprisoned and bring an end to the crisis through peaceful and inclusive dialogue.

The UK equally supports new elections that are free and fair. We welcome the important work of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who has undertaken it as the rapporteur for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe; we appreciate its work on the need for widespread and achievable electoral reform in Belarus. To support this objective, we are implementing sanctions, which I will come on to in a moment. However, on the specific question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, on Mr Latypov and others, I assure the noble Lord that, through our embassy, we have made repeated requests for access to him and the other prisoners being held. I will ensure that I keep the noble Lord updated on any progress in this regard.

My noble friend Lord Balfe and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, raised the issue of Russia. Notwithstanding our differences, it is important that we continue to engage in dialogue. We do so: we have raised the situation in Belarus in our discussions with Russia. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary did so with Foreign Minister Lavrov on 17 June. The Minister for European Neighbourhood and the Americas also discussed Belarus during her visit to Moscow last November and in her recent discussions with the Russian ambassador on 5 July.

The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, also talked about partnership and joint working, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. The UK has responded to events in Belarus swiftly, robustly and in lockstep with our international allies and partners, particularly France, Germany and the United States. It was the UK, on behalf of 17 participating states, that invoked the independent investigation under the OSCE Moscow mechanism.

It was no surprise that the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, spoke of the need for international collaboration, not least with our closest neighbours in the European Union; she has been a long-term advocate, and I pay tribute to her in this respect. We continue to work in a co-ordinated fashion with our colleagues and friends in the EU. Indeed, earlier today, we saw how concerted action has also taken place in response to the other challenges we face. On the broad issue of human rights, we have acted in concert with both NATO and EU colleagues, as well as the United States and other like-minded partners.

The independent report produced by the OSCE Moscow mechanism has also shown and produced a series of recommendations, which provide a pathway to peaceful resolution and free and fair elections. To deliver on the report’s recommendation of a mechanism for a long-term investigation into the human rights violations, we are also working closely with Denmark and Germany to bring together a consortium of international NGOs to form the International Accountability Platform for Belarus. I can share with noble Lords that this platform now has the support of more than 20 states.

We have also worked very closely with the wider international community, co-sponsoring a new mandate to investigate human rights violations and acts of torture at the UN Human Rights Council in March, with a view to assisting accountability. That area was raised specifically by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, in terms of continued multilateral action.

The Belarusian authorities believe they can operate in an environment of impunity, but accountability is clear: perpetrators of violations will be held responsible. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and others have noted, we have already implemented sanctions—indeed, over 100 sanction designations in response to human rights violations and the suppression of democracy in Belarus. We have done so hand in glove with our closest international partners.

The UK, in co-ordination with Canada, was the first country to implement sanctions against the leadership in Belarus, including Lukashenko himself, during the immediate fallout from the election. Most recently, we implemented further sanctions on 21 June in co-ordination with Canada, the European Union and the US, following the diversion of flight FR4978 and the arrest of Roman Protasevich and his partner.

It is important that we continue to speak out on the international stage and shine a spotlight on what is happening in Belarus. That is why, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Collins, has noted, we initiated a G7 statement on Belarus, and, as co-chair of the Media Freedom Coalition, led 47 nations in the condemnation of attacks against journalists and the independent media in Belarus, as well as rightly honouring the Belarusian Association of Journalists for its continued courage, advocacy and work. The democratic opposition have also been courageous, fearlessly continuing their peaceful struggle for a democratic future.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised the issue of civil society. We have increased our financial support for civil society and independent media organisations to help develop and protect specific democratic ideals. We are very much looking forward to the forthcoming visit to the UK of prominent opposition activist, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya. The UK supports all those in Belarus who seek democratic change.

We call on the Belarusian authorities to cease their repressive campaign and enter into negotiations that can pave the way to electoral change. We want to see a reformed Belarus that has a good relationship with Russia and other European partners. We will continue to work with our partners to further urge Russia to impress on the Belarusian authorities the need to create space for political dialogue, including mediation by the OSCE. However, I fear there is unlikely to be a change in Russia’s stance towards Belarus any time soon, but our efforts and co-ordinated actions on this will remain.

I finally acknowledge and thank all noble Lords for their continued engagement and participation on this important issue. In responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, I thank them for their continued support and direct engagement, as key voices for their respective parties in your Lordships’ House. I also thank all colleagues, across all Benches of your Lordships’ House, for engaging on the important and broader agenda of the policies, programmes and initiatives within my work, as the Minister of State for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

I reciprocate the best wishes for a restful, peaceful summer. We have all become used to being stars of the House of Lords on screens big and small, but I am sure we all very much look forward to some degree of resuming business as usual. I look forward to seeing colleagues—may I say friends?—in your Lordships’ House, once the Summer Recess has ended. Until that time, you have my best wishes for the summer.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, that completes the business before the Grand Committee. I remind Members to wipe their desks and chairs before leaving the Room. The Committee is adjourned until September. Good wishes have been extended by Members for the holidays that lie ahead. I endorse them as regards all contributors to this debate and the Grand Committee’s excellent officials, who serve it so well.

Committee adjourned at 6.38 pm.

Environment Bill

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 30th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 120, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. No one who saw last April’s “Panorama” programme on the state of our rivers could possibly not support this amendment. That picture of what initially looked like a sandbank in the River Thames but was in fact a huge pile of wet wipes and other plastic-fibre sanitary items was simply disgusting to me. I do not think that that is an overreaction on my part.

In evidence given to the Commons’ Environmental Audit Committee, one witness—one assumes that he was an expert and knew what he was talking about—addressed plastic-fibre wet wipes, stating:

“every day 7 million wet wipes ... are flushed ... down the toilet”.

There were also

“2.5 million tampons, 1.5 million sanitary pads and 700,000 panty liners”,

all currently with a varying degree of plastic content. They do not dissolve or break down but, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, have to be raked out of the sewage treatment works and sent to landfill.

The flushing of these products is already illegal. I believe that they can now all be produced without plastic content; in other words, to a “fine to flush” standard. They can now be produced in materials which are equally effective, but which can and do break down within the sewage system, like paper. So I make a plea: the Government should look into this issue and then, I hope, announce a legal end date for the production of all sanitary goods that are not produced to a flushable standard. In the meantime, as Amendment 120 proposes, we should ensure that all the current products are clearly marked as non-flushable.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, the next three speakers on the list—the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott—have withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I apologise for the fact that I was not able to speak at Second Reading on the Bill. I wish to speak to Amendment 124 in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market. I hope the House will allow me to use this amendment to probe with the Minister not the disposal of single-use plastics but the banning of them, and the aspirations of the Welsh Government to do just that.

To understand the drive towards such a ban in Wales one has to understand that the pursuit of sustainable development is central to the Senedd’s devolved powers. It is expressly mandated as a core aspiration of the Welsh Ministers under Section 79 of the Government of Wales Act.

Like most countries throughout the world, Wales has its concerns about the prevalence of single-use plastics and the pollution they cause in our cities and towns, on our beaches and in our seas. In 2019, the Great British Beach Clean weekend organised by the Marine Conservation Society found an average of 322 plastic items per 100 metres of beach it surveyed, while in its 2018-19 street cleanliness survey, Keep Wales Tidy found fast-food litter on 20% of the streets that it surveyed across Wales.

The Welsh Government want to use their powers to ban 19 types of plastic items. As well as hoping to ban plastic-stemmed cotton buds, the Senedd wants to ban plastic cutlery, plastic plates, plastic beverage stirrers and plastic straws, as well as food containers and beverage cups made from expanded polystyrene. This is all very sensible—so sensible that our wonderful catering facilities in the House of Lords had already achieved all this before the pandemic struck. Obviously, where the House of Lords leads, Wales is keen to follow.

The problem is, of course, the impact of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act, which would mean that any single-use plastics permitted or imported into the rest of the UK could still be sold in Wales, in effect negating the Senedd’s aim. In January of this year, the Counsel General for Wales sought permission for a judicial review of the position but the application was denied on the basis of prematurity. I believe, however, that the Court of Appeal has granted permission to appeal the Divisional Court’s decision and that a hearing will be listed in due course. I do not expect the Minister to pre-empt any decision that the Court of Appeal may come to. Can he say, however, whether he or his civil servants have had any discussions with their opposite numbers in Wales on single-use plastics, especially following the election of the new Welsh Government in May, and whether we are any closer to clarity on the situation?

Finally, I want to refer to an excellent article by Dr Richard Caddell, a member of the Wales Governance Centre in Cardiff and a senior lecturer in law. Writing in FTB’s Environmental Law Blog and highlighting the problem Wales faces, he concludes:

“The widespread concern over marine plastics … may potentially persuade some UK regulators to upscale their environmental ambitions to meet those of other devolved actors, in order to stave off this particular constitutional conundrum.”


These are wise words. I find the phrase “the upscaling of environmental ambitions” particularly elegant, providing, as it does, a rather elegant way forward. Rather than insisting on asserting the letter of the law or resorting to the courts, employing a strategy of wholesale upscaling of environmental ambitions could, perhaps be more effective.

Environment Bill

Lord Lexden Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 7th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb has already set out the temporal position of the Bill: it is at the end of a long line of debates on the Agriculture Act, the Fisheries Act, the Trade Act and Brexit. It is the place where the Government told us that many of the issues raised in those debates would finally be dealt with. It would seem that it is also the place where the Dasgupta review’s call for new economic indicators should be acknowledged, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, referred to. It is the place to start the transformation from an economy based on the exploitation of people and the environment to a system based on resilience and regeneration.

Some 25 years after the Act that set up the Environment Agency, the Bill is certainly urgently needed, for that Act and 25 years of Governments of various hues have clearly failed. Our nation ranks 187th globally for the state of our nature. Much of it is a beautiful but sterile green desert, from the burned, shorn land of our first national park in the Peak District to the rapeseed flowers now blanketing chemical-drenched fields.

Yet food security remains an acute and pressing issue. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, I will not posit a third world war, but rather point to our responsibility, as a wealthy nation, not to take food, water, labour and resources from the fields and mouths of others in a world where production is threatened by the climate emergency, the water crisis, the destruction of soils and the massive practice of food waste that is the factory farming of animals.

Many noble Lords have already addressed issues that the Green group—all two of us—will seek to offer our support on. I endorse many things that the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said so eloquently, including on the need for environmental principles to be applied universally, the need for local governments to have the resources they need to protect and enhance nature, and the principle of net biodiversity gain not excluding major infrastructure developments. In fact, I will go further: we need to abolish the principle of biodiversity offsetting. We have so little left that we cannot afford to destroy any national treasure that we have left—certainly not for the uncertain outcome of a few saplings stuck in a field and called a replacement for an ancient forest.

Relatedly, the Secretary of State should not be allowed to amend the habitat regulations at will. The noble Lord, Lord Montrose, spoke of a forest of Henry VIII regulation. This is one forest that should be felled. The noble Lords, Lord Khan and Lord Rooker, focused particularly on the legal weakness—indeed, the legal attack on basic principles contained in the Bill—as so powerfully outlined by the Bingham Centre. We will work on that.

I agree with everything said by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who is not currently in her place, and thank her for drawing attention to the Knepp planning issue. Drawing a broader point from that, in their planning and agriculture principles, the Government seem to be locked into a sparing rather than a sharing mindset—one of sparing a little land and making it pristine and rich but trashing the rest for industrial agriculture or housing luxury development of a kind that fails to meet urgent community needs. We need to care for all of our land.

The noble Lord, Lord Trees, pointed out an obvious gaping hole in the Bill: the lack of measures on antimicrobial resistance. I do not often quote David Cameron, but I will today:

“With some 25,000 people a year already dying from infections resistant to antibiotic drugs in Europe alone, this is not some distant threat but something happening right now”.


That was in 2014. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, rightly stressed the importance of our marine environment and the non-existence of its protection. The Green group intends to offer support on all these issues and more.

I am afraid that the nature of the rest of my speech is also that of a list—that is, a list of the issues that I have not heard other noble Lords clearly set out. This reflects concerns that my noble friend and I have heard from the millions of voters we do our best to represent and the many industry and campaign groups whose issues are not covered or are badly dealt with by the Bill.

The ordering is roughly in the order of the easiest issues, from those that any sensible Government would surely embrace through to those that require a fundamental philosophical shift and an understanding that there are enough resources on this planet for everyone to have a decent life and for the natural environment to be cared for if we just share them out fairly. This requires a sudden outbreak of understanding of planetary limits—I live in hope.

First, on plastic and packaging materials, an amendment is needed to ensure that the bottle deposit scheme is variable, reflecting the size and impact of bottles, not just their number. An amendment is also needed to tackle the horrendously costly waste of disposable nappies, both to household budgets and the cost we all bear in council waste. However, what is really lacking in the Bill is an understanding of the waste pyramid. Recycling is third best; we have to reduce and reuse, and recycling comes a poor third.

Secondly, on pesticides, we have soaked the planet with poison. We need to protect rural dwellers, and the whole of our land, from pesticide applications.

Briefly, because I am running out of time, human rights have to be linked to environmental rights—due diligence along the lines of the Bribery Act. Then there is the issue of what land is for, which was partially raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. It has to be for the people and for the natural world. Driven grouse shooting, growing food to waste in feeding animals kept in misery, and sugar beet production, which strips soils and produces obesity, are some examples of land uses we do not need.

Finally, we often hear in your Lordships’ House that these are crowded islands. The crowding has one very large cause: 50% of the land is owned by 1% of the people, so 99% of people are excluded from half of our land. An Environment Bill surely has to offer access to more of it—a great deal more—for food growing, nature and recreation. They are not making any more land, so we have to share it out fairly.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made reference to Lord Montrose. He is in fact the Duke of Montrose. I call the next speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Salisbury (Valedictory Speech)]

My Lords, I have not been in the House in person since the first week of February. Sitting on the Front Bench earlier with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln, I found myself wondering whether both of us had misjudged the timing of our retirements. I have led on the environment for the Church of England for seven years and have been a Member of the House for six. It has been a privilege as well as a responsibility and I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken kindly of what has been achieved; of course, it could never be enough.

With an eye towards retirement, I had thought that last year, 2020, would have provided a good conclusion, with the Lambeth Conference of Bishops from the Anglican Communion, COP 26 and this Environment Bill. All were postponed, so I find myself standing for the last time in this House without the prospect of being able to engage in the detailed scrutiny and revision that will make what is, in many ways, a good Bill better. Of course, my colleagues will contribute, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford has already. I thank the Minister for meeting the Bishops in preparation for this debate.

The care of creation is an important theme for Christians and all faith communities, but young people repeatedly say that we are not doing enough. At the last General Synod in person before the pandemic, a motion I proposed was amended for the Church of England to aim for net zero by 2030. I resisted it unsuccessfully. Those making the amendment said that we have to respond to the climate emergency and pick up the pace of our own change. This is complicated and there is a big difference in temperament between realists and prophets. The impact of that vote, however, has been to energise the Church of England in a new way and we are working towards the 2030 target with more urgent realism.

I say all this because, while I welcome the Bill, in a Parliament that has recognised the climate emergency, the Government are nothing like ambitious enough. We need to make the most of this opportunity to replace EU legislation and exceed its ambition and effectiveness in addressing fundamental issues of the environment and about the way we live. It matters a great deal that we address the role of the OEP and bottom out its relationship with the Government and the excellent Climate Change Committee, and that we establish how targets will be set.

The Bill ought to shape the work of every government department. Individuals make choices within the framework of legislation which makes the market. The Bill will and ought to shape the way we live now, not just in the middle distance and long-term future. This is a time of enormous change. We can be encouraged by the scale of changes in our behaviour in response to the pandemic and daunted that a similar scale of change is needed every year to 2030 if we are to meet the 2050 target for carbon neutrality of the Paris Agreement.

There is an obvious spiritual dimension to the Bill. Gus Speth, a scientist who used to be the director of the Natural Resources Defense Council in the United States, said:

“I used to think that top environmental problems were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. I thought that thirty years of good science could address these problems. I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy, and to deal with these we need a cultural and spiritual transformation. And we scientists don’t know how to do that.”


Politicians, or any of us alone, cannot do that either.

Last September, Christiana Figueres showed the bishops a cartoon, which has since become well known, of a series of increasingly large waves crashing in on a small, urban shore: the pandemic, the economy, the climate and the environment. Although each needs to be addressed in its own terms, Pope Francis is right to see them as a single piece and as a challenge to the way we understand ourselves in relation to God, one another and the whole creation. The world’s faiths are all a resource for the way in which we live together in this one room of God’s creation. In our ecumenism, we have to pay attention to the economy—helpfully understood in the way of the Dasgupta review—and to the laws, ecology and wisdom of the house.

We cannot depend on techno-optimism to dig us out of a hole and we will need to answer questions about restraint. What is enough? We cannot continue to consume as we do. A new creativity is needed. There are opportunities for the UK to exercise leadership in our hosting of the G7, this week, and COP 26 in November. The big lesson of the pandemic is that we are local and global, and that in the existential issues we face no one is safe until everyone is safe. The golden rule of every religion and philosophical tradition is to do to others as we would have them do to us; it is enlightened self-interest. That has implications for the global vaccination programme and for overseas aid.

The Bill addresses the legislative framework for our care of the environment but what underlies it is the way we human beings see ourselves. In the diocese of Salisbury, which is one of the most ancient settled landscapes in Europe and has a wonderful geology hundreds of millions of years old, this bishop knows something about the humility needed in our care of the earth, as well as the creative wisdom and ambition that has given such progress to human well-being. Most people want to do the right thing. We need a legislative framework that will help us to do so, and courageous politicians capable of seeing the need for new-world thinking in the light of what we are learning from our present experience.

It has been a privilege to make a small contribution to the workings of this House and to pray for this one small room in God’s big house. I thank your Lordships for your purposeful and expert collaboration and companionship. I thank the staff of the House for their unfailing helpfulness and courteousness, and the former and present Lord Speakers and their deputies. I wish your Lordships well in your consideration of this crucial Bill and will continue to pray for you in all your deliberations.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

I am sure the House would wish me to express thanks and best wishes to the right reverend Prelate. I call the next speaker, Baroness McIntosh of Pickering.

Genocide: Bringing Perpetrators to Justice

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2021 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for tabling this debate. He can be assured that, as the Minister responsible for, among other things, human rights, I not only have listened to the sentiments expressed by noble Lords in this excellent debate but will reflect on them and take them back to ensure that they get due consideration.

From the outset, I express what I am sure are the sentiments of all: accountability for genocide and, indeed, all atrocities, is an important and impassioned issue. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, knows my great and deep respect for him personally and for his strong advocacy for human rights across the world over many years. So it is absolutely right that the Government continue to respond to debates such as these and to calls to lead the charge for accountability for perpetrators of serious international crimes. I assure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, that we are focused on the important issue of atrocity prevention. I will come to that in a moment or two.

The pursuit of international criminal justice and accountability remains at the heart of our foreign policy. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned the human rights report; that was a timely reminder, as it is currently coming across my desk. I hope that the noble Lord appreciates my personal commitment to ensuring that human rights remain very much at the heart of the work of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and of the Government. The Government remain committed to the principle that there should be no impunity for those who perpetrate the most serious crimes of international concern, and we remain at the forefront of efforts to hold perpetrators of such crimes to account.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, put forward four important points. I will pick up on just one: the veto. I have heard the sentiments of others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on this. We should certainly lead by action. The United Kingdom has not exercised its veto and it is right that, through our actions, we now have a determination to influence others in this respect. However, as I have directly experienced as Minister for the UN, the ability of the five member nations to exercise the veto remains a real challenge, particularly on some of the issues discussed previously, including the situation in Myanmar.

The UK policy remains, as has been said by a number of noble Lords, that the determination of genocide should be made by competent courts, not non-judicial bodies. This includes international courts, such as the ICC, and, indeed, national criminal courts that meet international standards. I hope that noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Forsyth, while not perhaps being fully content with my response, will appreciate that while the determination of genocide remains for the courts, and it is important they consider all the available evidence, we do not stand and wait for that determination. We act, as our approach to global human rights has shown, with the introduction of our own independent sanctions regime.

It is important to stress, however, that our approach in no way undermines the UK’s commitment to the principle that there should be no impunity for perpetrators of the most serious crimes, as illustrated by the various situations in countries highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. Let me assure her and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that we remain true and will uphold our obligations under the genocide convention. When atrocities occur, our approach is to seek an end to them and prevent further escalations, irrespective of whether they fit the definition of a specific international crime.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Goudie, my noble friend Lord Forsyth, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, rightly raised the progress being made to create the promised mechanism of a parliamentary committee to examine allegations of genocide. The provisions relating to trade agreements and genocide within the Trade Act will commence from 30 June 2021. The relevant commencement order has now been made. I will write to noble Lords, in the interest of time, on what the processes will be thereafter.

We do not agree with one central premise—and I am sure that other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Browne, will share this view—that we should act only when there has been a determination of genocide. Today’s debate has demonstrated the importance of early intervention. The United Kingdom, notwithstanding the challenges I have heard today, has been at the forefront of calling out crimes and, indeed, strengthening international action. We have demonstrated this, as my noble friend Lord Polak acknowledged, against the unspeakable actions of Daesh in Syria and Iraq, and also in calling out the appalling human rights violations in Xinjiang, among other areas.

Turning to the situation in Xinjiang, we led the first two UN statements on this issue. I know from personal experience because I led on one them. An increased number of countries now support us, but I will be clear that the challenge remains very real. Sadly and tragically, when it comes to the biggest internment of the Muslim community anywhere in the world, there are many across the world, including a large part of the Muslim world, who remain silent. We must therefore persevere in our actions to ensure broader support. In answering the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, let me assure her that we work directly with our partners to strengthen an international alliance of the willing to speak out against human rights abuses and in the case of China’s human right violations, to increase pressure on China to change its behaviour.

As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have, as I have already said, put in place national sanctions to back our actions and words. The sanctions regime calls out serious violations and human rights abuses. On 22 March, under our global human rights sanctions regime, the UK imposed asset freezes and travel bans for the first time on four senior Chinese government officials and an asset freeze on one further entity. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, rightly asked about the Modern Slavery Act and tightening supply chains. That is under way, and I have previously given a commitment that colleagues from the Home Office and the Home Secretary will be leading in that respect. On 12 January—which was the preamble to that action—the Foreign Secretary announced measures to help ensure that British businesses are not complicit in human rights violations or abuses in Xinjiang.

Noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned various live situations of concern about human rights abuses around the world. I know that recently there has been much correspondence about Ethiopia’s Tigray region and what is happening there. As I assured the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in the Queen’s Speech debate, I am taking forward specific responsibilities in my capacity as the Prime Minister’s special representative on preventing sexual violence by sending a team now, not after, to ensure that evidence can start being collected according to international standards. I can also share that I have had a summary report. Nick Dyer, who is our special envoy on humanitarian issues and famine relief, has just returned from the Tigray region.

The UK continues to support the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights on her efforts in Tigray and, as noble Lords will be aware, particularly in ensuring access to areas such as Xinjiang. We continue to lobby further support in that respect.

The UK has also been a strong supporter of accountability mechanisms. We have contributed nearly £2 million so far to the team operating to investigate Daesh in Iraq. The Government have also been clear that there must be accountability for the actions of the Burmese military and the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya community that has taken place. On 1 April, we announced a funding boost of £500,000 to the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar. Our autonomous Myanmar (Sanctions) Regulations prohibit the provision of military-related services, including the provision of technical assistance, that benefit the military regime. Support for international justice remains at the heart of our approach in this regard.

The noble Baroness, Lady Nye, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and others, raised the action of the Gambia at the ICJ. We are supportive of that. There are various dates, including the right of Myanmar to respond to the initial report. I assure noble Lords that we continue to consider where we would consider, at the appropriate time, the formal support of a UK intervention in this respect.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, talked about the International Criminal Court as a read-across to certain situations, including those of Israel. We have been clear that any international court must ensure that its mandate and its jurisdiction are upheld; it is our view that the ICC does not have jurisdiction in this case. However, we of course support the independence of the ICC and its officials. The noble Lord quoted the US position, and the UK position is clear: we provide political, financial, and practical support for the International Criminal Court. I am sure that I speak for all noble Lords regarding the excellent Joanna Korner being elected as a judge recently, backed further by our success in ensuring the first ever election of a prosecutor who is also British, Karim Khan QC.

Regarding situations elsewhere in the world and bringing perpetrators to account, my noble friend Lord Shinkwin rightly raised issues of justice and time. But we should be heartened that in 2016, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia found Radovan Karadzic guilty of genocide, crimes against humanity, and violations of the laws or customs of war, committed during the conflict in and around Bosnia and Herzegovina. This conviction brought accountability for some of the horrors of the Yugoslav wars and, following a request to the UK from the successor body to the tribunal, Radovan Karadzic will be transferred to a prison in the UK to serve his sentence. I hope that this underlines that no matter when such a crime takes place, we will continue to pursue international criminals, uphold the rule of law and ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice.

I also accept the premise rightly raised by many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Polak, on Rwanda and those who seek to be or are currently in the UK. While that case is under way, it would be remiss of me to comment too deeply, but I assure my noble friend that this was the direct purpose of a conversation that I had with President Kagame while I was in Rwanda, to give him the assurance that he needed of our commitment to ensuring that all perpetrators are held to account.

The issue of preventing atrocities was raised by the right reverend Prelate, my noble friend Lord Shinkwin and the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner. I assure all noble Lords that we work quite systematically on this important agenda, from early warning mechanisms to diplomatic engagement and development programme support, as well as defence: we use all those to strengthen the international system. They are all part of our approach to ensure that it is not just waiting; it is about acting early and quickly. As set out in our integrated review, we are committed to a more integrated approach to our work on conflict and instability, placing greater emphasis on addressing the underlying causes and strengthening the resilience, particularly of fragile countries, to external influence.

I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that, both through our trade and, indeed, our arms export licences, we remain consistent to our obligations under international law. We remain consistent in terms of the regimes in which we operate, and certainly I, as Minister for Human Rights, remain very much committed to ensuring that the issue of human rights is at the centre of our thinking, both when it comes to issues of trade and issues of arms sales. That is a case we continue to make and I know my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is cognisant of that.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised various matters and asked specific questions. I will write to him. I have mentioned the Modern Slavery Act, but I will write to him, if I may, on specific dates and timelines. I noted the commitment and the passion, and I assure noble Lords that Her Majesty’s Government remain committed to ensuring accountability and justice; within that, we work with communities on the ground to support reconciliation on the ground as well. We will demonstrate this through our political, financial and practical support to international justice and accountability mechanisms, including those of prevention, to ensure not just that the suffering of those communities around the world can be lessened but that we can prevent future atrocities from occurring.

I assure all noble Lords that we will continue to work with our international partners to ensure that, where we can, we end atrocities and that, where we can, we prevent atrocities and ultimately alleviate the suffering of those being impacted. We will never wait for the determinations of specific international crimes before taking action. It is early days on our global human rights sanctions regime, but through the 70-odd sanctions that we have currently levelled and our partnerships—we are working with key partners such as the United States, Canada, and our partners in the European Union—we have demonstrated the importance of working together with the like-minded. I hope that that provides a degree of assurance to all noble Lords who have participated in this important debate. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned the importance of partnerships, of working and listening to your Lordships’ House and our colleagues in the other place, and I assure the noble Lord of my commitment in that respect.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, had the first word and, in my summing up, he should have the last word. He quoted, among others, Eleanor Roosevelt, and there is one particular quotation of hers that really stays with me:

“The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.”


We must ensure that those who suffer at the hands of others never lose sight of their dreams. Let us help build those dreams.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, that completes the business before the Grand Committee today. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.

Committee adjourned at 6.42 pm.

Shawcross Report: Compensation for Victims

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, at the risk of repeating myself, as I have said, yes, I accept the premise of the noble Baroness’s question about the delays caused by Covid, but equally the report needs a measured response. I assure the noble Baroness and all noble Lords that we are looking at it very carefully.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, the next question, which I myself was due to ask, in strong support of the noble Lord, Lord Hay, is withdrawn because of unexpected Woolsack duties. I call the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

As I have said before, I note what my noble friend said; it is a practical suggestion and I will certainly take that back.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the second Oral Question.

Tigray

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend is right to raise the issue of the UN World Food Programme, which has provided food assistance for 2.9 million people. He will be pleased to hear that, thanks to this being a priority issue for us, we now have an envoy, Nick Dyer, who covers humanitarian issues, conflict and famine, and who has visited Ethiopia to determine what the current priorities are. As I said to noble Lords in answer to previous questions, the situation in Tigray itself remains very fluid. A lot of the details are unknown, which is why we will continue to press, as the first priority, for unfettered humanitarian access to the region.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and answered and we will now move on to the next Question.

The UK’s Relationship with the Pacific Alliance (International Relations Committee Report)

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Boateng (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I join noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and the committee for this excellent report, which shines a spotlight on the relationship between the UK and the Pacific Alliance. If I may, I want to look at that relationship in the context of the current global pandemic, which has made the whole agenda of water, sanitation and hygiene—an issue of considerable concern to the countries of the Pacific Alliance—that much more important. It presents a real opportunity to strengthen and deepen the relationship between the UK and the Pacific Alliance.

My questions for the Minister arise, therefore, from the SDGs, including our commitments in that regard and the extent to which we are working with the Pacific Alliance to promote them—particularly SDG 6 on clean water and sanitation, which is linked to SDG 5 on gender equality, which was a focus of the International Relations Committee’s report. Access to clean water and safe sanitation contributes to gender equality through its impact on women’s dignity, health and access to education and opportunities for economic empowerment.

SDG 6 will be met only if there is concerted investment in and, importantly, real focus on the part of finance Ministers and health, water and sanitation Ministers on this issue. The UK has been doing some excellent work in this regard through Sanitation and Water for All, an international alliance of those concerned to promote SDG 6. My first question is this: can the Minister assure us that SDG 6 and the FCDO’s focus on it will not be weakened as a result of the cuts that have occurred in government spending on ODA?

Secondly, can he tell us what assessment the Government have made of recent progress toward the SDGs, particularly SDG 6, in terms of the Pacific Alliance countries? What more can we do with them to take forward our work in this area? I ask that not least because, in December last year, Asian and Pacific finance Ministers met to address this very issue, which is, for understandable reasons, of particular concern to the countries of the Pacific Alliance. They have seen a rapid increase in urban populations and the need for sustainable city responses to the water, sanitation and hygiene agenda in that context, and face very real problems in relation to the pandemic. Here, I ask the Minister to give us a sense of how we are working with Mexico—a fellow G20 member—to address and take forward the commitment made in the 2020 communiqué by G20 finance Ministers to redouble efforts and support for low-income countries. Mexico stands as one of the few Latin American members of the G20. How will it work with other members of the Pacific Alliance and with us to take the SDGs forward?

I say something in support of the committee’s recommendations on achieving scholarships. My experience as a Minister and, more significantly, as Head of Mission when I was High Commissioner to South Africa, taught me that, over the years, few UK Government programmes have been more beneficial—in terms of deepening and strengthening the personal relationships that underpin national relationships—than the Chevening scholarships. Chevening alumni can always be relied on as good friends of the United Kingdom, so we ought in fact to be investing more in such scholarships. I hope that the Minister can tell us that we intend to do so in taking forward our relationship as a country with the Pacific Alliance.

Also, I would argue that we ought to focus to a greater degree on using the Chevening scholarships as a way of promoting the SDGs. Water, sanitation and hygiene rely, if you are going to have sustainable responses to the challenge that they present, on research and development. The cause relies on a relationship between the private sector, academia, governments and regulators if we are to advance it. We can use Chevening scholarships in that regard. Importantly, hopefully the Minister will be able to tell us not only that we are going to invest more in those scholarships but that his new department will utilise higher education more in terms of UK foreign and development policy. Many members of your Lordships’ House are, like me, chancellors of universities. We know what the university sector can offer in this regard. If only we had a little more support from central government and the departments—that is, a cross-departmental initiative from central government, not least utilising ODA.

Finally, can the Minister tell us how he intends to spread the word about the value of UK higher education across the Pacific Alliance, whose member states are looking to develop their higher education capacity and advance their knowledge economies? We can assist in that regard.

There is much to do. This important report makes a real contribution to strengthening and deepening the relationship. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a positive response to the questions that he has been asked in the course of this debate.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

Lord Boateng, I did not interrupt but I think I should point out that you were two minutes over the time limit.

[Lord Boateng (Lab) [V]]

My apologies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Victorian commentator on the constitution, Walter Bagehot, said in 1867 that the committees of the House of Lords, as is well known, do a great deal of work and do it very well. I think we would all agree that this is still true, over 150 years later. However, I wondered whether it was true that there might have been a quicker response in Bagehot’s day from the Government, and the House authorities as a whole, to acting on the reports of committees. I share very much the frustrations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. Not having been a member of the International Relations Committee, I was most surprised to see that its report had come out in June 2019. I was also amazed that the Government’s response took over a year. Why was this? The report is not long. It covers policy areas where the Government already had a stated policy approach. I cannot understand at all why, even in challenging circumstances, such a huge delay came about. We have to think about much tighter time limits for responses from the Government and the House authorities in finding time to debate committees’ reports.

Serendipitously, however, the report has coincided with the Government’s approach to the CPTPP, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, pointed out. There is therefore a timeliness to this debate, but by accident rather than design. I very much welcome that approach by the Government and wish them success in that venture, although some of the coverage in the newspapers yesterday struck me as ridiculously overhyped or jingoistic. It was the Express which said

“Boris Toasts Another Big Brexit Bonus … As the EU tears itself apart, Global Britain powers on”.


In fact, as we know, in most cases we are talking about continuity arrangements with these countries. The coverage also somehow perpetuated the myth that we were unable to trade with these countries while in the EU. Yet if we look at the export figures from Germany to the countries concerned, for example, we can see that they are very considerable. Germany has at least 10 times the surplus of trade that we have with them. We need to have a sense of reality when we look at these issues.

The report was very good, but I would like to follow up on one question, which I think my noble friend Lord Hain asked earlier, about the consequences of recent government cuts to aid and changes in aid policy. Have the Government assessed what the effect of recent changes will be on the countries that this report covers? I also endorse strongly the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, whose work in this area has been really interesting and impressive, while I will be interested in the response to the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Grocott on trade envoys.

Finally, I will refer briefly to Colombia. A few years ago I went to Colombia for the first time. I was rather wary of going, because of its reputation for drugs and criminality, but was bowled over by the country’s potential and particularly by its wonderful flora and fauna. I therefore ask the Government: what is happening with their partnership for sustainable growth, which they signed with Colombia last year? Will they follow up with the City of London Corporation on the evidence that it gave to the committee about the importance of green finance? Also, what progress has been made on the mutual recognition of degrees and on co-operation with Colombia in tackling crime and supporting the rule of law and judicial independence?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, the next speaker on the list, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has withdrawn, so we come to the Front-Bench speakers. I call the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.

Trees

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]]

The noble Lord makes an important point, but, as I have said, the England tree strategy will take a very long-term view. It will provide a vision for what our treescape should look like up to 2050 and probably beyond, even though the steps that it will identify relate to this Parliament. We need to and will be taking a very long-term view.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, has withdrawn, so I call the next speaker.

[Lord Astor of Hever (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the owner of woodlands. What effective guidance will the Government give to ensure that these trees are not subsequently destroyed by grey squirrels?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I cannot provide a specific numerical answer, but will follow up with a written answer. We know that a large number of ash trees will become infected, but not all will die. We expect 1% to 5% of ash trees to show some tolerance to the disease, which is heritable, so we are funding research into a future breeding programme of tolerant trees. We are also conducting the world’s largest screening trials and will be planting the first tolerant trees this year.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.

Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, if I may, I will respond to the noble Lord in writing once I understand the full context of his question. However, as I have already articulated, we are working with key P5 partners—including the key European partner in this respect, the French.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. We come to the fourth Oral Question.

Alexei Navalny

Lord Lexden Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, suffice to say that I agree with the noble Lord. I add that we have already taken quite specific actions, both through multilateral organisations such as the OPCW and specifically on issues of sanctions related directly to the Novichok poisoning of Mr Navalny. We will continue to work with partners and see what further steps we can take. As those come to bear, I will of course share them with your Lordships’ House.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.