Integrated Review: Development Aid

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Wednesday 28th April 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Alton: over many years, he has shown consistent creative thinking and action on aid, so I thank him. He highlighted Yemen and was so right; dear old Aden was part of it—that is possibly the worst problem area there is at this point in time. If the UN is worth anything, it should do more than it is doing there, and we should look at that again. He highlighted evidence on water security and was so right, as too was my noble friend Lord Polak, when he said that it is time that we reassessed the impact of the way that we are spending our money. I put forward that organisations such as Amnesty International, which stepped over the line in India and Sri Lanka, Freedom from Torture and others should all be looked at closely.

I understand the possible need for a temporary cut; I accept that it is a requirement at this point in time. However, I urge Her Majesty’s Government to make it absolutely clear exactly when they are coming back to 0.7%, and how.

I move on to the situation in the integrated review concerning the “Indo-Pacific tilt” and this axis of trade, with its choke points for navigation. This means the bottom end of India and Sri Lanka. We miss an opportunity with India: what is our high commissioner in India doing? He or she must have known that there was a huge problem blowing up, so why did we not stand by with emergency facilities ready at Brize Norton? We should follow that up now, as they are real friends and need help. The same is true of Sri Lanka, which was ignored by the West over the Tamil Tigers. It needed help to defeat these terrorists; it needs understanding on human rights and does not need to be chased with bogus evidence that is kept secret for 20 years in the Darusman report.

Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill

Lord Naseby Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 16th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I support this Bill. Before I go any further, I should declare an interest in that I have two Jack Russells. Biggleswade is where we live and our senior Jack Russell is called Biggles after the books of Captain WE Johns, which I read as a young man. He should be in the basket behind me but it was pointed out that he might object to certain contributions from your Lordships and bark, so he is outside in the sunshine.

The Bill is overdue. I wish it a smooth passage. I want to say a sincere thank you to my noble friend Lord Randall. I do not know whether everybody who is taking part in this debate, either from the Chamber or from home, has ever taken a Private Member’s Bill through the House. I have taken through one that I started—to help the mutual movement—and a couple of others that started in the other place. It takes a lot of time and effort, however it is done. I really do thank my noble friend. Without the effort that he has put in, we would not be making the progress that we are making today.

However, it is disappointing—I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench will take note of this—that this is not the first time that we in England and Wales, particularly in England, are out of step and playing catch-up with the other home nations on a small but important area of legislation. I wonder whether, because of the devolved nations being more active nowadays, we as the Government at the centre should not take a closer look at the minor Bills being promoted in other areas to see whether they are relevant to England and Wales.

I thank Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, which does a superb job. I remember visiting it when I was a councillor in the London Borough of Islington. The case histories that it has sent us are indeed harrowing and deeply worrying. It makes me wonder whether the time has come to review the Dangerous Dogs Act; that is not for this afternoon, obviously, but it is worth putting it on the record. I also hope that the fact that your Lordships’ House is dealing with the Bill expeditiously will reassure professionals such as those as Battersea.

Finally, I want to make two points. First, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, is right that law enforcement needs to be looked at. Secondly, I say again to the Whip on duty that, if necessary, I am prepared to sit on Friday 30 April—we are not scheduled to sit then—to ensure that this Bill gets on to the statute book.

INSPIRE (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that comprehensive introduction. I will start with the Explanatory Memorandum; I then have some general questions. My noble friend said that Scotland has its own regulations. Paragraph 4(1) states that the only differences are in Regulations 3 and 4. So is there any other dimension where Scotland is different to England, Wales and Northern Ireland?

To move on, Regulation 6(1) on legislative content states that it also confers temporary powers to make secondary legislation. Is there any definition of “temporary”? That seems to me to be quite important. What is the procedure if the UK, outside the EU but operating obviously within the total context, wishes to propose future changes? Are there any difficulties in that format or not?

Paragraph 10 talks about the consultation, which the Minister touched on. The phrase used is “informally engaged stakeholders”. Can we have an assurance that this informal consultation did actually contact all the normal stakeholders that we know about?

Paragraph 13 refers to regulating small businesses. As there is no definition within the context of this SI of what a small business is or is not, when does a small business become, in effect, a partner in this SI itself?

Finally, Part 2 of the SI says:

“In my view, INSPIRE … do no more than is appropriate”.


Who made the judgment on what is or is not appropriate?

Those are all my questions on the printed SI. I have a couple of questions arising from the briefings that we have received, principally from the Library. One of them says:

“In 2019, the European Commission published and implemented a decision intended to simplify the way in which INSPIRE operated.”


Although the Minister mentioned that, nothing was said about the way in which it has been simplified. Is it a matter of quantum, or some other aspect that is not self-evident to those of us who come to this only warm?

My final question is quite important. How much is it costing the UK to remain within INSPIRE? If the Minister does not know now, I rather hope he might have asked the question himself. Does it cost us anything as UK Ltd or does it not? If it does cost us something, is it on a fixed-term basis or reviewed periodically every three years, five years or whatever? That is an important element that I wanted to raise.

I have a couple of other questions. On the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, is anybody excluded? It talks about “most” UK partner bodies, but that means that somebody has been excluded. Does the Minister have anything on that? The regulations refer to working with all central government departments and all local authorities. As far as I can see, “local authorities” are not defined here. Obviously, we have counties, unitary authorities and district councils, but if we are dealing with environmental matters, they ought to cover town councils. I declare an interest, because I live in Sandy in Bedfordshire, which has a very active county council Local authorities need to make good use of the Local Government Association. That needs to be re-emphasised to those involved, because it is absolutely key to it.

I have two more questions. The regulations say that publishing INSPIRE location data requires “most” geospatial data to be published. Which bit is not published? That seems to be of some relevance. Finally, I am sorry to come back to coronavirus. Has it affected record-taking at all? Has it changed it at all? Has it slowed it down or has it in effect had no impact?

Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Wednesday 29th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I have no problem at all with the financial aspects of this SI. I think there is a big challenge with individuals and human rights; I remember Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein and Assad, all of whose communities we interfered in at huge human cost to those communities. I want to focus, though, sadly, on the Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers—LTTE—which we proscribed in 2001. It was succeeded by the Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam—TGTE—itself proscribed in Sri Lanka. It is staffed and organised by former LTTE people and yesterday it started a legal action in the courts here in the UK to lift the proscription on the Tamil Tigers.

The TGTE espouses an ideology which is almost identical to that of the LTTE; it has never denounced violence or the terrorism of the LTTE; it disseminates propaganda worldwide, targeting young people, mainly Tamils, with commemorative events, waving LTTE flags and the black tiger, et cetera. Worst of all, I think, it has never shown any remorse over child soldiers. UNICEF stated on 31 July 2005 that 5,081 underaged soldiers were recruited, 40% girls and 60% boys, and at the end of the war, 594 was the small number that were left. Still, in this country, we have Mrs Balasingham, who was the arch recruiter and trainer of the child soldiers, residing comfortably in the United Kingdom. That is a challenge we need to face.

Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) (Amendment) Regulations 2020

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I too welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. In my judgment, this is a very important subject. I happened to sit on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and I noticed, on reading the regulations and the material behind them, that it was thought that, while a vital instrument, there was no need for it to be looked at it in any detail by the Joint Committee, shared by the Commons and the Lords. I am a little surprised at that, considering the scale of what we have been talking about this afternoon, but I shall move on.

Secondly, the point was made that there may be instances of border challenges, specifically with Severn Trent in relation to Wales. I notice that the Minister did not say anything about the project involving the River Severn. I am not sure where it rises. Nevertheless, can we be reassured that, although it might not be seen by the water companies or Ofwat as important to consult our neighbours, there has been, and will always be, consultation with the devolved Parliaments?

Frankly, I am not in favour of removing sunset clauses. I had the privilege of sitting on the Public Accounts Committee for 12 years. It seems to me that when it comes to public expenditure, it is very important to have a point in time to review a situation. I am not suggesting that seven years is adequate for the scale of the infrastructure projects we have noted this afternoon. Nevertheless, I believe, and a number of my colleagues who have sat on the Public Accounts Committee would agree, that the normal time to review is quite often after 10 years. Maybe 12 years would be more appropriate —that is a matter of judgment. But I am very surprised that there is not a sunset clause and, while the tideway project is going brilliantly, there may be one that goes, or seems to go, badly wrong. A looming sunset clause is a wonderful means of focusing people’s attention.

I have two particular observations, one on reservoirs. I live in Bedfordshire, and I was a little involved in Grafham Water. My former constituency was Northampton, and I was particularly involved there with the Rutland reservoir. I am sorry to say to my colleagues who believe that the water companies do not appear to be taking nature seriously that I think the job done at Rutland was first class. Certainly, the only one I can comment on in detail is Rutland Water, and there is a huge amount being done there in relation to the impact on nature. I believe that is unjustified in relation to that project, and I support the new reservoir in Lincolnshire that is coming along.

Secondly, I question metering. I have had a water meter for years, simply because I believe it is a better way of controlling my expenditure, rather than having it done on the rateable value. Could the Minister bring noble Lords up to date on what percentage of households currently have a water meter?

Finally, for this Minister in particular, I am slightly surprised that there was no mention of the impact of climate change. All of us who are in the countryside at the moment have had incredible weather in May, and it looks as if it will return in June. We all expect climate change to have an impact, particularly on water consumption, so I am a little surprised that there has been no comment on that yet.

Nevertheless, I wish this renewal all speed, and hope very much that we might have a few answers on the questions raised, if not this afternoon then in writing afterwards.

Chemicals Regulation

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

Were it the case that the British Government felt the need to do such a thing, they would take the step that the noble Lord has outlined, but that is not the view of the British Government today. There is no need for any additional delays.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

Will my noble friend give an undertaking to consult closely with the horticultural industry, which so often is the poor cousin of the broader agricultural and chemical world?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

I am very happy to give that undertaking. As my noble friend will know, we are on the cusp of developing a new chemicals strategy. We will be putting out a call for evidence this spring and will consult on a draft strategy before its eventual publication, which currently is proposed to be in 2021-22. It will cover the full range of the UK’s approach to tackling chemicals and pesticides as used in horticulture.

Hurricane Dorian

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise that, and I refer to my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. We have been working with regional partners and, most importantly, with CDEMA, the aid agency that responds to these issues in the Caribbean. We have been bolstering its responsibility and investing with our key partners. I assure the noble Lord that my conversation yesterday with the Foreign Affairs Minister of the Bahamas focused specifically on ensuring that the technical support and the reports that we are getting reflect the type and focus of the assistance that can be provided. For example, we are working with American colleagues on ensuring that the airport is functional so that more aid and support can be provided.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

As my noble friend will recall, lessons were learned from Hurricane Irma, one of which concerned the speed of the response. Can he assure the House that we are using the facilities at Brize Norton? If planes cannot land at Nassau, they should at least land at the Cayman Islands and be trans-shipped. Can my noble friend bring us up to date? Are we using the facilities and heavy-lift equipment at Brize Norton on the ground in the Bahamas now?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My noble friend raises an important point about lessons learned. I believe that I have already indicated the importance of staying focused after Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Maria. On the specific issues raised, RFA “Mounts Bay” was the only vessel that had the ability to access the Bahamas. As many noble Lords know, the hurricane stayed over the Bahamas and at one point moved at about 1 mph, so for two consecutive days the Abaco Islands, in particular, were battered quite considerably. We provided support at the first point of access. The runway needed to be cleared to allow access and the US has been leading in providing support in that respect. In terms of the wider response, my noble friend talked about the Caymans and so on. I have been pleased that, because of co-ordination, we have seen support from the British Overseas Territories—namely, the Turks and Caicos and the Cayman Islands—in alleviating the suffering of the people of the Bahamas, and that co-ordination continues.

Sri Lanka

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Naseby]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, following the resignation of the government of the United States from the United Nations Human Rights Council where they co-sponsored with the United Kingdom Resolution 30/1 in 2015 and Resolution 34/1 in 2017, in regard to Sri Lanka, and given the progress made towards many aspects highlighted in the resolutions, what assessment they have made of whether to annul or withdraw those resolutions.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, it is my privilege to introduce this debate this evening. In doing so, I declare an interest in that I started the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Sri Lanka in 1975 and had the privilege of being made its honorary president four years ago.

In a sense, this evening is almost an auspicious day in Sri Lankan terms. Yesterday was the 71st anniversary of the independence of Sri Lanka, so it is no young nation—indeed, it is a very senior nation—and, in democratic terms, it is looked upon as the leading democracy in that part of the world, with regular elections, Governments changing here and there, and so far, thankfully, no sign of any dictator.

The reason for this evening’s debate is very straightforward. I thought about this six months ago and realised that the UN Motions on Sri Lanka will be reviewed in March 2019—that is, next month—by the UNHCR in Geneva, and I decided to initiate a debate. It is, after all, nearly four years since the resolutions were passed, having originally been moved by the US and the UK. They were co-sponsored by the Government of Sri Lanka, who welcomed help along the way.

There are two resolutions: one was adopted in September 2015 and the other in March 2017. The key point about them is that they promoted reconciliation, accountability and human rights in Sri Lanka. The cause was really the war in Sri Lanka, and the end of that war has resulted in Eelam being something that nobody in Sri Lanka, other than the Tamil Tigers, really wants. Certainly it is not wanted today and it is not wanted by India. However, unfortunately the UN received the Darusman report, which indicated that 40,000 civilians had been killed.

I have done a great deal of research. Nearly three years ago I made a request under the Freedom of Information Act and secured the publication of Colonel Gash’s dispatches to the United Kingdom. I have 40 pages of them here, some of which have been totally redacted, and I shall quote from one this evening. It is the dispatch of 16 February 2009 and concerns 400 IDPs being transferred from the fighting area to Trincomalee. Colonel Gash writes:

“The operation was efficient and effective, but most importantly was carried out with compassion, respect and concern. I am entirely certain that this was genuine—my presence was not planned and was based on a sudden opportunity”.


There are many more references in the dispatches to the fact that it was never a policy of the Sri Lankan Government to kill civilians.

I have one other reference that I think is useful. It comes from the University Teachers for Human Rights, which is essentially a Tamil organisation. It says:

“From what has happened we cannot say that the purpose of bombing or shelling by the government forces was to kill civilians … ground troops took care not to harm civilians”.


There is a host of other references but I shall quote one more:

“Soldiers who entered the No Fire Zone on 19th April 2009 and again on the 9th and 15th May acted with considerable credit when they reached … civilians. They took risks to protect civilians and helped … the elderly who could not walk. Those who escaped have readily acknowledged this”.


Again, that provides proof.

Interestingly, the US has now withdrawn from being a sponsor. My personal guess, following some inquiries, is that the US Government now assess that the Sri Lankan Government have done a huge amount to meet the UN requirements, so they see very little purpose in prolonging what is in effect almost a policing surveillance of the actions of another sovereign state which is now 71 years old. Nevertheless, I think it is right to evaluate what has happened over the last four years.

I pay tribute to Her Majesty’s Government for some of the help they have given, particularly in the reconciliation process, through their Conflict, Stability and Security Fund. The HALO Trust has done a wonderful job. I have visited the de-mining operation on two occasions and have seen the very careful work of a Sri Lankan individual clearing one square metre a day. It is very dangerous work and is being done beautifully, so I thank all those involved and look forward to the day in 2020 when the million-plus mines will have been removed.

The UK has also assisted in setting up the Office on Missing Persons. Reflecting on the work I have done, I have noticed that more and more missing persons have reappeared. I received notification three weeks ago of a well-known Tamil activist appearing in the middle of France, complete with wife and children. I believe that this is not terribly unusual, but it is quite some time since the war ended and people are still reappearing.

The Sri Lankan Government have set up their Office for Reparations, which is useful and doing good work. They have also set up a framework for a truth and reconciliation commission. This is absolutely vital in my judgment. It means that all those who were involved have to be prepared to come and give evidence, including members of the LTTE who have disappeared to Canada, the USA or Australia. They must be subpoenaed to attend; otherwise the process will be totally one-sided. Even in the UK, we still have people such as Mrs Balasingham who was a real activist for the LTTE in the recruitment of child soldiers.

I understand why the Sri Lankan Government believe that the judges should be Sri Lankan; I think that they are right. If nothing else, the recent argument in the Supreme Court indicated that the Supreme Court rules supreme in Sri Lanka, whatever the politicians might think. There is a new counterterrorism Act on the way; 90% of the land requisitioned during the war has now been returned to the original citizens; 880,000 displaced people have been resettled, which is a huge achievement, by any yardstick, for any country; and 12,000 former LTTE cadres have been rehabilitated and integrated back into society—I have met some of them, and they are most grateful for what was done for them.

In reality, Sri Lanka has taken positive steps on the four pillars of transitional justice: truth, reconciliation, accountability and guarantees of non-recurrence, which must be taken into account by the Human Rights Council. Add to this the continuing co-operation, almost on a daily basis, with human rights people on the ground in Sri Lanka and the question has to be asked: what is the point of continuing with these resolutions?

It is 10 years, almost to the day, since the end of the war. Surely now is the time for closure and to let this proud country stand on its own two feet. Is it really a good use of resources for Sri Lanka to be monitored by the West almost every day? My view as president of the all-party group is: no, it is not. Frankly, I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench, too easily do we forget what a good friend Sri Lanka has been to the UK over decades. When it was a colony, thousands of Sri Lankans volunteered for the two World Wars. Indeed, the eighth-largest number of people who gave their lives for us in the United Kingdom were from this small island; and, as my noble friend must know, Sri Lanka was one of just seven countries to support us over the Falklands War.

There is a very old adage, “Keep your friendships in repair”. Today, there is peace in Sri Lanka. You can go wherever you like. In the north, the infrastructure is repaired—that is pretty crucial—and the trains run on time. They do not run on time on the Peterborough line, I can tell you. The final proof of the normality of life are the 254,176 visitors from the UK who went to Sri Lanka in 2018—up 20%. They voted with their money and feet. I submit that Her Majesty’s Government should do the same in Geneva: recognise the good, genuine work done, show some leadership, bring closure to the UN resolution and, in doing so, make it quite clear that there were not 40,000 civilians killed—and, if it helps, I will give all the evidence I have to my noble friend on the Front Bench, so that he can be totally convinced that that is indeed the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I too welcome the opportunity that the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, has given us to address the issues in Sri Lanka. There is no doubt that there has been progress but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, it has been glacial. When we talk about truth, reconciliation and—the most important element—peace, we must not forget accountability. That is vital to ensure that reconciliation is sustainable. From the response to a number of Written Questions, it certainly seems clear that the United Kingdom remains committed to the full implementation of the UN Human Rights Council resolutions, particularly Resolution 34/1. As the noble Baroness also highlighted, there has been such limited progress on accountability.

There is therefore a clear expectation among the Sri Lanka core group in Geneva, consisting of the United Kingdom and Germany, to ensure the adoption of a further rollover resolution at the upcoming Human Rights Council session, with the co-sponsorship of the Government of Sri Lanka. However, there is a great deal of concern that support from the Sri Lankan Government, which emanates largely from their Prime Minister’s office and is perhaps better described as grudging acquiescence, could be derailed in the light of the open conflict between the Prime Minister and President of Sri Lanka, especially after the events of last December, as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover.

It would be easy to see the President seeking to gain political advantage by making a stink of the notion that the Prime Minister’s party, the UNP, is selling out war heroes. The fact that we are having this debate leads me to think that there is absolutely no room for complacency. It is important to refocus our minds on the central reason that Sri Lanka came before the HRC in the first place: allegations of atrocity crimes. The fact is that these have not in any sense been addressed.

In his debate in October 2017, which I also participated in, the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, argued that the Government should drop their call for a credible accountability process to look into the wartime violations in Sri Lanka, in view of the exonerating contents of a series of confidential wartime British diplomatic dispatches obtained from the FCO via FoI request. The noble Lord referred to that again this evening. As it happens, in June 2018 Private Eye referred to the Sri Lanka Campaign’s similar request for FoI over these dispatches. Its assessment suggested in particular that the casualty figures to which the noble Lord referred did not represent the independent assessment of the UK military’s attaché, but rather were derived from UN Country Team estimates, which have been in the public domain since 2009 and remarked upon by subsequent UN investigations for the conservative nature of their methodology.

The other thing in that debate was giving the wrong impression that the statement “no cluster munitions were used” was attributable to, and represented the independent assessment of, the UK military attaché. As Private Eye revealed, this was in fact a description of the position of the then Sri Lankan Defence Secretary, Gotabaya Rajapaksa, an alleged perpetrator of grave human rights violations. Sadly, your Lordships’ debate of 14 months ago continues to be used by hardliners in Sri Lanka to erode efforts to bring about a meaningful process of accountability and reconciliation for wartime atrocities. For example, in July last year, GL Peiris, a member of the former regime and Mahinda Rajapaksa ally, wrote to the new UK Foreign Secretary, calling on him to withdraw the UN Human Rights Council resolution on Sri Lanka, in view of the “entirely flawed” basis for it, as revealed by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby.

Many are concerned about how that FoI request and the dispatches will be used to sway international public opinion at crunch time at the Human Rights Council in March— next month. Therefore it is important to correct the dangerous and unhelpful narrative that the original debate of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, has helped to foment in Sri Lanka.

If we are talking about anniversaries, as documented in great detail by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights’ 2015 investigation—

[Lord Naseby]

My freedom of information request was duly passed to me. It is my privilege, according to the judge of the First-tier tribunal, to use that information as I see fit. I am more than happy to give copies to all Front-Bench persons present, and will make sure that happens immediately. However, those dispatches are not written by me, they are written by the official attaché from the United Kingdom who served throughout the war and was at the front line during that war.

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

I am grateful for the offer. I am sorry it has come 14 months late, but I would have appreciated—and certainly the campaign for Sri Lanka would have appreciated—copies earlier. That is why, according to Private Eye, it put in its own FoI requests and has got the material. The important point about the narrative that we have heard this evening, which the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, also made, is that we want to see the full implementation of the resolution, which has not been properly addressed and certainly in no way can be considered fully addressed.

I want to point out something in that report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in 2015 into the final stages of the civil war. On this day—5 February—10 years ago, the UN, the International Committee of the Red Cross and medical workers were finally forced to evacuate from PTK hospital. For three weeks, the hospital had been subjected to intense shelling by suspected government forces, which continued despite—or perhaps because of—the GPS co-ordinates having been communicated to them. It was the only hospital in the war zone that was equipped with an operating theatre, where hundreds of patients were being treated. To quote the report:

“Witnesses told investigators that as shells fell, people ran to take cover, including several patients who ran towards bunkers located outside the hospital, carrying their intravenous drips with them”.


An attack on 3 February,

“hit a ward with women and children, killing at least four patients and injuring at least 14 others. The hospital was hit again during the following evening, damaging the children’s ward, reportedly killing seven people, including one medical staff member and a baby … One hospital worker described the situation in the hospital by 4 February as ‘carnage’, the likes of which she had never seen before”.

As we approach the 10th anniversary of these events, I hope the Minister will join me in expressing concern that, despite the various promises made by the Government of Sri Lanka before the Human Rights Council in October 2015, they have not yet succeeded in holding accountable a single member of the Sri Lankan armed forces for those appalling atrocities. I hope that he will reassure us that we will seek full implementation of those UN resolutions.

British Overseas Territories: Same-Sex Marriage

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Monday 23rd July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

First, on the latter point, I assure the noble Lord that we work very constructively with our British Overseas Territories to ensure that they comply with international obligations. Indeed, the progress we have seen in Bermuda is reflective of the fact that equality for all citizens, including members of the LGBT community, is safeguarded and that they will continue to be able to play a full and active role in the future. On the specific issue of equal marriage, as I said, we are engaging constructively and it remains the British Government’s position. The noble Lord mentioned the 2012 paper. The basis of that was to encourage and continue to support the overseas territories to make progress on this important issue directly themselves.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

Will my noble friend confirm—and I declare an interest as vice-chairman of the all-party Cayman group—that, particularly in the Caribbean, a number of the overseas territories have their own constitution to deal with domestic matters? As I understand it, in their view the subject raised by this Question is a domestic issue. They have elected Members of Parliament. Those Parliaments debate these issues, and surely it is for those Parliaments, which after all represent the people living in those islands, to decide what is appropriate or not.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, as I have already said, of course we respect the rights of our British Overseas Territories to decide their own domestic issues, but it is also important that on issues of fairness the Government of the United Kingdom continue to hold constructive discussions, as we do in broader terms as well. I am minded to quote my right honourable friend the Prime Minister when she addressed this important issue in the context of the Commonwealth conference:

“As a family of nations we must respect one another’s cultures and traditions. But we must do so in a manner consistent with our common value of equality, a value that is clearly stated in the Commonwealth Charter ... Nobody should face persecution or discrimination because of who they are or who they love. And the UK stands ready to support any Commonwealth member wanting to reform outdated legislation that makes such discrimination possible”.


It is a constructive, progressive approach, and is the same approach that we adopt with our British Overseas Territories.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL]

Lord Naseby Excerpts

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 21st May 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Naseby]

Leave out “agree” and insert “disagree”.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 22A I declare an interest as vice-chairman of the All-Party Group for the Cayman Islands; I also have family working in financial services in the Cayman Islands.

Last weekend, 100,000 people lined the route of the wedding party. There was great joy there and in the rest of the country. Some 100,000 people in the overseas territories shared the joy of the Royal Family, except that every one of them was fearful for the future of their families. As matters stand today, what happened in the Commons—we have now heard from the Minister that the Government are not prepared to overturn it—is a catastrophe for financial services in the overseas territories. That cannot be taken lightly.

Your Lordships will remember that Prime Minister Cameron, who started the idea of public registers, thought he should lead in the world. He did not work out, however, what the impact would be on the rest of the overseas territories. He was more interested, I suspect, to lead, and to lead at a time when, if you look at our own Companies House, you cannot today get a really up-to-date situation on a great many companies, because Companies House is rarely up to date. Indeed, Companies House looks carefully at perhaps only one-third of companies that register. So that is not the answer. Why did Her Majesty’s Government not think a little further at that time about what was going to happen?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for an extensive, well-reasoned, well-argued and expert debate in your Lordships’ House. I am grateful in particular to my noble friend Lord Naseby, who presented a case for the overseas territories which I empathise with. Noble Lords who were in the Chamber when I opened this debate would have heard the points that I made. I will respond to a few specific points and questions raised, but I want first to set the record straight. First and foremost, the Government’s position is what it was when the Bill left your Lordships’ House. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, the Government defeated the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. That was done because of reasoned debate and expert insight, which has been reflected in your Lordships’ House again today.

As my noble friend Lord Hunt said, my noble friend Lord Naseby has allowed us all an opportunity again to demonstrate the wisdom, insight and expertise your Lordships have, but the point of principle highlighted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, remains: notwithstanding the valuable discourse that we have had, the House of Commons has sought to vote otherwise. In that regard, I want to clarify a few points.

My noble friend Lord Northbrook mentioned that it was a government amendment. Of course, it was not; it was tabled from the government Benches—it was a joint amendment. In light of the support that the amendment had gathered, the Government decided not to oppose it. My noble friend Lord Naseby referred to the Government’s amendment being tabled late in the day. Let me assure my noble friends and your Lordships’ House that we had been in extensive negotiations with many Members of Parliament, including those of other parties and most notably the Scottish National Party, on the important issues of the constitution and about this Parliament voting on something that would apply to parliaments that did not have a say in the debate taking place—a point well made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. We were trying to find a way forward that respected both the drive for transparency, which many noble Lords have raised today, and the constitutional settlement with the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. It was also important that we continued to do this to reach the cross-party consensus that was being sought. We brought further amendments forward on 30 April and brought that to the attention of the House to find that consensus. That is why conversations were still ongoing throughout that morning. The amendment we tabled was taken as in order but, as I said in my opening remarks, it was not then debated or taken for debate by the Speaker of the House of Commons.

That said, we have had an extensive debate. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who I see is not in his place as such, asked for comment on the Foreign Affairs Committee’s report. We are looking at that report, which was issued this morning, carefully but the Prime Minister has made the general principle clear. I say to all noble Lords that there is not a difference between ourselves and the Governments of the overseas territories. Everyone wants to see us tackle illicit finance effectively. Let me assure the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that it remains a priority for this Government and that we will continue to take a leading role in this respect.

The noble Lord, Lord Beith, my noble friend Lord Naseby and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay all touched on the important issues of the constitutional arguments. Our position in the light of the circumstances set out in the 2012 White Paper has not changed. We believe that the fundamental structure of our constitutional relationships is the right one. Of course, we retain the power to legislate directly and have done so, as I said in my opening remarks, but in this case we would prefer not to have done so without consent. However, as we have all heard, we are all in this situation since the decision taken by the House of Commons.

My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay raised how this provision will come into force. As I always do, I listened carefully to his insight on this matter and I can confirm that it will not come into force through Royal Assent; it will come into force and commence by regulations. We need to establish the detail, as he said, but I listened carefully to the points he raised in this respect.

My noble friend Lord Faulks asked about the next Bill and I again pay tribute to his efforts in this regard. Let me assure him once again that we have committed to bring forward legislation early in the next Session on the important issue, which he has raised during debate on this Bill, of the register of overseas companies that own UK property. We anticipate that that register will be ready for use in 2021.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, pointed to other jurisdictions such as Gibraltar. At this point, I acknowledge the contributions of my noble friend Lord Naseby and other noble friends, and noble Lords across the Chamber, who acknowledged the efforts that our overseas territories have made. While I totally accept the principle highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, of the importance of transparency—of seeing that flow of illicit finance coming to an end—let us not forget that, in the UK, we have a public register. This is not a panacea to end this issue. It needs concerted action, which is why I have been vocal in my defence of the overseas territories and not just, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, pointed out, because I am the Minister responsible. Genuinely, when we look at the track record from the overseas territories—the exchange of notes that are operational and which we are reporting back on, or the accessibility for tax and law enforcement agencies—those jurisdictions have been co-operating fully and effectively. That is why I, as the Minister responsible, made that robust defence of the overseas territories. Not only has progress been made; the overseas territories are ahead of the curve. There is just not a case for not doing something until the others catch up, as they are already fully co-operating.

Several noble Lords alluded to the EU list. Anguilla, Bermuda, the BVI, the Cayman Islands and all three Crown dependencies are not included on any list because they are deemed to have been holding back by the EU Code of Conduct Group. They have been put on lists and acknowledged for being co-operative jurisdictions. All our Crown dependencies and overseas territories with financial centres are already committed to global tax transparency standards, which we all agree on, and the commitments that they have made go beyond those. I say again for the record that there is no grey list. All the overseas territories, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, highlighted, have made great strides, ahead of many other jurisdictions, in ensuring that they adhere not to any international standard but to the principles of ensuring that they can address the fact that law authorities and tax authorities can access such registers.

That said, we are in a position where the other place has decided—on a cross-party basis in certain respects, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said—that it is its will to go forward with public registers for the overseas territories, and it is the Government’s position that we have accepted that point of the elected Chamber. In doing so, though, I assure my noble friend Lord Naseby and others who have spoken about the overseas territories that from a government perspective we will seek to ensure that we collaborate and co-operate fully and work with the overseas territories to ensure that we get the results we want. We do not want to disable the overseas territories and we do not want them to lose out, but there is a reality of decisions that this Parliament has taken, and they have implications. We need to ensure that we work effectively and collaboratively with those overseas territories to ensure that we can still sustain and strengthen their economies for years to come.

I put on record for my noble friend Lord Naseby that I am very grateful to him for once again allowing me to articulate the Government’s position and my position as the Minister responsible for the overseas territories. I am also grateful for, as I am sure my noble friend has acknowledged, the great and wise expertise that we have heard from around your Lordships’ House, demonstrating again the wise insight on this subject and many. However, mindful of the fact that the other place has decided to pursue the issue of public registers with the overseas territories, an amendment that the Government have now accepted, I hope that after listening to the debate my noble friend is minded to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Naseby]

My Lords, those were fine words from the Minister, and we have heard fine words from my colleagues who have supported me this evening. I hope those fine words have some strength behind them. Many noble Lords will know that I have been in the two Houses for 44 years. I deeply respect the rights of the House of Commons, so it is not with an easy heart that I resist the temptation to test the views of this House.

I have reflected deeply on this. I am trusting my noble friend on the Front Bench to move this forward. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern said: justice for all—which means, in particular, justice for all the overseas territories. I shall watch, be vigilant and challenge, but on this occasion I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 22A withdrawn.