Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 7th November 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

36: Clause 18, page 10, line 9, leave out subsection (1)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the Minister’s power to engage in any conduct in relation to any matter dealt with in the Northern Ireland Protocol, not otherwise authorised by this Act, if the Minister considers it appropriate to do so.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I move Amendment 36. As with previous amendments of a similar character, I am grateful for the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge.

Clause 18 was neatly described by the former Treasury counsel Sir Jonathan Jones as the “do whatever you like” clause. It was unclear in Committee in the Commons what the Government’s intention behind the clause was. Michael Ellis, the then Paymaster-General, said that the Government needed Clause 18, which is a power to give legal effect to a Minister’s conduct in carrying out their duties. He said:

“It simply makes clear, as would normally be taken for granted, that Ministers will be acting lawfully when they go about their ministerial duties in support of this legislation.”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/7/22; col. 1004.]


It is a great relief that we need a Minister to state that. It was quite telling that he said that they needed this power to make their conduct lawful, which would normally be taken for granted.

However, the seriousness is that there has been little explanation on what that “conduct” would be. The Government’s delegated powers memorandum did not explain it. Perhaps that is because they consider this not to be delegated power. The Explanatory Memorandum did, however, give some examples, including issuing guidance. As Michael Ellis indicated, it would also be instructing civil servants. The concern is that we have many other examples where legislation frames the conduct of providing guidance. As the Hansard Society and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee have highlighted, this is one example of disguised legislation. Powers on providing guidance can, in effect, have legal effect. For example, my reading of this clause suggests that it is so broad that it would allow a Minister to issue guidance, which is non-statutory, but also issue instructions that that guidance needs to be followed—which, in effect, is statutory. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that that is not within the scope of this clause.

The Hansard Society has sought an exhaustive list of how conduct can be described. If we are to be avoiding hidden legislation, the Government need to be clear in what they seem to do. In the UK Internal Market Act, which has been referred to previously in Committee, I tried to find some equivalent—and there is some equivalent when it comes to the powers of Ministers to provide guidance. However, there are a number of subsections on that power which restrict the Minister’s ability to provide that. Crucially, there is a statutory duty for Ministers to consult with those who would be in receipt of the guidance on the operation of the Act.

Finally, the DPRRC said:

“Despite its being highly unusual and its breadth, the exercise of the power in clause 18 will have no parliamentary oversight since it is subject to no parliamentary procedure.”


Previously in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said that this is not what we do when it comes to breaking international law. This is not how we should be making laws—so broad, and with potentially few restrictions. The Minister simply says that this is about what they do already. If that is the case, why is it necessary? If it is necessary, what they intend to do with it should be spelled out exactly. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response and to those who have taken part. I felt that I was agreeing 100% with the contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, but then I started to have doubts when the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, said he agreed with two-thirds of it. I will come back on that in just a second.

In all seriousness, I am concerned about what the Minister said. If this power, which is not framed and not specific, is guidance for industry then that is now in direct contradiction with the requirement on Ministers to provide guidance on the operation of the internal market, under the internal market Act, for Northern Ireland. Section 48, which I understand is being repealed by this Bill, as we have discussed, has a requirement on Ministers to consult before guidance is published. Under Section 12 of the internal market Act it is a legal duty for Ministers to consult Northern Ireland departments before guidance is issued. Draft guidance must be issued first. To some extent, that is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, made about inclusiveness before measures.

If Clause 18 can be used by Ministers—guidance for industry, as the Minister said twice—that is far weaker than the legal requirements, and I do not understand the interaction between the two. That is a significant problem. I would be grateful if the Minister could write to explain how guidance for industry will be operated under other parts of the legislation whereas they can simply decide to do it under Clause 18 because there are no restrictions, requirements or oversight of that whatever—there is no requirement for anything in draft.

That is important, given the subtext of this serious debate and the fact that—as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, indicated—Vice-President Šefčovič is in London at the moment. The Minister did not state whether any Ministers are meeting the vice-president on his visit. I am happy to be intervened on if wishes to clarify whether, during the vice-president’s visit to London, any senior Ministers are meeting him.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

This was the subject of conversation, but the noble Lord will be aware that my right honourable friend is currently in Sharm el-Sheikh on government business with the COP. We certainly sought to see whether they could meet on this particular occasion, but I will update the noble Lord as and when it happens.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister.

When the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, says that he is miles away from the situation, I have known him long enough to suspect that there is a wee bit of code there. He is probably actually pretty close to knowing what is going on, and I suspect that he is right. I worry, because the Government are not engaging widely, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said, or consulting. We have not had sight of what is on the table; we know what the EU has put on the table but not what the UK Government have put on the table. My fear is that, if the Government told us what was on the table, many people would be disappointed that they are only technical talks. Some people want them to be negotiations.

That comes on to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. I respect and understand his disagreement with the Government’s position—the Government want to mend it, not end it, and, as I understand it, the noble Lord thinks there is a more substantial issue with that. Ministers have said they want to fix it, not nix it. If you want to mend it, not end it, there are mechanisms, but there are also mechanisms if you want to end it. As Article 13 of the protocol states, it lasts as long as it lasts:

“Any subsequent agreement between the Union and the United Kingdom shall indicate the parts of this Protocol which it supersedes”—


so, if there is another treaty, this ends. There is nothing special about that; that is every treaty. A treaty lasts for as long as it lasts, and if there is a subsequent treaty then there is a subsequent treaty. So the noble Lord’s beef is not with us; it is presumably with the Government in order to open up the element of the withdrawal agreement and the associated TCA that he thinks are in contradiction.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

Would the noble Lord deal with the Article 50 point? If it is intrinsically temporary and transitional, can it last for ever?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

That is the point. We have now legislated for it, and the element we have legislated for includes Article 13.8, which is the process by which it would be superseded. I do not think there is any doubt about it; the noble Lord may have doubt in his mind about it, but in the other agreements there are mechanisms if we wish to open them.

The difficulty with this process taking such a long time is that if we were in grave and imminent peril—the Government have invoked the defence of necessity—then we would have anticipated some urgent, high-level talks to have resolved this by now. Regrettably, we are back to a situation where the stakes are getting higher because expectations are higher, but the reality, perhaps, is that some of these talks are technical.

With the greatest respect for the Minister, who I know tried to offer clarification, I am worried about what this power could be used for, and we will need to return to this. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 36 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I will allow a couple of seconds for people who have obviously got it off their chest during the first group to leave, in the hope that we do not go through the whole thing again.

Clause 19 is very short, at only a couple of paragraphs, but it is quite interesting, as it pleasingly addresses the situation we may find ourselves in where the Government have been successful in reaching an agreement with the European Union. Many of us have said, time and again, throughout this Committee, that we hope to see that. We have been challenging Ministers, as we have seen in the previous group, to show visible political leadership. The visibility has been lacking. I take on board what the Minister said about his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary playing an active role, but visibility and political momentum have been lacking. I like to think that, had one of my right honourable friends been leading these events, we would have seen a far more outward-facing presence, if I can put it that way, through this process—but never mind.

Clause 19 looks at the eventuality of there being an agreement. The amendment I have tabled is one that will be familiar by now to noble Lords who have been taking part in this process from the first day of our considerations. The first line of the clause, as it stands, says that:

“A Minister of the Crown may, by regulations, make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate”.


I have asked that “appropriate” be changed to “necessary”, and I will explain why, in this particular instance, that is sensible.

This clause gives Ministers the power to implement an agreement that they hope to reach with the EU. Obviously—and we accept this—Ministers will need some flexibility in that event, and things may need to be done as a consequence of having an agreement. But I would have thought that an agreement, by its nature, would be clear and specific, and that things would be agreed that are not currently in place that would need to happen. In that instance, surely the things that need to be done by Ministers will, by virtue of the fact that they have just been agreed to with our negotiating partners, meet the test and be necessary.

It troubles me that the Government feel they should have “appropriate” there instead. That seems to give them much greater scope than is ever going to be needed in the event that this clause is used—and we hope that it will be. I would like to know from the Minister what the Government’s thinking is there, beyond thinking that “necessary” is too tight and just wanting to allow themselves a bit more room—of course they do; who would not? But this clause deals with the fact that there may be an agreement, and I do not think it is justified for the power to be as widely drawn as it is.

While I am on my feet, I note that I support the stand part notice from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in this case as well. The DPRRC believes that the powers in this clause are just too widely drawn, though there is obviously merit in discussing what powers are needed in the event of an agreement and what the role of Parliament should be in that situation. We think that a deal can be struck—we have said that many times—and also believe that Parliament should have the opportunity to debate any agreement, as other Parliaments will. I just note that the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 was passed in a day and the TCA was ratified without direct parliamentary process. We accept that Ministers need the ability to act in the event of an agreement and we appreciate the Government demonstrating their anticipation of such an agreement in this clause, which is notable, but surely a Bill to enact an agreement would be better. That is what we have been asking for.

This is a discussion we have had with the Government on many occasions and on other agreements, when we have talked about the unsatisfactory process we still have in this country for parliamentary involvement in agreements. We do not think we have got it right yet; that is understandable, and it is perhaps going to take some time to get to that point. We have not had to engage in this for many years, but I do not think that many people in Parliament are satisfied with the way this works at the moment, and it would be helpful if the Minister could acknowledge that.

Without being too cheeky about it, we want to help the Government, given just how unsuccessful they have been so far in settling these issues. We do not see why they would be so resistant to involvement from people who are being very positive and cheering them on in their endeavours. We really do want to see a resolution to this. With that, I beg to move the amendment in my name and express my support for the stand part notice tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

We support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness. In supporting it, I want to make two points. First, this clause effectively turns the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act principles on their head. We have well-established mechanisms, which are set down in statute, on how we approve new international agreements. If this is a mechanism to replace the Northern Ireland protocol, an internationally made agreement, with a new agreement, then why is the CRaG process, which allows parliamentary scrutiny, debate and, unlike this, an ability to have enhanced approvals or indeed vetoing by Parliament, not going to be the route for it? I do not understand why.

Secondly, it also sets on its head every commitment that has been provided for every trade agreement: namely, that if a trade agreement requires any primary legislation to bring it into effect in domestic law, primary legislation is brought forward—this is not done by regulation. But, again, this is being set on its head. The Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill is coming up, which is primary legislation—not regulation —implemented with agreement. The two Bills contradict each other really quite glaringly.

I think that this is significant because of an interaction I had with the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, on one of the previous days in Committee. I asked him whether he had given consideration—if there is, as a result of these talks, an agreement with the EU—as to how that should be put in force. The Government are saying “by regulations”, which are unamendable and could even be under a negative process; they could use Clause 19 to do this. If the noble Lord’s concern—as well as that of the noble Lord, Lord Empey—was about the need for consent, this is not the means by which that would be secured. Yet this is the means by which the Government could enforce it. There is a very jarring comparison between what consent of any new agreement would be and how the Government are seeking powers under Clause 19 to enable them to put this into force. Clause 19 should not be the mechanism by which we have sustainable support for any agreement. An order-making power for a Minister is simply not the route—and that is in addition to the fact that they are turning on their heads long-standing practices by which we put international agreements into domestic legislation. For this reason, I do not think that Clause 19 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I speak briefly to support Clause 19 not standing part of the Bill. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, have very eloquently explained some of the problems with this clause. Equally, I have a concern about just changing the word “appropriate” to “necessary”, because we had a relevant agreement with the EU—the withdrawal agreement, part of which is the Northern Ireland protocol—and we have passed extensive legislation for that agreement. Yet government Ministers consider both this Bill and this clause “necessary”, even though it may break international law and may tear up the agreement that we have enshrined into our law. So were this clause to stay—and, indeed, were this Bill to become an Act—there would simply be the possibility that a Minister would no longer need to come to Parliament, Parliament would have no say and our whole parliamentary democracy would be turned on its head, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, described. I would like to hear from my noble friend the Minister how this is consistent with our normal constitutional safeguards in our democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will excuse me if I say that I do not have an instant response to that, but I will certainly talk to my officials and, if there are details to provide, I shall of course provide them to the noble Lord.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

There is nothing in Clause 19 on consent. If there is an agreement, what is the Government’s position on securing consent for it?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My understanding is that we would certainly abide by our previous commitments in that respect. In the interests of clarity, I will confirm that in writing to the noble Lord.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I stress, not for the first time from the Dispatch Box by myself or my noble friends on the Front Bench, that the Government’s preference remains for a negotiated solution.

The Chamber and the other place have heard from representatives of the unionist community that the presence of the European Court of Justice in the protocol is at the heart of the democratic deficit issue. Absent the provisions of Clause 20, we could end up in an incoherent position whereby substantive provisions of the protocol are disapplied but new CJEU case law associated with those provisions continues to apply. For that reason, and the others I have outlined, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. I emphasise that bringing back the democratic institutions in Northern Ireland is the Government’s priority.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, my noble friend Lord Cormack and others raised the matter of engagement with Northern Ireland politicians. I look to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, as well, on this matter, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, touched upon it too in his submission to your Lordships at this stage. This is an important point. The Government have committed to ensuring that representatives of the Northern Ireland Executive are invited to be part of the United Kingdom delegation in meetings of the specialised and joint committees discussing Northern Ireland matters, which are also attended by the Irish Government. Also, when the Northern Ireland Executive was functioning, the then Foreign Secretary regularly met the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, along with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to discuss the protocol.

However, to reiterate the principal point, the point which brings this Bill before your Lordships’ House, the institutions are not functioning, and precisely because of the protocol. We will continue to engage, but the protocol has made things that bit more difficult.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The Advocate-General will have had the opportunity to reflect on a previous day in Committee, when concerns about the single electricity market were raised. A key component is EU law, which is not in question. How does the Advocate-General anticipate that the joint regulatory system operating under our approach and that of the EU can operate if EU law cannot be interpreted?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, interpretation of foreign law is a matter with which all three jurisdictions in the United Kingdom are familiar. With the noble Lord’s leave, because my remit does not extend to the operation of the single electricity market, which, as he said, was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in an earlier group, I will defer to my noble friends on the Front Bench and will write to the noble Lord on that point. I am grateful to him for his forbearance.

I cannot properly address the possibly important proposition raised by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, in his submission to your Lordships, anent having the Government of Ireland lead the European Union in terms of negotiations. That matter will have been heard by others in the Government and given appropriate significance. It is a novel proposition expressed with the noble Lord’s customary force. I am sure that the Government will look at it.

The noble Lords, Lord Dodds of Duncairn and Lord Empey, gave us the historical background and again laid emphasis which was valuable to us all regarding the importance of the cross-community aspect of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. As I have said, briefly, the CJEU’s position has been identified as a major obstacle.

Your Lordships’ Committee heard something about the value to be given to polling; I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, raised that as an earlier stage, contrasting polls with actual democratic exercises. However, I can say to the Committee that polling carried out by Queen’s University in Belfast has indicated that with people who have concerns about the operation of the protocol, the CJEU and its presence and status was identified as a significant problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

With the utmost respect to my noble friend’s question, I do not feel I can go further from the Dispatch Box on what has taken place or what I consider likely to take place in negotiations from this point.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

Before I do, I say that, in response to an earlier point on which I undertook to write, I am notified from the Box that the matter of the single electricity market and the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction is covered in a letter being sent to the noble Lord today.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

That gives me an opportunity to thank the Minister for his efficiency. I look forward to reading the instant letter that is on its way.

I have a point on Article 2 and the rights associated with it. I seek some reference from the Dispatch Box, because the concern that exists, as I understand it—and I am not a lawyer; that is my declared interest—is that the directives providing the rights under Article 2 are interpretive. Therefore, if there are changes to those founding rights—or updates, interpretations or case law—there needs to be a mechanism by which we will adopt that, otherwise those rights under Article 2 are not being upheld, as I understand it. But if under the Bill the court is prohibited from having that role, what will be the mechanism while we interpret those European directives, which are protected under Article 2?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I want to add to the two speeches that have just been given, with every word of which I agree. The Minister may say that we are being hypocritical, as was said earlier, because there have been earlier Bills where we have allowed Henry VIII clauses; but I have been in this House since 2006 and in my time I have never seen a Bill anything like this one, with enhanced Henry VIII powers—or Henry LXIV powers. To my knowledge, in my time we have never had a Bill that has gone so far beyond what one might almost call the “normal” Henry VIII clauses. I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said. It really is time that the Government stand back and ask, “Is this actually reasonable? What is it that we are trying to do?” It is utterly unacceptable.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is very hard to follow those three eminent contributions. The egregious nature of this clause and its subsections goes beyond parliamentary affrontery because they impinge on the devolved Administrations as well. Not content with abusing this Parliament, Clause 22(6) will abuse the other Parliaments in the UK as well by creating new powers for Ministers of the Crown over those of devolved authorities. As the delegated powers memorandum blithely puts it:

“Where a matter would normally fall within the legislative competence of the devolved administrations and the passage of devolved primary legislation would not be appropriate”,


as the Minister of the Crown would say, “or timely”, on a timetable that the Minister of the Crown would set,

“it may be appropriate to create a new devolved delegated power by exercise of this power.”

It is a Trojan horse for abusing not only Parliament but Parliaments.

I have not been a Member of your Lordships’ House for as long as the noble and learned Baroness but I have been here nine years and I was a member of a devolved authority. This is not how we should be making legislation at all. This is the clause about which Sir Robert Neill said at Committee stage in the Commons,

“this is Henry VIII, the six wives, Cardinal Wolsey and Thomas Cromwell all thrown in together”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/22; col. 370.]

The serious issue is that I do not know what limits the Government expect there will be on these powers. Could there be new criminal penalties? If not, they should not be within this. How about new tax powers? If that is not the intent, it should not be made possible by this Bill. Could it affect any part of the withdrawal agreement on other rights and freedoms? If that is not the Government’s intent, they should say so, but there are no such restrictions.

This is a Trojan horse, and in looking at some of the clauses a side of me wonders whether I should oppose it. It is so broad that we could rejoin many of the EU institutions we have left—just from this wee clause in this wee Bill. That might suit our Benches, so perhaps we had better not complain too much. Through Clause 22(6) and other sweeping regulation-making powers, we could rejoin the customs union and many of the institutions. If that is not the Government’s intention, the Minister should say so at the Dispatch Box. If he does not, we could use it for that purpose.

More seriously, and I will close on this, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has been consistent since the outset in using a phrase that has struck me: this is not what we do when it comes to international law. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, hoped over the weekend that this was all a dream and that he would arrive here on Monday to find that, like Bobby Ewing in “Dallas”, these three days in Committee never really happened. I arrived back in the country this morning from speaking at a parliamentary gathering in Buenos Aires—a network of parliamentarians supporting the International Criminal Court—in the presence of the president of the ICC. I have to say to the Minister that there have been very few times that I have been embarrassed to say that I am a British parliamentarian, but the knowledge of parliamentarians from across the world about what we are doing with this legislation shocked me. They know what we are doing. There are international gatherings about how Parliaments can support the international rules-based system, the ICC and international standards in law. This is not what we do. But it is even worse than that because our Government tell other countries what they should not do, but we are doing it at home. This is an opportunity to stop it. I hope that, even at this stage, the Government will listen to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and just stop it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The example he cited with regard to the operability of the red lanes is covered earlier in the Bill, so the regulation powers were debated. So I do not understand why they are needed in such a broad manner under this clause, which does not even have any of the restrictions of the previous ones. If they need powers for the operation of any of the new red lanes, they are there in Clauses 4, 5 and 6. We have debated these; they exist.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I was merely emphasising. I did refer to earlier clauses as well when I was giving one specific example in this particular group. But I hear what the noble Lord says, and, of course, I recognise that there are issues, particularly in this clause, about the powers that are being proposed. In coming on to that particular point, in relation to the concerns raised by the breadth of powers, each individual power that is being proposed in the Bill is being constrained by its purpose. None of them is a “do anything” power, and Clause 22(1) does not make them so: it merely ensures they can fully fulfil their purposes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

That was almost a rhetorical question being posed to me. What I can say in response is that the engagement we are having with the European Union is—as I have said before, and I would be very up front and honest if this was not the case—being done constructively. The EU understands and appreciates the basis of why we are seeking to do this. It also understands that this Bill is being scrutinised, as is happening this evening, and that we are continuing to work in terms of constructive engagement.

As I have said before, with the Commissioner visiting the UK, the engagement between my right honourable friend and Commissioner Šefčovič is in a good place in terms of the level of engagement, in both tone and substance. I cannot go further than that. The noble Lord is very experienced in all things diplomatic and, indeed, is a veteran of the EU Commission. I am not going to speculate on what an EU Commissioner or an EU negotiator will say because I have never been one.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The Minister is being patient with us and I know everybody is hungry. As the Minister has generously said he is going to write to Members taking part in the Committee, will he add something for my benefit, which is giving examples of other legislation that we have passed in which any and all parts of it can be amended by regulation immediately on commencement?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

This is turning into a very long letter. I think I am going to get something from the Box which says, “Minister, do not commit to writing anything ever again.” But I know what the noble Lord has asked of me.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

72: Clause 26, page 15, line 45, at end insert—
“(3A) A Minister of the Crown may not make regulations under this section so as to bring sections 1 to 20 into force until both Houses of Parliament have approved a mandate for negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union regarding the Northern Ireland Protocol.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that core provisions of the Bill cannot come into force until Parliament has approved a mandate for negotiations between the UK and the EU regarding the Northern Ireland Protocol.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, brought about some cross-community consensus earlier when she said that she was glad that I had not spoken. As I am trying to ingratiate myself with all colleagues, it may assist if I speak to the last two groups together, if that is acceptable to the Minister and the Committee, just for efficiency’s sake.

I found it curious earlier when the Minister said that he rejected an earlier amendment because it might give the impression that agreement was in reach and talks would go on. That does seem to be the Government’s approach and, at some stage, we will need much greater clarity about not only the status of the talks—or negotiations, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, indicated —but what they are about. We know what the mandate of the EU is, but we still do not know what the position of the UK is. The purpose of Amendment 72 is to indicate that, before any regulations come into force, we would need to know exactly what is likely to be agreed.

Amendment 73, the final amendment in Committee, relates to the points that were very well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, regarding the fact that there will be a stage when we need to see the regulations, and I need not rehearse that argument again. We cannot do our job without seeing drafts or indications before Report, and it really should be impossible to commence the legislation unless we have seen the regulations. That is the purpose behind Amendment 73, but I beg to move Amendment 72.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I want to make it very clear to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that I love listening to him speak and I have no aspersions against him whatever. I was just pleased that perhaps he felt that my amendment was worth considering enough to not contribute.

On this, I know it is extremely difficult for the Minister to do so, but could he give us some idea of how long he visualises—he is smiling, so I think he knows what I am going to ask—the negotiations going on before someone actually says that this is not going to work? One of the reasons I am very keen to get this Bill through as quickly as possible is so that we have it there as a safeguard. It would be helpful to know if there are any discussions going on behind the scenes on timing and just how long we can keep negotiating if we are not getting anywhere.

--- Later in debate ---

Lastly, I thank all noble Lords for their brevity, certainly after dinner. It has allowed us to conclude Committee in a timely fashion, and for that I am grateful. For the time being, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister, as always. I thank him, the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, the Advocate-General, for their courtesy in Committee, which is very much appreciated. We look forward to the correspondence.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for her kind words. I was just teasing but, as the Minister well knows, silence from me is not always tacit approval. Still, the question that she asked is valid; we were told in July that talks had been exhausted, but now they have not been. Before we come back for consideration of what we decide about Report, we will need much more information on that.

I very much enjoyed contributing with the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, in Committee. These issues do not tire me because I find them intellectually stimulating, but we owe the people of Northern Ireland our effort, our interest and our scrutiny, because these are the lives of people of our country that we are legislating for and it is an important job that we do. The conference that I was speaking at was with many MPs from different countries who are struggling and fighting for the ability to do what we have been doing in Committee, and I am very privileged to be able to do it.

But, ultimately—the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, always stick in my mind from a previous day in Committee—this is still a pig of a law, with apologies to the Minister. It has lipstick on now, and we have given it a nice frock, but it is still a pig of a law, and that has not changed. It is illegal, it is a power grab, and it will not work. Fundamentally, those three aspects are what we will have to decide on in deciding whether it even goes to Report. Until that point, and with those considerations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 72 withdrawn.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

16: Clause 12, page 7, line 10, leave out subsection (3)
Member’s explanatory statement
This is part of a series of amendments based on recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee which states that a number of subsections in the Bill “contain inappropriate delegations of power and should be removed from the Bill.”

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, in rising to move Amendment 16, I warmly thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for supporting this suite of amendments, which raises concerns about the breadth of the order-making powers that Ministers seek to gain from this legislation.

I start by thanking the Minister for his holding letter indicating that he is conferring with the noble Lord, Lord Caine, on responding to the questions raised on Monday. I am grateful for that and the efficiency of his private office.

The information from the Northern Ireland Executive suggests that there are approximately 14 live areas where there are subsidy controls, which operate within Northern Ireland under one element of the protocol. The purpose of my amendment is twofold: first, obviously, to raise the concern about the breadth of the power, which is in breach of international obligations, and about powers that the Government seek without formulating policy first.

Secondly, the purpose is to further probe what the Government intend the position to be with regard to subsidy control for Northern Ireland, and when they came to their conclusions. We are told that the position is grave and imminent—that is the defence of necessity for breaching international obligations. But we spent a lot of time in Committee and on Report on the Subsidy Control Bill. I moved two amendments relating to Northern Ireland, and the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, also raised these issues in Committee. Like others, I asked on a number of occasions what interaction there would be with the protocol and what difficulties operating two systems would cause. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, reassured me that they would work together.

--- Later in debate ---

I know that more general issues have been raised in this debate and previously, and I am sure they will be raised in our future discussions in Committee. I hope I have provided detail, to the extent I can, on some of the questions, issues and concerns raised. Equally, I give the added assurance, as we have in previous Committee stages, that I shall write to the relevant noble Lords if there is further clarity or detail to be provided.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s response. He knows that I respect him greatly, but he said the current scheme had complexity and uncertainty and, with great respect, I do not think he added simplicity and clarity regarding the successor scheme.

My lack of a social life will bear witness to the fact that I was in for every day of the Committee and Report stages of the Subsidy Control Bill, as I will be for this Bill. I asked about complexities and uncertainties. The Minister replied to me in February:

“To respond to the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that state aid rules would continue to apply even if the UK’s negotiating position were accepted, these are specific and limited circumstances. I trust that this will allay the Committee’s concerns on this important issue.”—[Official Report, 2/2/22; col. GC 244.]


The Minister is now saying that those “specific and limited circumstances”, which the Government said would result if they were successful in their negotiations, will be impossible to secure, so they are now seeking sweeping powers. He did not indicate when that policy change happened. It is a major change, and I simply do not know when it happened.

That position is also contradicted. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, referred to Invest NI. As I did at Second Reading, I will read from the Invest NI website:

“This dual market access position means that Northern Ireland can become a gateway for the sale of goods … This is a unique proposition … These additional benefits”.


Invest NI is using dual market access to promote Northern Ireland. The Government may be right that this is now acting to the disbenefit of Northern Ireland, and we have asked for evidence for this. If they are designing a new scheme, the real risk, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, indicated, is that uncertainty will have a major chill effect that will bring about the very things the Government say they are concerned about.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, that we are asked to legislate for unknown unknowns. On Monday I called these “Rumsfeld clauses”. The Government are seeking powers for known unknowns, but if they get it wrong in the future—which they do not know about—they want powers to deal with it now. The problem is that none of the powers in this Bill, which is replacing the Subsidy Control Act, has any of the restrictions and requirements of the regulating powers of that Act. The breadth of the powers goes way beyond the Subsidy Control Act, which is now proposed to be a single element.

Supposedly, these powers are simply for what Ministers consider appropriate, but I am not sure that a Minister would ever think their actions inappropriate when they bring forward proposals. It is for the law to say what is not appropriate in regulations; that is our job. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is absolutely right: it is not about what just Ministers or even necessarily just opponents on the Opposition Benches might use. It might be their successors as Conservative Ministers—we have had a fair few of them—who completely change policy. This is so broad.

A point of substantial importance is that there is a deep inconsistency in the Bill. The Government seem to think that it is acceptable to have a dual regulatory regime for goods but one route for subsidised goods. I have seen no mechanism that might cover a subsidised good. I really do not know whether that situation is clear.

With the greatest respect to the Minister, I do not think the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, received a sufficient response to her question. She will make up her own mind about this, of course. Agricultural subsidies are not included in the Subsidy Control Act—we debated this long and hard—and although the Minister said that this will now be covered in the proposals, I do not know where. The danger is that there is now an enormous black hole in the provision of agricultural subsidies. Given the agricultural support scheme announced earlier this year, I do not think it fair to have these concerns.

I do not think the Minister has satisfied the Committee. I hope that he and his officials will reflect on Hansard and provide more of the information we want to see. Unless the Government’s proposals are made much clearer, significant doubt will remain. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 16 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

20: Clause 13, page 7, line 27, leave out subsection (4)
Member’s explanatory statement
This is part of a series of amendments based on recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee which states that a number of subsections in the Bill “contain inappropriate delegations of power and should be removed from the Bill.”

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

My Lords, Amendment 20 is, in many ways, connected and therefore I need not be as long about this

Let me quote from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on Clause 13:

“Parliament has no knowledge of the Government’s plans but is meanwhile expected to rubber stamp all the regulation-making arrangements.”


That surely is not a means by which we make good legislation. The committee is highlighting Clause 13(1), which states that

“Any provision of … the EU withdrawal agreement, is excluded provision so far as it confers jurisdiction on the European Court in relation to … the EU withdrawal agreement”.


As highlighted by the DPRRC and others, it is a stretch to say that the invocation of the defence of necessity would permit the extending to all parts of the exclusion of the European court. I should be grateful if the Minister could state in clear terms why the Government’s legal position, which does not clarify this, states so.

There is a policy concern, which was aired so well by Stephen Farry MP when this was considered in Committee in the Commons. If, as seems to be the Government’s position, there will still be Northern Ireland direct interaction with the EU single market—with north-south trade as a major part of the Northern Ireland economy—without the European court having application, it puts at risk what that genuine market access is for Northern Ireland. He made that point in clear terms and I need not add to it, because the case is very strong. The policy paper The UK’s Solution, when it highlighted the problems, did not suggest the removal of the court altogether either. So is this a red line in the talks for the Government?

Secondly, concern has been raised about human rights consideration. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has highlighted the fact that the breadth of the powers in

“Clause 13 of the Bill would restrict the CJEU’s interpretive role in disputes relevant to Protocol Article 2”.

We discussed on Monday the need for that to be dynamic in relation to the obligations under Article 2, and its potential removal will create concern. I hope that the Minister is able to be clear, in response to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, that there would be no diminution of rights.

Given that the Government have not made the case, and given the concerns about the impact on the operation of the single market and Northern Ireland’s position within that, as well as the human rights concern, I beg to move.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I shall not repeat myself, but I shall draw attention to the fact that, in the debate on the previous group, the Minister kept telling us that the word “appropriate” had been used in circumstances like these, as if that was something to be greeted with joy. Each of those pieces of legislation was a dreadful abdication by Parliament of its responsibilities. Even if the Minister is right—I am not challenging his veracity or judgment; let us assume he is right—that so far none of them has caused any problems, it would be nice to know that and I take it from the Minister that none has, but that does not mean that they may not cause huge problems in the future, or that when we have a change of Government, which we may have, that will not cause problems when their Ministers decide that they are going to apply these regulations. I really find that argument “It has been done before; therefore it is a precedent”—and I am a lawyer—but I do not think all precedents are wise and that one is a particularly unwise one.

I know I am trespassing back on to the previous debate, but I have another concern. During his reply, the Minister offered a number of reasons why this regulatory-making power was needed. Fine, but why are they not then put in the legislation, so that we can have a look at what these regulatory powers, at any rate at the moment, are designed to address? For the purposes of this group, if there are matters which the Government have in mind which they think can be served by a regulatory-making power, fine, but let us see what the primary legislation should contain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I thank again all noble Lords who have spoken on this issue. I will approach the question on the single market in electricity, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for tabling his amendments in this respect. I will start with Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tweed of Purvis.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Lord Purvis of Tweed.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

Did I say “Lord Tweed of Purvis”? It is written in my notes as “Tweed of Purvis”. It is getting late. I am picking up on the noble Lord, Lord Campbell—it is catching. Maybe there is a suggestion in there—I would be the noble Lord, Lord Wimbledon of Ahmad. My apologies to the noble Lord.

The Government have references to the potential use of powers in Clause 13(4), which several noble Lords mentioned. In short, these would ensure an effective assurance and enforcement regime that could give confidence in the protection of the UK and EU markets. This includes fulfilling our ongoing commitment to provide data to, and to co-operate with, the EU, an intrinsic part of the overall model. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, also raised the issue of data sharing and I will come to that in a moment.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, rightly raised the protection of Article 2. I assure the noble Lord—I believe I said this on one of the previous Committee days and my noble friend Lord Caine also answered on this—that my noble friend Lady Altmann and I have discussed this, and we have made sure that the response is fully integrated. The UK is committed to ensuring that rights and equality protections continue to be upheld in Northern Ireland, in line with the provisions of Article 2 of the protocol. That is why Article 2, as my noble friend Lord Caine also made clear, is explicitly protected from being made an excluded provision in Clause 15. My noble friend discussed this with and responded to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and I know from exchanges between the two departments that we will respond in writing to the noble Baroness, as promised. We will share that with noble Lords, placing a copy in the Library. I assure noble Lords that this point is not lost. As I have said, where further clarity can be provided during the passage of the Bill, my colleagues and I will seek to provide it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

I do not know if I disappoint or please by saying that there are several more pages in my speaking notes which may address in part what the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, and this relates also to his amendments on the issue of assessments on non-excluded provisions. To make a general point, whether it is the perspective of the Government in introducing the Bill or the sentiments we have heard from our noble friends, including those within the DUP, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, I think we are all coming at this with the end objective of ensuring that the benefits there have been from the market should be protected. I am quite happy to discuss the specifics with the noble Lord, together with officials, after the debate to see if there is a specific insight we perhaps have not picked up on in respect of these amendments, and how we can have a further discussion in this respect. I fully accept the key principle—I think we all do—regarding the protections that have been afforded and the gains that have been made. Of course, no one wants any lights going off anywhere.

It is the Government’s view that Amendments 21C and 23B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, would prevent any regulation being made under the powers in Clauses 13 and 14 before an impact assessment had been carried out with regard to the regulation’s effect on non-excluded provisions of the protocol. Regulations under Clauses 13 and 14 should not be presumed to have any impact on non-excluded provisions of the protocol. They are not excluded and will continue to apply—indeed, they will continue to attract the benefit of the EU law principle of supremacy.

However, if the noble Lord is simply after a more general economic impact assessment—this is where I am saying that a discussion may be helpful—I am not sure that these amendments are required either. Regulations under the specified clauses could be highly technical, with little economic impact. For example, Clause 13(5) specifies that regulations under Clause 13(4) may make provision about arrangements with the EU relating to the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol, including information sharing. As such, the Government could be forced to provide an impact assessment on, for example, a data-sharing system between two competent authorities, which has little or no impact on wider parts of the protocol or economic operators—or, indeed, any impact outside of government at all.

I assure noble Lords that the House will have the opportunity to scrutinise any regulations in the usual fashion, and that the Government will provide all the usual accompanying material under the normal parliamentary procedures, including economic impacts where relevant. However, it is the Government’s view that mandating by statute that impact assessments must be provided for every single regulation under Clauses 13 and 14 would be overburdensome, and it does not tally with the standard principles for impact assessments. To add to the point I made earlier, on the specifics that have not been covered in my concluding remarks, I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Hain. As I said, I believe that there is a common cause to be had here, so if time allows, I am quite happy for us to schedule a discussion on this as well.

Clause 13 outlines the exclusions that seek to redress the feeling that a democratic deficit is created by the arrangements for the implementation and enforcement of the protocol. First, via subsection (1), it provides that any provision of the protocol which confers jurisdiction on the CJEU over the arrangements in Northern Ireland is an excluded provision. This means that CJEU decisions, including infractions, will no longer have effect in domestic law across the entire protocol. Secondly, via subsections (2) and (3), it assists in restoring the Government’s sole oversight of arrangements on the ground in Northern Ireland, providing that the provisions relating to the powers and presence of EU representatives are excluded. Finally, to address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, via subsections (4) and (5) it allows for the establishment of replacement arrangements, which provide the ability to put in place new supervisory and data-sharing arrangements with the European Union. This will support assurance processes to protect both the UK and EU markets and facilitate co-operation between UK and EU authorities. That is why we believe that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Again, I am grateful for the discussions and debate on this group. While I am not suggesting that all noble Lords will have been fully satisfied by my response, I hope that they will be minded not to press their amendments at this time.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I reassure him that I am not precious either about my name or my title. My former constituency was Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, and I was once introduced to the Massachusetts state assembly by the Speaker as, “Jimmy Purve from Twiddle, Ettick and Louder”. He managed to get every single word wrong, and then he kept asking, “So, where is Twiddle, Jimmy?”

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and for the Minister’s remarks on Article 2 rights. The point stressed by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was that the rights are only ongoing rights if they can be both interpretive and dynamic. If you remove the court of justice’s ability to do that, they stop being rights. We are obliged to make sure that they are “ongoing interpretive”, but the power in the Bill puts that at risk. It would be quite straightforward to simply say that that can carry on.

Ukraine

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I reiterate that these Benches are completely at one with the Government in giving full support to the Ukrainian people in their fight against Putin’s illegal and immoral act of aggression.

The Russian missiles launched against Ukrainian energy and water systems are part of a deliberate and callous strategy to target civilian infrastructure ahead of winter, causing as much damage to civilians as possible. Therefore, the resilience of Ukraine’s energy, heating and water systems is vital in resisting Russia’s attacks on that civilian infrastructure.

James Cleverly said yesterday in response to my right honourable friend David Lammy that

“the UK has pledged £100 million to support Ukraine’s energy security and to reform, and £74 million in fiscal grants to support Ukraine through the World Bank.”—[Official Report, Commons, 31/10/22; col. 625.]

All this is very welcome, but he was unable to give a specific answer on the number of generators we have supplied, and promised to find out the details. The reality is that, in such war conditions, practical support and speed of delivery are essential. In addition to detailing the number of generators that we will supply, can the Minister assure the House that we are working with all relevant suppliers to speed up matters? Also, can he tell the House whether such action is being co-ordinated in conjunction with our allies, particularly our European allies?

As we have heard in media reports today, Russia’s attacks on infrastructure and the electrical grid have not been limited to the use of drones, missiles and bombs. Europe Minister Leo Docherty said on the BBC this morning that Ukraine faces

“the same threat and same challenge in the cyber domain,”

representing the most extensive compromise of a single Government seen in history. He confirmed that support is provided through the FCDO, with officials saying that it has led the way among allies in providing specialist expertise. Can the Minister tell us whether this support is being co-ordinated with such allies? What assessment has the department made of the implications of escalation of the conflict?

In relation to arms supplies to the Russians, the Foreign Secretary said that the UK will be keeping a close eye on the actions of Iran, and indeed other countries. He confirmed that we would take appropriate action to dissuade them from supplying arms and would react if they do. Can the Minister assure the House that in reacting the Government would work in complete tandem with our allies, such as the US and the EU? On too many occasions we have been slower than our allies to react.

On the important issue of grain exports from Ukraine, the UN-backed agreement has been vital in reducing global food prices. Putin’s unjustifiable decision to pull out of this deal will undoubtedly have catastrophic consequences. It comes at a time when many countries are already food insecure, including Somalia, where an imminent famine is feared. This is a cruel and transparent use of hunger as blackmail. Any spike in world food prices will be the responsibility of the Russian Government. Therefore, this agreement must be restored.

The Foreign Secretary said that he had spoken to his Turkish counterparts in the past, expressing our gratitude for the work they have done in securing the grain export deal. However, it was unclear from what he said whether he has spoken to his Turkish counterparts and Turkey’s political leadership on the potential for restoring grain flows since Russia’s announcement. Have the Minister’s department or the Foreign Secretary been in touch with Turkey in recent days? The Foreign Secretary did not address the steps that the UK is considering to mitigate the worst consequences for the developing world if these efforts fail, but I hope the Minister will be able to do so today.

James Cleverly also told the other place that we are supplying a considerable number of air defence missiles, which is very welcome in light of the attacks we have seen. Can the Minister assure us that we are able to keep up with the demand for these missiles with our US and NATO allies? Can he assure the House that we can provide all the lethal and non-lethal equipment that is being requested?

I conclude by reiterating Labour’s full support for the Government’s actions in respect of Ukraine.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, as the barbarity of Putin continues and winter approaches, our admiration for the resilience of the people of Ukraine knows no bounds. The Minister knows that we have supported the government strategy; the support for the Ukrainian Government and people; and the sanctions regime— notwithstanding that we have highlighted areas where we could have gone further and faster on sanctions, as has been highlighted. There is no doubt that Putin wants both malaise and division in the West, and we support the Government in ensuring that that does not happen.

I have a number of questions for the Minister about the direct impact of the sanctions regime on Russia, which he will have heard me ask before. I ask for an update on what the direct impact of our sanctions has been, because they do not seem to have prevented the barbarity continuing in certain areas.

Could the Minister also be specific about what we are saying to our allies in the Gulf and in Asia, India in particular? Have the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister raised at the highest levels the concern about the impact of our allies providing neutrality but also therefore de facto support? This is a challenging area for UK foreign policy, but one we need to tackle. It would be depressing if we are so reliant on the Gulf’s inward investment and so hopeful for a trade deal with India that it prevents us having very hard conversations with our allies.

As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, indicated, we have seen the grotesque weaponisation of energy, fuel and grain by Russia. Prices have risen already with the 4 million tonnes of shipments that are being prevented from being distributed. As the Minister knows, this will have a disproportionate impact on the countries in east Africa and the Horn of Africa that are already facing famine. What direct measures are we taking to ensure that shipments can be released? What security support might be made available to ensure their supply?

The Minister knows that we have supported the UK’s support for Ukraine and we of course supported the resettlement scheme at home. He will also know that we have repeatedly highlighted concerns that this is provided at a direct cost to overseas assistance to countries in need. Figures suggest that the resettlement scheme at home for Ukrainians will be met entirely from ODA funds, which will mean that, for the first time in our nation’s history, more overseas development assistance will be spent domestically than bilaterally abroad. That is unprecedented. I hope the Minister will say that this is not correct.

It was disturbing to read Kwasi Kwarteng’s tweet in June, posted when he was BEIS Secretary, saying on supplying defence equipment:

“My Department has contributed to the effort by surrendering climate finance and foreign aid underspends.”


Countries with which we are seeking to build a diplomatic consensus against Putin are seeing the UK provide support, which is welcome, but at a direct cost for those countries. Just before the start of proceedings this afternoon, I met the deputy speaker of the Malawi Parliament, who raised questions as to why cutting support for young girls in Malawi was a cost of UK support for Ukraine. Surely this is a cost which will do us long-term damage. I hope the Minister is able to respond to these issues. We will not retain moral value in our work for Ukraine if other countries see us cut directly as a cost of it.

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

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their statements of support for the Government’s position. As I have said before, it is important to show a unified stance in this House, in the other place and indeed as a country on the continued Russian war on the innocent people of Ukraine.

As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said in the introductory remarks to his questions, we have seen a continued onslaught, with Kyiv being indiscriminately targeted and the whole reasoning being to target basic energy supplies as winter approaches. On that point, as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made clear, we are in touch directly with the Ukrainian authorities. The new Prime Minister’s first call was to President Zelensky, and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken again to Foreign Minister Kuleba. Yesterday, as we were going through the NIP Bill here, during the dinner break I had a brief conversation with the excellent, incredible, brave and courageous ambassador of Ukraine, who was again visiting Parliament. His spirit is inspirational to us all in the face of the onslaught on his country.

To go back slightly, on the specific question which the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, mentioned, of course I am acutely aware of the challenges of the ODA budget. He will have noticed the appointment of my right honourable friend Andrew Mitchell, who is an incredible advocate for development and development spending. At the moment I cannot give the noble Lord a breakdown of exactly what that spend will be, but we are in discussions with the Treasury. He is right to point out the challenges that the ODA budget faces. On a personal note, he will know that I am very much committed, as I have said several times, to the United Kingdom retaining the important place it has on the global stage with regard to development support. I know that Malawi has a particular place in the heart of every Scottish person; I think 43% of Scots have a link with someone in Malawi based on our development support.

On the issue the noble Lord raised about engaging with the Gulf states and India, I can say that my right honourable friend recently returned from India, having been on a conference there where he raised the issue directly with External Affairs Minister Jaishankar, and I know that Prime Minister Sunak has also spoken to Prime Minister Modi. The situation in Ukraine was part and parcel of their discussions, and that will continue. I assure the noble Lord, as the Minister for both India—as was confirmed to me this morning—and the Gulf, that I will certainly continue these conversations as part of my portfolio of responsibilities.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, also raised the issue of our co-ordination with Turkey. I fully acknowledge, as I am sure do all noble Lords, the important role that Turkey has played on the UN grain deal. Indeed, when I last met with the Foreign Minister of Turkey at the UN General Assembly, we commended Turkey’s efforts and the importance of its role continuing. We are working closely with Turkey in that respect. Since the announcement of Russian’s suspension there was a UN Security Council meeting only yesterday, and our embassy in Ankara has engaged, as have our teams at the UN in New York, and I know that the Foreign Secretary is very much planning to engage quite directly with his counterpart. Noble Lords may be aware that he is also travelling to the G7, where again these issues will be raised. On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised about co-ordination and partnership, the Government hold that closely as a key priority in our response across the piece when it comes to standing up to Russian aggression.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised the issue of energy security, and of course we are working directly to the requirements of the energy ministry of Ukraine and responding to its needs there. The Foreign Secretary will be looking at the issue of the price cap with the G7 partners. On the noble Lord’s specific question, I can say that to date we have provided 856 generators to Ukraine and we continue to work closely with Ukraine and alongside our key partners, be they NATO, the European Union, the United States or other allies, to ensure that we continue to be strong and solid in our support for what Ukraine requires.

Both noble Lords raised the important issue of sanctions. To date, we have seen over 1,200 individuals sanctioned specifically by the United Kingdom Government, along with 120 entities. There are quite specific details which I have mentioned before, but because of our sanctions we have seen a direct reduction in the growth of the Russian economy. There has been a disabling effect on Russia’s own economic progress, and of course we have seen that through some of the desperate actions that Russia is engaging in as a direct result of the economic sanctions being imposed. Of course, I take on board what the noble Lord said specifically about the need for continued co-ordination but also talking to other partners so that there is an even more united impact and effort to ensure that Russia feels the true cost and the impact of sanctions.

On the issue of grain supplies, the noble Lord is of course correct. However, Russia has again emphasised that this is a suspension, not a termination. About 100 ships were scheduled to go through the Bosphorus into the Black Sea and pick up grain, and a number of vessels are being allowed to return. The issue of course arises for inward vessels and their being part of the UN agreement. We are working in direct contact with the United Nations, which is overseeing this process along with Turkey, and we will update the House accordingly.

I stress again that this is a suspension. Russia called yesterday’s UN Security Council meeting, and we believe that the case it presented is unfounded. The Russians forgot to mention one material fact: that the Black Sea fleet is in Ukrainian territorial waters—a basic salient fact missed, or not articulated, by the Russians. That is the fundamental point in all this.

I fully acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said: the grain supply has provided lifelines. We have seen 700 million tonnes, I think, delivered to many vulnerable countries. Coming back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, this includes Ethiopia, Afghanistan and Yemen, so there is real impact from what we are doing.

The issue of the drones provided by Iran was raised. On wider issues, noble Lords will know that the United Kingdom, along with our allies, has taken specific sanctions against Iran on the continuing and prevailing situation within the country, but we note specifically what more can be done, and how we can further limit the impact of such exports to Russia is being considered.

As noble Lords will know, in 2022, UK military support amounts to £2.3 billion: more than 200,000 pieces of non-lethal aid, including helmets, body armour, range fighters and medical equipment. Future delivery includes AMRAAM missiles for use in the US NASAMS air defence system—again showing the importance of co-ordinating with our key allies. We have also provided more than 100 logistic support vehicles, armoured vehicles and a further 600 short-range air defence missiles. There is an extensive programme of support for Ukraine, which is bearing results.

Let us not forget that, in the occupied areas of Ukraine, Ukrainian forces are now making forward moves; they are making progress. That is resulting in the reaction we are seeing in this indiscriminate bombing of Kyiv, in particular.

I assure noble Lords that we will continue to provide updates on a regular basis, and I will continue to update the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Purvis, on the Front Benches, in the usual way.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 31st October 2022 Lords Chamber

Whatever happens, we have to re-embrace the discipline of the Good Friday agreement and the subjection of the protocol to that prior treaty, courtesy of Articles 1 and 2 of the protocol, if we are to celebrate 25 years of the Good Friday agreement come April.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Suttie in her amendments. Notwithstanding the appeal from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, these Benches do not need to be persuaded of his arguments. We are nevertheless tasked with scrutinising and testing this legislation, and I support my noble friend’s amendments.

I want to ask the Minister just two simple questions relating to the Sewel convention, which is now recognised as a constitutional principle. Michael Ellis, speaking on behalf of the Government in Committee in the Commons, was asked about legislative consent of this Bill. He said:

“As the hon. Member for North Down will be aware, the Sewel convention applies to this Bill, as it does to all Bills of this Parliament that intersect with devolved competence. I confirm that in the absence of functioning institutions, senior officials in the Foreign Office have already made contact with the head of the Northern Ireland civil service regarding legislative consent … The Government will consult stakeholders in Northern Ireland, including Members of the Assembly, on the operation of the Bill during its passage and thereafter”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/22; cols. 385-86.]


What did the officials ask of the civil servants with regard to legislative consent in the absence of there being an Assembly? This is not a practice that has ever been seen anywhere else for the operation of the Sewel Motion. Which Members of the Assembly have been consulted during the passage of this Bill, and on what? Have they been asked, with regard to the dual regulatory regime that the Bill proposes, and what have their responses been so far?

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to put a technical point. I am not sure of the answer—it is a genuine question—but it bears on the amendment. Trade is a reserved matter in Northern Ireland. When there was first sight of Theresa May’s protocol, there was great rage in Northern Ireland. People in Northern Ireland were told, “Sorry, this is a reserved matter.” Subsequently—it was the second iteration—it was very much the view of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, that that was not itself a satisfactory answer, and there is provision in the protocol negotiated by the Johnson Government. The one significant change is to make, in very specific circumstances, a role for the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is probably the major difference between the two protocols. However, if it is a reserved matter—if that was the answer that I remember being given throughout 2017 and 2018 in this House—I cannot quite see the purchase of these amendments.

If it is a reserved matter, it is a reserved matter. It is for this Parliament to deal with these trade matters. The burden of the Bill is in dealing with Articles 5 and 10 of the protocol—not those on human rights and so on—in a way which, I accept, many Members of this House do not like. None the less, it does not seem appropriate to be raising these issues now about that role for the Northern Ireland Assembly, because trade is a reserved matter held by this House.

The history of this is perfectly clear: the Government of Ireland Act 1920 has language on trade, as do the prior Acts of Union 1800. Then there were modifications to the Government of Ireland Act—benign modernisations, I would say—under the Good Friday agreement and the legislation that went through this House, which left us with trade as a reserved matter. It seems to me that this should be taken into account. There may be some possible answer to it, and the noble Lord, Lord Frost, has negotiated a possible way that one might work around it, but trade is a reserved matter at this point. We are not concerned with the human rights provisions of the protocol and so on; they are not the issue in the Bill. It is directed mainly against Articles 5 and 10, rightly or wrongly—wrongly, I am sure many colleagues on my own Benches think—but trade being a reserved matter is a problem for amendments of this sort.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Caine (Con)]

The noble Lord is a former diplomat. He is a far greater expert on these matters than I will ever be. However, my noble friend Lord Hannan has just whispered in my ear “the post office directive”. I will come back to the noble Lord with further details.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I know that we will come on to the application of EU law in later groups, but since the Minister has helpfully referred to that, it would be good for him to be clear that, even under this Bill—the dual regulatory regime that the Government are proposing—there will be direct application of EU laws.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, we will deal with this subject in the fourth group of amendments. I shall be responding for the Government, so if he can contain himself, we will deal with it at the appropriate point—if we get there this evening.

In summary, we do not think that it would be right to make implementation of measures in this Bill contingent on the restoration of the institutions, given the urgency of the situation in Northern Ireland to which the Government must respond.

I turn briefly to Amendments 68 and 69, also in the name of the noble Baroness. Taken together, these would make the commencement of all operational aspects of the Bill dependent on the approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly. At the risk of repeating myself, it is because of the operation of the protocol that the Assembly has not sat since February. We do not know how long this state of affairs will persist. The situation in Northern Ireland is urgent, and we cannot allow addressing the problems with the protocol to be delayed indefinitely.

The noble Lord, Lord Bew—I should really call him my noble friend—rightly referred to the fact that trade has been a reserved matter ever since the Government of Ireland Act 1920. The amendments would essentially prevent the Government making secondary legislation in a reserved area. That is another reason why we cannot accept them.

Given the urgency of the situation—the need to fix the protocol—it would not be right to make the implementation of the vital measures in this Bill contingent on the restoration of the Assembly and Executive. For those reasons, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

7: Clause 4, page 3, line 13, leave out subsection (3)
Member’s explanatory statement
This is part of a series of amendments based on recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee which states that a number of subsections in the Bill “contain inappropriate delegations of power and should be removed from the Bill.”

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I rise to move Amendment 7 and to perhaps add some mascara to this porcine proposal for the satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I tried to give a preview of the excitement of later groups to retain the attention of the Committee. Alas, we might be on to more of a core group with Clause 4. In many respects, it is the core of the Bill. We have been told by the noble Lord, Lord Frost—who is no longer in his place—that it contains the proposals which will resolve the issues. However, in many respects, the Bill should be called the Northern Ireland delegated powers Bill, because 19 of the 26 clauses are delegated powers clauses and not proposals that we are able to scrutinise properly.

On why imminent peril and the invocation of necessity is so important, it is because it is at the heart of the reasoning why Clause 4 exists. I shall not recap the discussion on the previous group or the first day in Committee, but there is still a lack of clarity about the Government saying that the protocol is the issue but then that it is not the issue, it is its implementation. They have said in their legal paper that the situation of necessity needs to be addressed urgently but also that they have not yet made up their mind on solutions and addressing them will take time. They have said that there is imminent peril, but the Advocate-General told me on the first day in Committee that imminent is as long as the Government might consider it to be, so it is important to try to pin down when the imminent peril started.

I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, is not able to stay for other groups in Committee because I wanted to respond to what he said. If this Bill is a negotiating tactic, he has completely undermined the Government’s argument for invoking the doctrine of necessity for this Bill, because it cannot be both. It cannot be a way of addressing grave and imminent peril and also be a negotiating tactic with the EU. I heard said from a sedentary position, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, “Why not?” If the whole reason of grave and imminent peril for the invocation of international law is to set aside treaty commitments but there are negotiations under way to resolve them, you cannot invoke the doctrine of necessity because the doctrine of necessity under Article 25 of the International Law Commission can be invoked only if there are no other means of resolving the issues, so it simply cannot be both.

I am trying to pin down when this peril actually started and how we are to consider what the baselines are. The noble Lord, Lord True, told the Chamber in January 2021 that concerns about the implementation of the protocol must not be overstated. He said:

“I acknowledge that there have been issues—that was never denied—but, overall, goods are continuing to flow effectively. Supermarkets are able to move their lorries into Northern Ireland. There are some specific issues, as we have seen with individual suppliers, but it is holding up well overall.”—[Official Report, 14/1/21; col. 884.]


A week later, his then Secretary of State Brandon Lewis told BBC “Question Time” viewers—I quote from the transcript of the programme: “The protocol means that as part of the United Kingdom Northern Ireland is going to have this unique competitive advantage in the world, in the sense that Northern Ireland has the ability to trade in and as part of the United Kingdom as well as through the single market with the EU. That is going to mean if you are a business that deals with the UK and a business that deals with the EU, the place to invest and grow your business is in Northern Ireland. You have got that ability to trade both ways and I think that gives Northern Ireland a competitive advantage and a huge opportunity.”

Therefore, the Government rest their case on grave and imminent peril somewhere between January 2021 and the publication of the White Paper. During that period, I asked repeatedly for information on UK-EU trade, and we were also asking questions about east-west trade between GB and Northern Ireland. Ministers stated to me in response that it was impossible to disaggregate factors such as Covid and then the global supply chain. They have found ways to do for this for GB-NI trade, but it is hard to discern from official government statistics produced by the Northern Ireland statistics body, and the Department for Transport’s data for UK major ports have not shown major shifts. So I would be grateful if the Government would publish this information directly. They have indicated that trade diversion exists, but they have not published statistics showing their case. I am very willing to look at them if they have published them, but they have not yet done so. Therefore, we need to have more information as they are seeking powers to put forward a dual regulatory system of both UK and EU procedures.

I appreciate the comments that were made on the first day in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and others that the protocol has not been implemented in full yet, and I understand that, but neither has the TCA for any UK port of exit and entry for goods into the UK. We are on our third delay for Dover and all other ports, and they are not fully operational. For trade between the UK and the EU, there is not a single fully operational port under the measures of the TCA in any of the four nations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his response. We will get to SPS issues later, as well as some of the customs elements that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, highlighted.

I thank the Minister for his information from HMRC, which I of course read before this debate—it is static information for one calendar year. One of the frequently asked questions under that data is:

“Does HMRC hold data on NI movements from GB before January 2021?”


The answer is:

“No, the collection of data for goods moving into NI from GB has only been required since 1st January 2021”.


The Minister then added anecdotal evidence, which the noble Lord, Lord True, told us that we should not use. Both things cannot equate: a static set of data for one calendar year does not necessarily demonstrate the implementation of the protocol, especially since the trader scheme would have operated under many of these declarations anyway—but we will no doubt pursue some of these matters later on.

I accept that the Minister is open with the offer of a briefing, but it is the draft regulations that we need to see; it is not briefing on what the theoretical operation of a dual regulatory system might be. We need to see the regulations that would operate that. In the previous group and on the first day in Committee, we heard that the Government have practical solutions, and the Minister has referred to them. But, as the junior to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, indicated, an unprecedented breadth of regulating powers will be provided to Ministers. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, was absolutely right: part of the unprecedented nature that is so egregious is that these will effectively be treaty amendments, and we have the well-established CRaG process for scrutinising and effectively approving treaty amendments.

Finally, the reason why all this is important—it addresses one element of the point from the noble Lord, Lord Lilley—is that the Government accept that they are breaching their commitments and that these are wrongful acts. The Minister shakes his head, but they have.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

I am not clear on the noble Lord’s point. What have the Government accepted?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The Government have admitted that these are breaches of the obligations under the protocol because they have invoked the defence of necessity for wrongful acts. You cannot invoke a defence for a wrongful act if you do not believe that you have committed a wrongful act.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

But if the original instrument is not working in the first place, which it is not—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Oh!

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

It is all very well to be critical. I accept the points that have been made about Article 16, but let us not open up that debate again. What specifically is the noble Lord’s proposal?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Let us have an extra set of processes if we are now scrutinising alternative proposals. We are holding the Government to account here and trying to scrutinise the information. When we see the draft regulations, I will of course be able to give some thoughts about them—but how on earth can I respond to something that I have not seen? That is what the Government are asking for and why the DPRRC believes that these powers are not appropriate for primary legislation, and I agree.

On the defence of necessity for a wrongful act, the FCDO’s delegated powers memorandum admits that it is breaching its commitments, so this is not me making an assertion. I am sure that the Advocate-General will intervene on me if that is incorrect. I am just referencing the delegated powers memorandum. Even if this is a defence of committing a wrongful act, invoking the International Law Commission’s Article 25 on wrongful acts—and if the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, is correct that there are now competing treaty obligations—Article 13 of the protocol allows any other treaty mechanism under the TCA or the withdrawal Act to supersede the protocol. So, if the treaty is competing with other obligations, and if the Government accept the case of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley—which they have not—we have put mechanisms into statute to trigger the superseding of the protocol if we wanted to open up new negotiations under the existing treaty. The Government have not signalled that they are willing to do that, so the noble Lord’s case is not particularly strong, even if the Government do not accept it.

In the later groups, we will no doubt return to some of these aspects and points of principle in detail but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 7.

Amendment 7 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

9: Clause 5, page 4, line 14, leave out subsection (1)
Member’s explanatory statement
This is part of a series of amendments based on recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee which states that a number of subsections in the Bill “contain inappropriate delegations of power and should be removed from the Bill.”

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Clauses 5 and 6 standing part. There is consistency in some of the arguments to some extent, so this will not necessarily need to be as long.

As the DPRRC indicated, the Government have not yet formed their policy on the precise elements that they are seeking powers for. The DPRRC indicated and highlighted—I agree with it—that we should not legislate when government has not yet formulated its policy. Let us be clear that the Government’s memorandum states that the powers that they seek under these clauses could make criminal offences by negative instrument. Can the Minister confirm that in his response? We should not make new criminal offences by negative instrument.

The Government also state that they need these powers but should not present them through primary legislation. This includes certain areas of new powers for HMRC and other agencies. In primary legislation—in the Trade Act and elsewhere—proper procedures for dating sharing on customs arrangements within the UK have been brought forward. The Government felt that primary legislation was necessary for that, but, under this Bill, they say that they do not believe that primary legislation is the correct approach for it. This is simply not consistent.

I am interested to know what the Government consider to be the interactions with the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. The regulation-making powers under this legislation, providing more powers for HMRC legislative competence, were not provided for Northern Ireland under that Act. I am not sure what has changed. The interactions between Sections 30A, 30B and 30C of that Act are not clear.

Secondly, we can perhaps explore what the Government seek to do on the use of delegated powers to make new law in an area where we have made an international agreement—as we heard, they have not provided illustration for it. The Government’s response to the European Union’s proposals in October 2021 has not been entirely clear either. I am not sure whether they supported its proposals for having just one certificate per consignment of food products, rather than per product—presumably, that would have a major impact on the HMRC statistics and declarations that the Minister referred to. The European Union indicated that that would remove 80% of checks on products of animal origin, or new procedures for prepared meats, such as sausages, import of which into the EU is generally prohibited. So I am not sure what impact assessment was carried out for the EU proposals, had they been fully adopted.

As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said, the Ministers took credit for the Trader Support Service, but they now seem to suggest that it has failed. Why? What has been the impact of the Trader Support Service? As I understand, it raises all the documentation and it states that it has been successful. It is on a lucrative contract from Fujitsu Services Ltd, which is at the centre of the Post Office scandal, so what is the Minister’s view about how Fujitsu has carried out its contract? Fundamentally, legislating first before introducing proposals should not be done, and trying to say that legislating for areas where agreement can be made will not be sustainable elsewhere.

I close by thinking that there must be a prize somewhere for government irony. As we know, the delegated powers memorandum on Clause 6 states that it is a breach of an “international obligation”. Paragraph 56 says that

“regulatory procedures … can be updated to ensure compliance with, or give effect to, any international obligation or arrangement to which the United Kingdom is a party.”

That is quite welcome. However, it is a shame that these powers are removing those obligations and are providing such unprecedented breadth to the regulation-making powers for Ministers. The case has not been made; therefore I beg to move.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I will speak briefly to Amendments 10 and 11, which we have tabled because, like the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, we too wanted to highlight concerns about these issues. As I am sure noble Lords can see, in the current Bill, delegated powers are to be used when Ministers consider it “appropriate”; we would change this to “necessary”. Prior to tabling these amendments, we have signalled our general concerns about delegated powers fairly consistently throughout the process of leaving the EU, since the EU withdrawal Bill in 2018. It is disappointing Ministers’ fondness for this technique seems to have grown; we now see it frequently in things that are quite wide-ranging. I was recently involved with the Schools Bill, which was riddled with these powers because, frankly, the Government did not know what they wanted to do on a wide policy area, so inserted a bunch of Henry VIII powers to give themselves the flexibility to backfill their argument later and decide what they wanted to do once the Bill had passed. Obviously, there was a huge row about that and the Schools Bill is no more, so we can only hope that lessons were learned.

We have been raising concerns again and again about how the Government are just relying on delegated powers, but for some reason the scope of the powers in EU-related Bills seems incredibly wide and we are starting to tease out, with the Minister, some of their intentions. However, an intention stated at the Dispatch Box—or something indicated in other government documents—is not sufficient when we are talking about these sorts of issues. What we really want is clarity and the ability to scrutinise and have those discussions on the Floor of this House, but the way the Government are going about this denies us this opportunity. One of our main concerns is the Government deciding to use skeleton Bills in the way they are.

These are quite general concerns. As we have heard, there are much bigger concerns about the Bill and we have covered some in our debates today and last week. We fully understand the concerns raised about Clauses 5 and 6, which enable the creation of new customs arrangements without primary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, did a very effective job of going into those in some detail, which I do not feel I need to repeat. This is quite a precedent to set and we feel deeply uncomfortable about delegating these kinds of powers to the Treasury and its agencies. In the past—I mentioned the Schools Bill, but there have been other examples—the Government have backed off, removed some of these powers from legislation and changed tack by putting in place genuine checks on their use. In all honesty, I do not think that particularly helps us with this Bill because, as many have said, a whole face of make-up could be applied to this Bill but it really would not help.

That said, it is important that we, as a House, put down a marker and make our view known to the Government on this issue of delegated powers, because this is quite an extreme example in the Bill. Perhaps when some more stability is available to Ministers, this might be something we start to see less of, because the government agenda would become clearer. I must say—noble Lords can hold me to this—that should my party win power in the coming months or years, I hope that this is not an approach that we would seek to take. I am very well aware that this is on the record and will be quoted back to me. Such is our concern about the overuse of these powers that I am very happy to be held to my words.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

As I have alluded to, it is a question of where that bar is set. The Government are, in this instance, looking for that extra level of flexibility for the Minister concerned to be able to make that appropriate act. I accept what the noble Baroness is saying regarding her amendment. Certainly, I am sure that there will be some practical examples and insights that we will exchange on what can be met by those particular tests.

Clause 5 ensures that a Minister of the Crown also has the power to make regulations in relation to the movement of goods to which Clause 4 relates—[Interruption.]—my apologies: that is my phone. This is what happens when you have a 10 year-old and an eight year-old at home—they may be providing me with an answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman.

Specifically, the clause provides for the creation of secondary legislation, which will enable Ministers to define how the green and red lanes work in practice. Regulations made under this power may, in particular, provide for the application of any checks and controls before or after a movement of goods on UK or non-EU destined goods moving into Northern Ireland in order to ensure that appropriate processes are in place to manage, for example, biosecurity risks. Such powers may also be used to ensure that goods that are heading to the EU comply with relevant regulatory processes, such as sanitary and phytosanitary controls. Much of this is operationally focused or deals with the processes to be applied by the relevant government departments. We believe that this clause is essential to enable the appropriate Minister to have the flexibility to deliver the UK’s proposals for this new regime for the movement of goods.

I turn briefly to Clause 6. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, alluded to the issue of the Treasury and HMRC having the power to make regulations in relation to the movement of goods for customs matters. Alongside Clause 5, this will enable the delivery of new green-lane arrangements, which remove unnecessary costs and paperwork for businesses trading within the UK. We heard in the previous debate from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, on challenges being faced by businesses.

Specifically, the clause provides for the creation of secondary legislation to administer the green lane through appropriate checks, controls and administrative processes for goods that would otherwise be subject to EU customs rules. It is the Government’s view that this clause is absolutely essential to enable a Minister of the Crown to have the flexibility to deliver the UK’s proposals for the green and red lane arrangements. Taking power to provide for the regime is required and the precise detail of the regime will be properly subject to consultation with stakeholders. I therefore recommend that this clause stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply—he can tell his kids that we are also doing trick or treat here, although I am not sure what the balance is between the tricks and the treats. I am grateful for his response and for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who is of course here in spirit if not in person.

I strongly agree with the noble Baroness. On a sensitive issue such as this, the powers that Ministers have should be absolutely necessary in order to deliver what they have said they want to deliver. They should not be any broader than that. But the Government have not formulated their policy yet, which is at the heart of the frustration. We are being asked to legislate to give powers to Ministers, but they have not said what they then want to implement. They have not indicated what the interaction with the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act will be or why HMRC will be given statutory powers which that Act does not provide it with. I do not believe that we should be in a position where we give in primary legislation the “level of flexibility”—as the Minister said—to Ministers when they have not explained to us what they want to do.

I do not think that the Minister has persuaded me at this stage. I welcome the noble Baroness’s commitment that, if her party wins power, they will not bring forward proposals such as this; on behalf of these Benches, I can give the same commitment that when we achieve power, we will not bring proposals such as this either. In the meantime, before Report or we achieve power, whichever comes sooner, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 7 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the patience of the Committee on this trio of groups. Clauses 7 to 10 are at the real heart of the proposals, which links to the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, before about trying to understand how the Government will really manage the situation that they want to put in place with the dual regulatory regime.

The dual regulatory regime may be fairly neutral, but it of course means that Northern Ireland will be perpetually part of the EU single market. Clause 7 suggests that a trader can choose to operate under the EU law system or under a UK system, as the Minister referred to on an earlier group. That EU law system would be under separation agreement law.

My first question is genuinely a probing question: there may be a good reason for it, but what impact will the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill have on the implementation of EU regulations in this regard? I do not know what effect the mechanism for updating, as proposed under that Bill, will have on separation agreement law under this Bill. Do we have to legislate for any changes when it comes to the EU changing its regulatory approach?

Is this going to be a dynamic system where we will automatically update domestic statute if the EU changes its approach? If it does, then we are back to square one from our colleagues from the Democratic Unionist Party, who have been railing against that, but we will in effect be in a worse position because this is automatic updating of domestic legislation for another set of statutes from another power, which none of us will have any say over. I find this hard to believe and would be grateful if the Minister were able to say that this is not going to be the case.

The questions now relate to the green and red channels—the dual regulatory system. I would like to know from the Minister: who will operate them? The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee says in paragraph 42 in reference to Clause 9:

“This is the frankest admission by the Government that policy is so embryonic that it has not yet been consulted on. And yet Parliament is being presented with a major Bill on the subject. Legislation has preceded policy development rather than vice versa. Nor is it remotely credible to say that it is not possible for these matters to be put on the face of the Bill. Why should the Bill say so little, with so much left to regulations?”


Perhaps we can get clarity for business on the dual system. The Government say that businesses will be able to choose. I would be grateful to know how. Will they have to fill in a declaration? What default system will be in place if they ship products without a declaration? Will they be prohibited from shipping to Northern Ireland if they have not declared what their route is? How will they know what status their GB or EORI classification gives them? We have been led to believe that if they operate under the Trader Support Service with an EORI classification, this process is already streamlined. Will there be a Trader Support Service for both the separate routes now?

The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked a valid question: for how long will this scheme operate? If the Government felt it was necessary that there was a Trader Support Service for a scheme which operated under EU procedures and regulations, and they are proposing that they will still be operating under EU regulations—under the dual regulatory system—so will a Trader Support System operate permanently? At what stage does a business choose? Is it for each consignment, or will the business have to choose at what stage of production it opts for each of the routes? What if it wants to use a UK route but also needs an EU conformity assessment? Will there be a public register of who is operating, and how will it be monitored? Who will have access to the data, and is this going to be a public mechanism for which routes certain enterprises choose to operate? The latter questions are vital, I think, because it has to be known, as it may well be challenged under a legal system, and what will that legal system be?

Clause 10(1)(d) relates to the use and import of goods. Is the choice for the seller or for the purchaser? This is fundamental if it is to do with east-west trade, so can a purchaser from Northern Ireland determine that their supplier uses the UK route, or is it the supplier who says, “I am very sorry but I have opted for the EU route, so this the situation that is going to have to be received, and the good that goes into the market has to have the EU mark on it”? I do not know, so I would be grateful for clarity.

Michael Ellis, the Paymaster-General, told the Committee in the Commons that the choice of using a route is completely voluntary, but Clause 11 means that it could be compulsory. Why? Which is it? Is it voluntary for businesses, or could it be voluntary until a Minister says it is compulsory? I think this is a breeding ground for utter confusion: an entire system being established at the outset, only for there to be a broad regulation-making power, which could be put in place without consultation—there is nothing in the Bill that states there will be consultation—to say, “All of your choices that you have been making for this, we have now said that you have to use this particular route.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, having listened to the debate thus far, I have again noticed that a number of noble Lords seem to be exercised about the DUP’s well-known opposition to the protocol. To be clear, not one unionist or unionist party in Northern Ireland accepts the protocol. Rather than just mentioning the DUP, I ask noble Lords collectively not to obsess over the party and realise that there is a serious problem to be dealt with. Clearly, we have an impasse at present, and until the Northern Ireland protocol is dealt with, we will not move forward into an Assembly. That must be restated.

In this group we are confronted with the proposal that Clause 7 should not stand part of the Bill. The clause deals with the option of dual regulatory routes, which arises from the Bill creating a regulatory route that does not involve complying with the protocol. Thus, those proposing the removal of Clause 7 once again engage their argument that the doctrine of necessity cannot be applied and thus excuse us from complying with the protocol. In that context, they maintain Clause 7 should not stand part of the Bill.

Once again, it seems to me that arguing for necessity and a special dispensation not to obey international law is not the best way of addressing the protocol problem. In making this case, I will pick up on the assertion made by some noble Lords that this Bill is problematic not only because no commitment was made to it in the 2019 Conservative manifesto but because the manifesto suggested that the Conservative Party was committed to the protocol. It seems to me that one can assert on this basis that it would be wrong for the Government to bring forward a Bill such as this only if we pretend that Articles 1 and 2 of the protocol are not part of it.

Not only do Articles 1 and 2 subject the protocol to the Belfast agreement treaty, but Article 30 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties makes it plain that, in the event of any conflict, the Belfast agreement should prevail. This clearly implies that if the operation of the protocol undermines the Belfast agreement, action must be taken. This is more than implied in Article 2, which actively places as a matter of international law an obligation on the UK Government to ensure that the operation of the protocol does not diminish the rights set out in the section of the Belfast agreement

“entitled Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity results from its withdrawal from the Union”.

As other noble Lords have pointed out, the operation of the protocol is dramatically diminishing the right in the relevant section of the agreement to

“pursue democratically national and political aspirations”.

This right can no longer be pursued in relation to 300 areas of law that have now been removed from a legislature that includes legislators elected by Northern Ireland and placed in a legislature where Northern Ireland has no legislators. This means that, rather than international law being the enemy of this Bill, it is its friend, because the Government are subject to an obligation in international law—Article 2 of the protocol—to take action to ensure there is no diminishment of the right to

“pursue democratically national and political aspirations”.

There is an additional international legal imperative in this regard which should not be overlooked. It arises from Article 3 of the protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights and the case law arising from the case of Matthews v United Kingdom. Matthews lived in Gibraltar and was subject to legislation made by the European Union. As in the case of Northern Ireland, this legislation was made by the European Parliament, in which Gibraltar had no representation. Paragraph 64 of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case concluded:

“In the present case, as the Court has found (see paragraph 34 above), the legislation which emanates from the European Community forms part of the legislation in Gibraltar, and the applicant is directly affected by it … In the circumstances of the present case, the very essence of the applicant’s right to vote, as guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1, was denied. It follows that there has been a violation of that provision.”


This case is of seminal importance, because it established that it is not lawful for any jurisdiction to be subject to legislation made by the European Union when the citizens of the said jurisdiction are not given the opportunity to elect their own representatives to the EU institutions to make that law. The Matthews judgment rings out loud and clear across Northern Ireland. The legislation imposed on Northern Ireland, courtesy of parts of the protocol, denies the very essence of the right to vote, as guaranteed by Article 3 of the protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, for giving way. I am following his argument very closely. I do not understand why that argument will not apply to the red route under a dual system. The dual system, by definition, will include the EU route, which will automatically apply EU rules for trade with Northern Ireland, which will still apply to all the areas that he said will have no say.

--- Later in debate ---

I therefore recommend that these clauses, which are essential to delivering the Government’s objectives and dealing with key issues in the protocol, stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for both the Minister’s full response and his offer to write when he has reviewed some of our questions. I still have questions over what “classes of goods” means and some of the issues that he raised.

I am grateful for the illustration of conformity assessment. It is one of those areas that sounds so technical and boring when you debate it. It is technical and boring, but every good will have to have it in every shop for every consumer. This means that, separate to the protocol, a manufactured good for a consumer in Northern Ireland, such as a toy, will have to have a CE mark on it if it has used an EU conformity assessment body, of which there are a number in GB. However, if it has used a UK-based body, of which there are none uniquely in the UK at the moment, it will have to have a UKNI mark and a CE mark on it. There is no option. So, uniquely in the four nations, consumers and importers in Northern Ireland will have to check that their goods have either a CE mark or a CE/UKNI mark on them. They will not have a UKCA mark on them; it will be different.

This goes back to the sincere points made by the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, about how to have a situation where there is no difference between Scotland, where I live, Northern Ireland, England and Wales. The reality of this Bill and this Government’s choices on the marking of goods and where they will be checked is that things will still be different, with different procedures and processes. When it comes to using an EU conformity assessment accreditation body, we have no say over its rules and regulations and what it says. This Bill is not going to resolve that but I am grateful for the Minister’s response.

I am going to call these the Rumsfeld clauses because what we are being asked to put in place in statute are regulation-making powers for the known unknowns. However, in Clause 9 we also want powers for the unknown unknowns. We do not know whether they are going to work so, under Clause 9, we want the powers to be broad enough for us to have the power to make them work if they do not work. I do not think that Rumsfeld powers are something that our Parliament should operate with; the case has therefore not been made.

I look forward to the Minister’s letter and further clarifications, of course—I therefore reserve judgment—but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.

Clause 7 agreed.

Women, Peace and Security Bill [HL]

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 28th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in this debate, with so much evident expertise and experience on display. The noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, was right: it would have been wonderful if more colleagues had taken part, but sometimes I prefer a smaller group of experts to a wider group.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and I took our seats at exactly the same time on the same day, and nine years on it is a pleasure to see that, as she said, she is still being outspoken. I commend her work in this area, as others have done, and on bringing forward the Bill and the way in which she introduced it. As my noble friend Lady Smith indicated, this is probably the easiest Bill that the Government could ever accept. I hope that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, might not necessarily be long: simply saying yes would suffice today.

When I came to the Chamber, it dawned on me that this week we have been debating Northern Ireland at length, we have had a debate on Iran, we have had Questions on political violence in Africa, and yesterday we discussed the atrocities of Idi Amin in Uganda 50 years ago. Every day this week I have taken part in proceedings where women have been at the leading edge of seeking and securing peace but have also been the victims. Our Iran debate, for women in a leadership role, and for young women in particular, has been both inspiring and, as a man and a political person, humbling. The Bill is so important to entrench and enshrine some of the structures in place to ensure that we prevent any further falling back—which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, has indicated, regrettably we have started to see—in the involvement of women in peacemaking.

At this stage I will declare my interests. I chair the UK board of the world’s largest peacebuilding charity, Search for Common Ground. I had the privilege of chairing a panel, in which I was the only male, at a freedom of religion and belief conference, in the parallel process that the Minister was responsible for in July, bringing together women from Israel and Palestine, from east Africa and from Asia, all discussing this vital topic. I have carried out and continued to do work on supporting and mentoring in partnership training for women MPs and community groups in Sudan, Iraq and Lebanon, all areas where there are additional barriers of confessional political systems that have then often entrenched some of the discriminations and barriers that have prevented women from participating.

Today we are primarily discussing what the Government can do with the structures that are in place. I am on record as asking the Government what their approach is to talks whenever the UK is involved or sponsors or funds them, and whether they should have a policy of empty-chairing any discussions when there are no women involved. Regrettably, there have been too many of these occasions and Governments need to call that out. Similarly, the noble Baroness was right to highlight the gap between the preparation of the NAP and its publication. I read the report, and I commend the officials who put some of the work together, particularly some of the analysis on the indicator tables. I felt that those tables in the NAP report were most powerful in some of the key areas.

If the Minister can also respond specifically to the work of the steering board and how the Government will be taking forward the specific proposals within it, I would be grateful, especially in the context now of a degree of uncertainty, as my noble friend Lady Smith highlighted, about the precise role of a Minister for Development. Are they a policy-making minister or an administrative one? Who, within all these agendas and the implementation of all the international obligations listed in the Bill, are the Ministers who will be responsible for driving them through? At a time of cuts, as my noble friend Lady Northover indicated, having this driven by Ministers from the centre is important.

It is not to disagree with the Bill but our Benches support—we would like this be the basis upon which we can build in future—as our colleagues have put forward in the Canadian Liberal Government, a fully feminist development policy which includes security, peacebuilding and diplomacy so that the gender element is at the core of each of the three strands. It can be done, and it can be done extremely creatively. In Pakistan —a country that the Minister knows well on a ministerial level, having been there fairly recently—the work of Women, Peace and Security and Humanitarian Action in the national security policy is to be commended. The Government of Pakistan recognise gender security as the core element of their national security programme. This is an innovation but it is very helpful, because it includes law enforcement, the justice sector and peacebuilding. We could do more for the UK in its development-making policy.

Strategy is one thing and good intention is most certainly another, but the UK needs the tools to deliver on these. The unlawful reduction from 0.7% to 0.5% has dealt a blow not only to the ability to honour commitments that the UK Government have made but to how we underpin our international obligations.

We have called for an equality impact assessment to be published—the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, called repeatedly for it to be published. The Government failed to do so but we were grateful to the International Development Committee, which used parliamentary privilege to publish the equality impact assessment of the Government’s development cuts. Using parliamentary privilege to do this surely cannot be right, when around the world we are highlighting areas where transparency and accountability is good practice.

The impact assessment is a shocking read:

“The proposed scale of reductions to specific gender interventions, including Violence Against Women and Girls … and Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights … will impact girls’ education and wider efforts to advance gender equality. This includes likely reductions of 75% for VAWG … 70% for SRHR”


and 80% for advancing gender equality and education. It goes on to say:

“FCDO has been the biggest bilateral supporter of social protection programmes in over 30 countries. Of 23 draft country plans reviewed, 16 proposed reductions and 3 proposed closures.”

In over half the countries, of which we are the leading country, we have cut, and in three we have closed entirely. What message does that send for global leadership in this agenda? It sends a horrific message. The Minister will be aware, as has been asked for before, that we are awaiting the full implementation of the FCDO strategic vision for gender equality. Can he say what the status of that is and what the tools are for implementation?

This is a short debate. Like all noble Lords, I have much more to say, but I will limit myself to this final point. We have had a good record in the past, and many countries have followed us. Regrettably, we are on a different trajectory. However, if the Government put into legislation this excellent Bill from the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and use it as the basis of further work and provide the funding to implement it, we will regain our global leadership position; the noble Baroness will have been the guarantor of that. I commend her and the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

On the issue of funding, could the Minister address the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg? Does the former Foreign Secretary’s commitment to reverse all cuts to women and children’s programmes, returning them to the pre-cut level, still stand?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, certainly from my perspective, that is very much a government commitment that was given. Of course, we have a new Prime Minister, but the same Foreign Secretary. It is a strange question to be answering while we are still in the last throes of a ministerial reshuffle, but our commitment to women and girls remains focused, particular and prioritised. Indeed, I was delighted that our former Prime Minister and former Foreign Secretary committed to these issues. The commitment, for example, to the immediate issue on the horizon—the PSVI conference and our support for that—indicates the direction of travel. I will of course update your Lordships’ House on anything more specific. On the PSVI issue, I also put on record the Government’s thanks to Her Royal Highness the Countess of Wessex for her engagement and involvement in continuing to throw a spotlight on these important issues.

I listened very carefully to the valuable and insightful comments to this debate. The Government are committed to the WPS agenda. As my noble friend acknowledged in introducing the Bill, there are some reservations about specific proposals before us. The Government have strong existing and forthcoming WPS policies: the integrated review, which was referred to; the international development strategy; the women and girls strategy; Human Security in Defence; and the WPS national action plan. All these underline not just our commitment but the progress we have made. I know how strongly your Lordships support these policies, as was clear from the debate. It is critical that, within the frameworks in which we work, we retain the freedom of agile policy-making—that is where some of the limitations of the Bill have been highlighted to me.

On a positive note, I have been listening and there are aspects of the Bill we can commit to. Let me give a couple of examples of what we are doing, drawn directly from the Bill. The measures proposed in the Bill seek to increase women’s participation in peace processes. The UK’s ambition is to support meaningful participation and secure positive peace process outcomes for women and girls, with more women being pivotal in decision-making. We have seen the power of this approach. The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, talked about Latin America. We have seen real progress in Colombia, where civil society, including women’s groups, ensured that there were real and specific gender considerations in how the peace agreement was reached. But that is only half the job, and we need to ensure a continuing focus. I welcome insight on specifics from all noble Lords on how they feel we can further strengthen our work in this area.

The Bill aspires for the UK to take gender into account when formulating foreign policy. In this regard, the gender equality duty in the International Development Act 2002 requires the Government to have regard to gender inequality before providing development assistance. On what will happen next, the new women and girls strategy will pick up on some of the specific provisions that my noble friend highlighted on this very point in her presentation of the Bill.

Before I hand back to my noble friend, I again thank all noble Lords. I share the points that have been made. Importantly, the Government have done specific work on this agenda, and I feel very strongly that the House and all parties are at one in their perspectives on how to pursue the agenda. Of course, there are different speeds at which we may travel at times.

The issue of annual reporting came up. What I can commit to—PSVI is within my portfolio—is that we should have an annual report. We have looked at WMSs, but I can certainly work through the usual channels to see how we can facilitate a specific debate annually. I do not think there is disagreement on this: it will further enhance the progress we can make. I am sure the usual channels can work together on how it can be presented.

Although I lead on the PSVI agenda, I think it is totally sensible to present a report that demonstrates the work that has been done over the last 12 months. Certainly, when it comes to our duties, although not a legislative requirement, how we report to your Lordships’ House and to Parliament as a whole on the WPS agenda and progress on NAPs could be much more contextualised and structured. I will take those aspects back to see how best we can work them through.

Zimbabwe

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, we will use whatever leverage we have to maximise the chance of free and fair elections. I make a broader point: we know that President Mnangagwa wants more engagement with the UK—that is clear—and in many respects we want him to have that too. However, deeper re-engagement with the UK will require meaningful political and economic reform and respect for human rights and the rule of law in line with the President’s own stated commitments when he took office. The former Africa Minister reinforced that message when she met the President last year at COP.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I admire my noble friend’s consistency on this issue. I am afraid that this consistency is not reflected in the Ministers for Africa; we will now be on our sixth in just three years. I heard the Minister refer to the welcome involvement of officials with our SADC friends. However, have there been any ministerial meetings with SADC allies on a regional solution to ensure that there is the highest pressure for an end to political violence and the holding of free and fair elections?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot provide details of ministerial meetings; that is not to say that they have not happened—I just do not have the details of specific meetings. However, I know that at numerous international fora the then Africa Minister, as well as other Ministers including myself, have had discussions with neighbouring countries in the region where this and other issues have been raised. However, I will provide details on specific meetings with SADC after this Question.

Armenia and Azerbaijan

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

I get the gist of the noble Lord’s question and assure him that we are working with both Governments. First, on the deceased, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, this is an important issue to bring closure to those families who have lost loved ones, and we will continue to do so. On demining, I am looking over to the Lib Dem Benches, where the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is a great advocate for these issues in conflict zones. I am very proud of the UK Government’s support for these activities and pay tribute to the key players in this sphere, such as the HALO Trust, which does phenomenal work on demining across the world. Of course, I will take specifically what the noble Lord suggests and make sure that our Ministers and officials are briefed appropriately.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, just before the pandemic, I participated in dialogue sessions with young people from Armenia and Azerbaijan in Georgia. Will the Minister ensure that any work of dialogue that the UK is participating in involves young people, who have the biggest stake in any form of peace arrangements? I understand that in the recent political community meeting—at which I was glad that the UK was represented—President Macron chaired a session with representatives from the two countries. Were British officials involved in any of those discussions? Are we offering any technical assistance on the valid issues of human rights abuses, investigations and peaceful dialogue? What technical assistance is the UK offering?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, there were three questions there. On UK Government’s direct engagement, I will write to the noble Lord. On ensuring that we are giving technical assistance, I have already alluded to that and, of course, we stand ready to support that. As for involving young people, we are celebrating one of the youngest Prime Ministers in two centuries to hold the No. 10 office, so the noble Lord can be assured that young people’s views, or those who are slightly younger, will be fully sustained in all negotiations.

China: Security and Trade (IRDC Report)

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, as always, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount. This has been a characteristically serious debate which has done credit to the excellent report comprehensively introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I had the pleasure of serving on the committee under her chairmanship, and indeed under that of the noble Lord, Lord Howell. We were blessed in this debate with contributions from both those chairs of the committee.

The IRDC is a significant and senior committee of this House, and the delays before its reports are debated are unacceptable. The fact that we made the same appeals when we debated the committee’s report on sub-Saharan Africa, which had been delayed and delayed until we had an opportunity to debate it, springs to mind. I hope that this is the last time there will be such a delay before we are able to debate such a significant report from this committee, because one of the purposes of these debates is not only to hold the Government to account but to inform the whole House of how we conduct that work in holding the Government to account. In that regard, I was struck by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, who rightly highlighted how, in many respects, there is a delicate line to tread in our relationship with China, but in order for us to tread that line, there needs to be the guidance of a clear government strategy. The fact that such a strategy is absent was the underlying proposition of the committee. It struck me when the noble Lord said that as a Minister he sought clarity and that it was “fuzzy and unclear”.

The Government’s response to the committee’s report said:

“The National Security Council continues to provide clear direction for the Government’s China policy. It is supported by the work of the Integrated Review Implementation Group on China”.


Can the Minister tell us why the National Security Council was abolished by the current Prime Minister, Liz Truss? I understand that it has now been replaced by a Cabinet sub-committee, which will not provide the clear direction that is necessary. What is the current situation? Is there a current situation? If not, it highlights the void not just in government strategy but in government operation. We cannot afford that as a country.

This is my opportunity to state on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches that what the Conservative Government are doing to our international reputation at the moment is just unacceptable. During this debate, I had a message on my phone from a good friend of mine who served in the United States Cabinet, who was in shock when he woke up to see the news from the UK. He was bemoaning—and sympathising—the fact that we are a laughing stock. He said: “The UK is too important to be laughed at.” That is from a former senior US official. I agree with him.

This debate on this topic really must be the opportunity to start providing more clarity on our way forward for UK relations with China. The committee highlighted—as have the contributions today—a whole series of areas where that strategy is necessary. It highlighted that there has been a shift, but it is unclear where that shift is to. We are, theoretically, currently in year 7 of the golden decade announced in 2015. Whether this golden decade is now in deep freeze or is still government policy for trade and development, I do not yet know. The noble Viscount mentioned the Asian Development Bank; can the Minister clarify whether our support for that is still categorised under overseas development assistance or whether that has been cut? George Osborne said during that visit in 2015—like my noble friend Lord Teverson, I was there in the hall, but I did not have the opportunity of shaking the President’s hand—that

“No economy in the west is as open to Chinese investment as the UK.”


Is it still? What is the Government’s intent for that? The Government’s response to the committee did not provide a great deal of clarity on that.

When the House debated the committee report on sub-Saharan Africa, so many areas combined with regards to our relationship with emerging markets and emerging countries, as well as the need for clarity on China. It is an absolute fact that, in the absence of a clear direction for our relationship with emerging markets and countries in Africa, China will fill that void. In the absence of a clear strategy, understanding and stability in our relationship with China, other countries will not see us as a reliable partner either.

We recognise that China’s development and rise has been remarkable, lifting millions of its citizens out of poverty and single-handedly having a major impact on overall human development. However, we cannot use just one indicator alone. The noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Bethell, and others have highlighted these issues with our trading relationship—I will return to that in a moment. Over this period, growth in UK-China trade has been marked, but it is not equal growth, because the UK now has a trade deficit with China in goods of more than £40 billion. That is at an unprecedented scale in our trading history. Under this Government, this deficit has grown. We are now in the unhappy position that trade with autocracies has risen under this Government, but trade with democracies has fallen. This is not good for our national security, nor is it good for our resilience as far as our own industry is concerned.

This report is about how the UK Government now respond to these concerns. While recognising China’s growth in the positive areas, my party and others in this debate have recognised some of the concerns, including China’s challenges to the international liberal order, such as at the UN Human Rights Council. I have a little more sympathy with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, than with—if he will forgive my saying so—the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. The issue about rules, values and standards is not necessarily that we impose them, but that we work with allies on what we consider to be the most beneficial areas. If they are unclear on our approach in some of these areas, an alternative approach will become the norm. From data transfer to e-commerce, regulatory reforms, privacy, and human rights within supply chains, we have been at the forefront, with consensus, of establishing some of these norms and rules. There is, in many areas, a competing narrative with which, if we are not robust, they will be filled. On human rights abuses, which have been referred to, we have debated them repeatedly and, unfortunately, will have to continue to do so.

We have heard in the debate about the aggressive posturing towards Taiwan, including the latest address by President Xi in the congress. A further concern is surveillance technology, which is used at home in China as a tool for suppression but has been bought here in the UK and by others abroad without the level of reliance on a set of standards, which we believe would be right for the use of surveillance technology. Of course, we have seen a regrettable and increasing trend of interference in civic debate in other countries—and, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem said, here in the UK, just within the last 48 hours.

We strongly support the need for a comprehensive China strategy but, in our view, a comprehensive industrial strategy too. They are intertwined. I hope that we will see some clarity on this soon from a new Government. It will mean that the UK has to have a significant review of China’s preferential market access in a whole sweep of areas, from foreign direct investment screening to pension fund investments. It is not acceptable that local authorities and public sectors are not aware, when investing in a Chinese-indexed market, whether their investments are in regions and enterprises in China that are conducting significant human rights abuses. There needs to be much more clarity in this area. I have repeatedly asked the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, whether any of the preferential agreements signed in 2015 have been reviewed in light of the grotesque human rights abuses, and the Government have failed to provide any clarity as to whether they have.

In an industrial strategy, we need a review of supply-side security. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and others are absolutely right. On concerns with regard to Taiwan, how resilient is the UK if China seeks to weaponise our trade deficit in certain key sectors? We have seen this within the domestic UK market with regard to chip supplies, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said. Why has not the UK opened up discussions about the equivalent of a US chips Act? Why is the United States looking at this in a strategic way, while the UK has, as the committee put it, a complete void in that regard? We must be willing to cease research co-operation and technology sharing if our Chinese colleagues are unable to provide adequate reciprocity and transparency in the regulatory framework.

The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, was absolutely correct to raise the issue of data. I am genuinely concerned about the Government’s current approach. He rightly said that China has access from government officials. The UK has now signalled that we will be leaving GDPR principles, but there is no clarity as to their successor. In some of our key sectors, the service sector and financial reform, this is critical, and I hope that the Minister has a response in his remarks.

I close on Hong Kong. It is a necessity for the UK to audit UK-based assets owned by CCP officials, state-owned enterprises and Hong Kong officials. We need to review bilateral FDI with Hong Kong relations. I hope that the Minister can say that the global human rights sanction regime is now being considered very carefully with regard to officials in Hong Kong. All those areas are vital, and we need to signal that we are now in the process of considering UK resilience in our relationship with China, in case of disruption. It is not a signal that we are seeking to remove ourselves entirely from our partnership with China or indeed to have, in certain areas, a weakening of the positive cultural relationship with the people of China. However, it is necessary for the United Kingdom to be resilient and to stand up for the rules, standards and values that we helped shape and should invest in, and we should work on with our partners.

Finally, I could not agree more strongly with my noble friend Lord Teverson. Many of the countries in emerging markets and developing nations that are looking at the UK and China at the same time see that the UK has stepped back. We have slashed support with very little notice, and there is a lack of stability and reliability in our relationship with them. That is creating a new void which China will fill, and that will be to the United Kingdom’s long-term detriment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Anelay for tabling this debate and for her committee’s work, as well as for her introductory remarks. I thank all noble Lords for their insightful contributions.

Last year in our integrated review, the UK Government assessed that China’s increasing assertiveness and growing impact on many aspects of our lives will be one of the defining geopolitical factors of the 21st century. This is, therefore, a key and timely debate.

In line with the IRDC’s report, I will cover the UK’s approach to China, our trade relationship, regional security, and the importance of working with our allies and partners, and I shall do my best to answer as many of the questions that were raised as possible.

The global geopolitical context has changed greatly in the last year, and in response the Prime Minister has commissioned an update of the integrated review. Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has threatened our collective security and stability, and it has had an acute impact on global economic resilience, supply chains and energy security. We will continue to press China to use its relationship with Vladimir Putin to push for an end to his war, rather than condoning or excusing his actions.

The noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, made the point that China’s influence on Russia is considerable. There is no doubt that that is true, so we continue to engage with China at every level—in Beijing, in London and at the UN—to make it clear that the world is watching what it chooses to say and do. Of course, we condemn any military support to Russia for its illegal invasion of Ukraine, and we expect China to stand up for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to uphold its commitment to the UN charter. Without going into detail, I note the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on China’s anxiety about Russia’s potential use of strategic nuclear weapons.

As the Foreign Secretary recently made clear in his speech in Singapore, it remains a top priority for the UK to pursue deeper engagement with our partners in the Indo-Pacific region. China is a major global actor as a G20 member, with a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. This Government are committed to doing more to adapt to China’s growing impact and influence. As we do so, our policy will be defined by our national interests, particularly our sovereignty, security and prosperity. It is in our interest to have a mature and robust relationship with China in order to manage disagreements, defend our freedoms and co-operate where our interests align.

One of the greatest strengths in our relationship with China is the link between the people of our countries. It is worth emphasising that the British-Chinese diaspora play a key role in our communities and culture. We continue to welcome hundreds of thousands of Chinese students to the UK and work to ensure that they are treated as well here as British and other international students are. International research collaboration, including within our universities, is central to the UK’s position as a science superpower. However, as a number of noble Lords suggested, we will not accept collaborations that compromise our national security, and we work closely with universities, funding bodies and industry to protect our higher education and research sector.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, who raised Confucius Institutes in particular and asked what the UK is doing about them, the Government obviously take seriously any concerns about the operation of international organisations at UK educational centres. Like all similar bodies, the Confucius Institutes need to operate transparently and with a full commitment to our values of openness and freedom of expression. As with any international collaboration, universities have a responsibility to ensure that any partnership with a Confucius Institute is managed appropriately and that the right due diligence is in place. We encourage providers with any concerns whatever to contact the Government directly.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the importance of engaging China on the global issue of climate change, and they were absolutely right to do so. The committee rightly observes that we cannot deliver our global climate goals without engaging with China. It is just not feasible; it is not possible. That point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. As the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, and the world’s largest investor in renewable energy, China plays a critical role. In particular, we are working with China and other financiers of international coal to accelerate momentum and ambition for the global transition from coal to clean energy through our COP 26 energy transition campaign. As a consequence, and on the back of very extensive diplomacy in the run-up to COP 26, we were able to have an influence on China’s position. Noble Lords will know that China has committed to net zero by 2060 and has said that its intention, and its policy, is to see emissions peak by 2030, the end of this decade. China also committed to ending the financing of overseas coal, which we also pressed hard for in the context of our presidency of COP.

Scientific collaboration also plays a key role in mitigating climate change. The UK Government supported work by meteorological experts in both countries to model extreme climate change impacts around the world. We are increasingly working with China at the diplomatic level: first, to support efforts to secure an ambitious outcome for the CBD COP 15 in Montreal, at the end of this year; and, secondly, to follow up on commitments that we secured from China—quite late in the day, as it happens—to join other countries that signed the Glasgow leaders’ declaration, the commitment to end deforestation by the end of this decade.

Even more importantly, we secured a commitment from China’s biggest commodity trader, COFCO, to align its purchasing criteria with 1.5 degrees and our efforts to break the link between commodity production and deforestation. It was COFCO coming to the table that allowed us to encourage countries such as Brazil, under President Bolsonaro, to sign up to a commitment that they were absolutely not willing to sign up to that point. There are numerous ways in which we are seeking to work with China on climate change and the broader environmental challenge we face.

As an open economy, the UK Government welcome foreign trade and investment to support growth and jobs, including from China. However, we will not accept commercial activity that compromises our national security or values, and we have safeguards in place that enable us to engage with Chinese investors and businesses with increasing confidence.

The National Security and Investment Act came into force in January 2022. It is not specific to China and applies to all investors in the UK, regardless of nationality. We will not hesitate to use the Act’s powers to intervene if and where necessary—including to block the most concerning acquisitions. The Act’s annual report and final orders document the use of NSI powers to date, including to block two acquisitions by Chinese companies. In May this year, a package of measures came into force to update the UK’s export control regime. This enhanced our military end-use controls and added China to the list of destinations to which those controls must now apply. These changes strengthen our ability to prevent exports and address threats to national security and human rights.

In different ways, the noble Lords, Lord Campbell and Lord Alton, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, referenced the controversy over Huawei, which rightly dominated the news for some time in the year before last. On 13 October this year, the Secretary of State for DCMS issued a designation notice to Huawei and a designated vendor direction to 35 telecom providers. This gives 12 specific restrictions to telecom providers in their use of Huawei. The Secretary of State has decided that these legal controls are necessary and proportionate to our national security risks. The UK is now on a path towards complete removal of Huawei from the UK’s 5G networks by the end of 2027.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, also asked about Hikvision. I needed to check, but we continue to make clear our concern about human rights violations in Xinjiang—which I will come to in a few moments—including the use of mass surveillance and the technology used to facilitate it. We take the security of our citizens and establishments extremely seriously and have a range of measures, some of which I have just identified, to scrutinise the integrity of those arrangements.

The committee rightly identifies the risks to trade and investment and our supply chains in today’s increasingly interconnected world. We recognise that China has clearly set out to use its influence in the global economy to pursue its broader foreign policy objectives. We monitor this closely and are working to strengthen the UK’s critical supply chain resilience and avoid strategic dependency. This includes international collaboration with allies and partners to discourage trade restrictions and coercive measures.

My noble friend Lord Bethell emphasised this particularly well. To him I just say—he may even have been part of this—that BEIS launched the UK’s critical minerals strategy in July, which sets out measures to improve the resilience of critical mineral supply chains. Obviously, supply chains are complex and markets are volatile, with most critical minerals sourced from just a small handful of countries. China is a big player, for reasons that noble Lords have already identified.

I will move on to respond to comments from the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, who talked about British investment partnerships. Through BII, we are providing a positive development finance offer in the Indo-Pacific region and around the world. Our offer is characterised by high standards, transparency and reliability. It supports the Build Back Better initiative—I hesitate to use the term—specifically as an alternative to the belt and road initiative. With a particular focus on climate finance and green infrastructure, we are helping developing and emerging countries in the Indo-Pacific meet their financing needs for infrastructure and enterprise.

The Government have deepened economic ties with our partners in the Indo-Pacific region in the last two years. We have signed free trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand and a digital economy agreement with Singapore, and we continue to make progress towards a new free trade agreement with India. We are also now in the second and final phase of accession to the CPTPP. By acceding to the CPTPP, the UK will join a valuable network of countries committed to the international rules and norms that underpin free trade. Meanwhile, as an ASEAN dialogue partner, and the only European country to have been given such status, we recognise the key role that ASEAN plays. We have made clear our full support for the ASEAN outlook on the Indo-Pacific.

The committee rightly recognised the importance of working with allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific and beyond with regard to China. We speak to those partners on a regular basis to understand their approaches towards China, their hopes and concerns and more. There is much common ground between us; we share many of the same concerns. We and our international partners have a clear message: China must live up to its international responsibilities.

A number of noble Lords rightly referenced the horrors in Xinjiang—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who has raised the issue many times with me in our various exchanges in the Chamber. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, also spoke powerfully about the issue, as did a number of other noble Lords. Clearly, China must be held to the same human rights standards as all other members of the international community. The UK has led international efforts to hold China to account for its human rights violations through the UN and through our sanctions regime and measures to ensure that no UK organisations are complicit in these violations through their supply chains.

Given the gravity of the recent UN High Commissioner’s report, which found that China has carried out serious human rights violations—including, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, possible crimes against humanity in the area—it is important that UN members are given an opportunity to consider those findings fully. On 6 October, the UK brought a vote to the United Nations Human Rights Council requesting a vote on the report. We did not succeed—the vote did not pass—and China successfully managed to stifle debate temporarily. However, we are convinced through our efforts that that will not endure and that we will be able to ensure that the report and its findings are properly digested and responded to in that key UN context.

I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, about those Members of Parliament in the UK who have been sanctioned by China, and pay tribute to them. Those sanctions are not only unwarranted but completely unacceptable, and we have provided, as noble Lords will know, guidance and support to those sanctioned by China, including a specialist briefing from relevant government departments on such things as cybersecurity.

Just to move to Hong Kong, China’s national security law has undoubtedly stifled opposition and, more than that, criminalised dissent. In response, the UK has declared China to be in a state of ongoing non-compliance with the Sino-British joint declaration. As noble Lords commented, we also introduced a bespoke immigration route for British national overseas status holders and their immediate family members. The UK will continue to stand up for the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong, as agreed in the Sino-British joint declaration.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who asked why the Prime Minister had scrapped the National Security Council—I hope that I have attached the question to the right noble Lord. My understanding is that she replaced it rather than scrapped it; she replaced it with a foreign policy and security council. From my understanding, there is no difference in function, so we are talking about semantics and a label, as opposed to anything meaningful.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful for that clarification; perhaps the Minister could write to Members who took part. I looked at No. 10 Downing Street’s briefing on the new Cabinet sub-committees. It is a markedly different committee which includes trade; it is not simply a change of title with the same definition—as I understand it, but I am happy for him to write to me with more information, because it is important.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I doubt I am qualified to get into a scrap on this issue, but my understanding is that there is nothing that the NSC was doing that is not done within the new council. But I shall seek clarity on the issue.

Regional partnerships are especially important in defence and security. We are deepening our engagement with Indo-Pacific partners bilaterally, multilaterally and with smaller groups of like-minded partners. The Five Power Defence Arrangements, where we work together with Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand and Singapore, reached their 50th anniversary last year. The AUKUS defence partnership with Australia and the US also strengthens regional peace and stability, and the UK has responded positively to the requests of our partners to build their capacity in maritime security. The deployment of the UK carrier strike group to the Indo-Pacific last year, where it engaged with 40 countries, demonstrated our commitment to partnership. Two Royal Navy offshore patrol vessels, now stationed permanently in the region, are further deepening this partnership and supporting capacity-building.

The former Prime Minister—my apologies: she is the current Prime Minister—has commissioned an update of the integrated review to be completed by the end of the year. That integrated review will take account of and reflect the dramatic changes that have happened as a consequence of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine, but the priorities within the integrated review will remain the same: we are not looking at any dramatic shift.

I am so sorry, but I cannot read the names of who asked me certain questions; I apologise if I attribute them to the wrong noble Lords.

On Taiwan, the UK has a clear interest in peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. As we have always said, the issue must be settled by the people on both sides of the strait through constructive dialogue, without any threat or use of force or coercion. On the issue of visits to Taiwan by western politicians—this is an example of where I cannot read the name of the noble Lord who asked the question—and specifically the visit of Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan, it is our view that China’s military exercises were inherently destabilising. They form part of a pattern of escalatory Chinese activity over recent months which includes a growing number of military flights near Taiwan. These are not the actions of a responsible international actor. They undermine peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, which is clearly a matter of global concern. The UK’s long-standing policy on Taiwan remains exactly the same. We have no diplomatic relations with Taiwan, but we have a strong unofficial relationship based on deep and growing ties in an increasingly wide range of areas, underpinned by shared democratic values.

On the issue of academic freedom, particularly in relation to students from China here in the UK—a question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay—academic freedom and freedom of speech are obviously fundamental values to us in the UK. They are cornerstones of the UK’s world-class higher education system and central to a student’s experience. Universities have specific legal responsibilities to protect academic freedom and freedom of speech within the law. Academics, students and visiting speakers must therefore be empowered to challenge ideas and discuss controversial subjects. If institutions or individuals feel under pressure to compromise on those values, to compromise on academic freedom or freedom of expression, we strongly encourage them to come to the Government and provide us with that information.

It is essential to maintain the UK’s place at the heart of an unrivalled global network of economic, diplomatic and security partnerships—partnerships that deliver for British businesses and British people. That is why the Government continue to invest in China expertise and Mandarin language skills across government and our international network. This expertise, coupled with a deeper understanding of the wider Indo-Pacific region, will be even more important as China’s international assertiveness increases and our ties to the region continue to grow.

Before I come to the end, I want to address recent events in Manchester, which we discussed yesterday on the back of an Urgent Question. However, the Minister in the other place has since said more on the subject. Like other noble Lords, I have seen the consul general’s Sky News interview, which has been referenced in the debate today, in which he claimed that it was his duty to get involved in a physical altercation with a protestor. I would add, as my colleague in the other place did, that no matter how absurd those comments may appear to us, it remains important that we follow due process and await details from the police investigation before determining whatever actions we should take.

However, as the Minister for the Americas and the Overseas Territories, Jesse Norman, set out in the other place, we will take further action without any hesitation, depending on the outcome of that investigation. Our ambassador in Beijing will deliver a clear message directly to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and we will send a public message to the Hong Kong community in the UK. I was asked by a noble Lord—again, I sincerely apologise that I cannot read my own writing to see who it was—when that police investigation is likely to end. I am afraid I cannot give a specific date, but I will seek to extract one from the authorities and to share it if I can.

To conclude, the International Relations and Defence Committee’s report makes a valuable contribution to this hugely important topic. We welcome the committee’s scrutiny of our approach to China as we manage disagreements, defend our freedoms and co-operate where our interests align. I end by thanking my noble friend Lady Anelay once again for tabling this debate and all noble Lords for their insightful contributions.

Horn of Africa: Famine

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My noble friend makes a hugely important point. The challenge of delivering humanitarian assistance to countries where there are so many people in need but where the authorities are not always moving in lockstep with us makes things very much more difficult. In Somalia, it is now estimated that nearly 8 million people—approximately half of the country’s population—currently need humanitarian assistance. We will continue to focus as much of our support as possible in that region and the wider region of the Horn of Africa, while using whatever leverage we have to deliver political stability in Somalia.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, during the 10 minutes of this Question, 12 people will die of severe hunger and malnutrition in the Horn of Africa. I declare that I was in the wider region over the recess. The scale of the Government’s cuts is adding to the problem. The UK committed £861 million in 2017 to support a less severe famine, and there is now less than a third of that from UK support. Hospitals that serve children in Somalia are closing which the UK was directly funding. At the very least, can the Minister intervene to ensure that hospitals that serve children are not being closed as a result of UK cuts?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, the UK-supported humanitarian activities are saving lives and having immeasurable impacts. In the year 2021-22, we provided a total of £230 million in humanitarian assistance to the east Africa region, to which the noble Lord referred. In the current financial year, the UK intends to provide £156 million in addition to that. The impact of our work can be seen and measured but, in the light of the undoubted ODA pressures that we face, we are doing everything we can to prioritise spending where it is most needed, tackling the most acute humanitarian crises.

UN Sustainable Development Goals

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

The noble Baroness is right. Unfortunately, it is not just a handful of countries; a lot of countries could fit the description that she put forward. From the perspective of our international development assistance, we are very careful not to provide funding directly to Governments because we know that, where we do, a lot of that money ends up fuelling corruption and rarely reaches the projects on the ground. Our job is to try to find examples of projects that we can support outside national Governments where we can attempt to enable those communities where we are investing to prosper in a way that does not foster corruption in those countries.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is not good enough for the Minister to say that he hopes to return to 0.7%. The Government set fiscal tests that would be determined by the OBR. The OBR said in its spring report that those tests had been met for next year and the Government, in their spending review, had set an unallocated £4 billion a year. It would be unacceptable if, as a result of the mini-Budget, this unallocated fund was now raided. Would the Minister not agree that tax cuts for the richest at home meaning raiding the budget for the poorest abroad is morally unacceptable?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, I will not return to 0.7% other than to say that we are very keen to return to it as soon as we are able to.