Treaty Scrutiny: Working Practices (EUC Report)

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is a genuine privilege to follow three such highly respected chairs and, on behalf of my colleagues, I thank them for their chairmanship. I also thank the members of their committees, and the predecessor committees, for their reasoned reports and characteristically sensible and proactive recommendations.

If the reporting in the Financial Times is correct and we see on Wednesday proposals to renege on treaty commitments for joint decision-making, in an agreement not yet a year old, this is a sobering backcloth to a debate on treaty-making and the ultimate trustworthiness of a UK Government in implementing treaties. It shows that this is not just a purely constitutional or theoretical debate but one of practical politics—ones that affect people’s livelihoods across the country.

As all three Lords Committee reports made clear, there are two areas without contention. The first it that is has always been and will continue to be the responsibility of government—not Parliament—to open, negotiate and sign international agreements; the second is that these vary in complexity, scope and significance. But the consensus among the committees, if not the Government, is expressed in paragraph 33 of the report quoted by the noble Earl. He read the first part of that paragraph. It goes on to say:

“Reform is required to enable Parliament to conduct effective scrutiny of the Government’s treaty actions, irrespective of the consequences of Brexit.”


All committees have proposed improvements to the process and some progress has been welcomed, as indicated, such as in Command Paper 63 on trade agreements, but in other areas more improvements can be made. I shall focus the remainder of my time on trade agreements, while my colleagues will cover the wider breadth of the reports and the consequences of their recommendations.

Whereas the committees did not propose that Parliament extends its authority by resolving to approve a trade negotiating mandate, and then an agreement, the House has done so. A clear majority of the House voted for this in the Trade Bill last year. No doubt this will be debated tomorrow, during the Second Reading of another Trade Bill. While a Motion has not been laid relating to Section 20 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act to withhold support for a trade agreement, in March last year I moved the first Motions in the House in accordance with Section 21: to extend the scrutiny period for the agreement establishing an economic partnership agreement between the eastern and southern African states. There were similar debates on the Faroe Islands and Switzerland agreements. During the debates, the then Minister apologised for a lack of consultation with the devolved Administrations and committed to changing procedures, and clarified areas of concern that the EU sub-committee had raised in its report, as indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. Without the debate that I secured, these commitments could not have been given to the House. I pointed out that it should not really be down to an individual Member to secure Motions, but I am glad I did. I hope the Minister will respond positively on implementing committee recommendations to change this.

Asserting greater parliamentary authority over the setting of negotiating mandates, then approval of the agreements, does not reduce the ability to exercise prerogative powers. It actually strengthens it—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, referred to this—as we saw for the United States and the EU. In the two biggest economies in the world, which we are negotiating with, there is recognition that trade agreements now go well beyond their traditional roles, such as on bilateral tariff rates. In both economies, there is a vote on the text of the agreement. They also have a process for setting the mandate; we have neither. In both the US and EU, the relevant committees can be provided, through agreed protocols, negotiating documents and classified negotiating texts. This was alluded to in the UK Government’s Command Paper but was subsequently watered down. Clarity from the Minister on that would be most welcome.

It thus makes sense to build on the dualist system, and for Parliament to approve the agreements before the process of seeking to support their implementation into domestic law. This is one area where we would see progress. Given the concerns about what we may see on Wednesday regarding the UK internal market process, this is even more important. I hope that the Minister will move beyond the current Government’s position and act to deliver on some of the recommendations from these very sensible committee reports.

Hong Kong

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon [V]]

My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Lord. The agreement on one country, two systems that we signed with the Chinese authorities is registered with the UN. China is a P5 member and has international obligations. Therefore, we believe that standing up for the rights of Hong Kong nationals as well as BNOs is absolutely the right thing to do. I assure the noble Lord that we are working with international partners to ensure that we get broad support for the United Kingdom’s position. Indeed, as we saw recently at the Human Rights Council, that is happening.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, there was cross-party support for the Foreign Secretary’s shock at seeing the persecution of minorities in China and the suppression of peaceful protestors in Hong Kong. People may also be shocked to know that the Government have given export licences for British-made tear gas, which, according to Amnesty International, is being used against peaceful protestors in Hong Kong, and has granted government export licences for spyware, wire-tapping and surveillance technologies. Will the Minister ensure that the UK’s strategic export control lists are now updated so that no British-made technology can be used in the suppression of minorities or against peaceful protestors in Hong Kong?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon [V]]

My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord has noted, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made a Statement yesterday in the House extending the embargo on arm sales to mainland China, which will now also be applied to Hong Kong.

Libya

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend’s work in this area. I would very much welcome a discussion with him to see how best we can make this part of the current discussions.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD) [V]]

In his report to the Security Council last week the UN Secretary-General decried what he termed as high-level direct foreign interference in the conflict which is contrary to the resolution to which the Minister referred. Over the weekend the US and the Libyan national oil corporation criticised foreign capitals for pressure which has led to the reinstatement of the blockade of oil exports. What actions are the Government taking to ensure the resilience of Libyan institutions such as the national bank, the oil corporation and the investment authority so that they can resist this kind of direct foreign interference and provide support for all people in all parts of Libya which is so desperately needed?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right to raise the issue of central banks. Both sides need to get together on the two institutions to ensure equality of approach on that. We deeply regret that the oil blockade has been reimposed on oil facilities and we call on all parties, including those engaging in support of either side, to ensure that oil revenues can start flowing and bring some kind of economic rebuilding to the country.

Hong Kong: Human Rights

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, 4 June is a poignant date, because it is the day 31 years ago when the tanks rolled into Tiananmen Square, and many young protesters were the victims. Many in Hong Kong fear that their protests on 4 June, to recognise the sacrifice made by other young people, may well be the very last. My question is about young people, which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, alluded to. The Government’s plan suggests that the right to visit visa-free for those with BNO status will be extended from six months to 12 months, but there are 250,000 people with BNO passports out of an estimated 2.9 million people with BNO status. They had to secure that before 30 June 1997, and it cannot be passed down to children. There are nearly 7.5 million people in Hong Kong. Given that the greatest threat is to the young people of Hong Kong—many born after 1997—or to the children of those with BNO status, how will we show affinity with those young people and offer them the kind of support that we will offer others?

Covid-19: Repatriation of UK Nationals

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 30th April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As my noble friend will know, I am no medical doctor, but if anyone openly displays the symptoms that we are all familiar with they will not be allowed to fly. Those checks are being made prior to embarkation at different airports. Those methods continue. Anyone openly displaying any symptoms of the virus will not be allowed to board a plane. They will be in a confined space, so it would not be entirely appropriate. Individuals have displayed symptoms on the flight or once they return. As I said, we seek to ensure that they are provided medical support on arrival. We also provide them with information about the steps that they should take to protect themselves, their families and their communities.

We continue to work with airlines and international Governments to ensure that those who are returning take all the necessary steps and precautions to self-isolate if, when and as required, as everyone has been instructed here in the UK. Prior to boarding, they are checked to see whether they openly display symptoms. That said, as we have found, sometimes the virus stays with someone; they might just be a carrier, so there is no immediate sign, and sometimes the virus can take a few days to embed itself in an individual before they show symptoms. As best we can, if anyone is openly displaying the symptoms of the virus, they will not be allowed to travel.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I very much welcome what the Minister said about the multilateral approach, with not only the continuation but the expansion of British support for the most vulnerable in the world. I also welcome the announcement about co-hosting the conference. Have the Government had direct contact with the envoys of the African Union to the G20? What is the UK’s response to the African Union’s support?

I declare an interest: at the end of March, I was in a country that had declared a state of emergency and closed its borders and airspace. I have a great degree of empathy with not only the FCO and DfID support staff working around the world but the stress of people trying to find their way home. The Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office gave measured evidence to the committee and recognised that many people felt let down. The ramping up of that support is welcome.

I endorse the question asked by my noble friend Lady Northover. In addition to those who have come back on commercial routes, the German Government have repatriated more than 250,000 people. Now, fewer than 1,000 German citizens are stranded. How many British citizens want to come home but are apparently struggling to do so?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

First, I thank the noble Lord for his remarks about support and the terrific effort of all our staff on the ground. I believe that he visited Sudan. I am well aware of the challenges he faced in leaving. That is testament to and reflects the effort that our posts are making.

The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, referred to the downscaling of posts. On that point, I assure noble Lords that, with the exception of four very small ones, all our posts continue to operate in any decision taken to return employees. That is done under strict guidelines, working with the PUS, to ensure that we put their concerns first—particularly those about their families and their own health vulnerabilities. I am sure that the noble Lord will not challenge that.

On working with African countries specifically, the short answer is that, yes, we were mindful of the challenges faced by many parts of the developing world in Africa and Asia. That is why we were pleased with the outcome of the G20 in terms of the decisions taken on debt repayments. For the medium term, they will prove beneficial to many parts of Africa and Asia.

On numbers, I have already alluded to the fact that we have returned a sizeable number of people. Looking at my own patch, I talked of 10,000 people in India. In the Statement, we talked about large-scale returns from Spain. That was reflective of keeping commercial routes in operation. It is not right suddenly to draw comparisons. Ministers from many countries have spoken privately to me and commended the UK’s efforts because this issue is posing challenges for them. We should not get into a competition over who has done what and where. The important thing is that we prioritise according to our needs. I would argue, with justification, that we faced a challenge in repatriating UK travellers from around the world: we estimate that there was a million of them. We continue to work on that number.

On estimating how many people remain abroad, as I said, the number runs into thousands. That is why we continue to operate chartered flights and, in parallel, keep commercial flights open. I believe that is the right approach, notwithstanding the challenges; I totally relate to the point that many people have faced immense challenges and unimaginable difficulties on the ground. I know what my family and friends, particularly those in south Asia, have had to face so I am totally at one with the noble Lord on that point, but the right way forward is ensuring that we get commercial flights operating as soon as possible. In the interim, we will continue to deploy chartered flights where we need to.

British Citizens Abroad

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, the noble Lord has, rightly, raised a concern. We are actively engaging directly with various airline operators. British operators and our colleagues at the Department for Transport are meeting regularly—not just not on a daily basis but often several times a day—to establish connectivity. He raised the issue of hubs and the rerouting of certain flights, and specifically mentioned Qantas. Singapore acts as a key hub for those coming from Australasia. I have a vested interest in that, as my in-laws are in Australia, so it is a route that I know well. The other key hub that we have is in the Middle East. Concerns have been expressed about the suspension of flights announced by both Etihad and Emirates, which has implications for travellers going through the Dubai hub. I know that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is prioritising calls in this respect.

The noble Lord raised a specific case relating to Egypt. I did not know about that, but perhaps he can forward the details to me. However, I stress that, if anyone is aware of a constituent, friend or family member in that situation, the first port of call has to be the high commission or the embassy.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that one communication that he received last week was from me, copying him into an email. Having followed Foreign Office advice scrupulously, I travelled to an African country, which, without notice, declared a state of emergency and closed the airport and all borders. I secured an exit via another country and travelled back to the UK over the weekend. When it came to getting accurate, up-to-date advice that could be shared with a small group of British nationals, including me, and colleagues who were British residents but European Union citizens, I saw at first hand the reality of the UK not being in the same room as the European Union delegation in that country. It is not too late for the Government to think again about having a treaty relationship to ensure that the same level of support can be provided to EU and British citizens who are abroad in multi-country delegations or groups. It is not too late to accept Theresa May’s position on such a treaty, rather than Boris Johnson’s, which is to decline it.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord. First, I pay tribute to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who is doing an incredible job in leading our country through an unprecedented crisis, and now is the time for us all to get together and ensure that we act as one. The noble Lord raises the issue of co-operation with our European partners, which is a genuine question. We are indeed co-operating. There were 1,444 British nationals repatriated, including from Wuhan, the “Diamond Princess” through Japan, the “Grand Princess” through the United States and the “Braemar” through Cuba. There were an additional 254 non-British nationals. We are readily talking with our European counterparts, acting as one and ensuring that we help each other. I quote a phrase we have often talked about: we are all in it together.

UK Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order (International Relations Committee Report)

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The seismic changes in the world of recent times should not threaten but thrill us. This was the topic I chose to speak on two years ago at an event in Borjomi, Georgia, to a group of young people from the Middle East, the Gulf and the Caucasus. They had gathered to discuss how the shifts in global patterns under way impacted on their respective regions. It was the first time many had reflected on the relationship between their respective areas, with tense political relationships. Not one of the young people who attended came from countries whose establishment or borders were older than three generations. Their families had lived through constant change, but the issue now is whether the changes over recent years are of such an order of difference that our entire concept of foreign policy should also be reflected on.

During the committee’s hearings for this inquiry—I have the privilege to serve on the committee under the noble Lord, Lord Howell—I frequently reflected on that event. Such a large and comprehensive report as this cannot be given full justification in this short time, so I wish to focus on the developmental changes that other noble Lords have referred to, the transformative nature of new technologies, change in this generation and opportunities for the UK in particular.

These changes will probably mean that this is the first generation in whose lives the biggest challenges will be universal in nature, not focused just on people’s own region, country or continent. Climate change, universal rights and obligations, crime and terror networks and cybersecurity worries are by definition no longer only national challenges. The rules-based system—with 75 year-old institutions designed to address a former world and a peacebuilding concept—is in need of reform, but pragmatically the committee said that that is difficult to achieve. We regretted some reform agendas stalling, but I was struck by the comments of the former Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Hague, who told us that while he was content for today’s global order to use that 1945 order, it would not be desirable to have it in 2045. I agree with that, and we must start thinking now about how a new world order—a new regime for rule-making—will take its place. This consideration will have to take into account that no previous time in human history has seen such rapid social, economic, technological and political change as that dating from when I was born, in the mid-1970s.

The noble Lord, Lord Soley, referenced population growth. The population of the world has grown from 3.9 billion in 1974 to 7.5 billion today, and is forecast to be 9 billion in 2050. Africa’s population is expected to grow threefold this century. The world economy has grown astronomically—from $5.5 trillion when I was born to $77 trillion, and per capita GDP has grown from $1,400 to $10,300 globally today. This is a marked economic and social development that has also been reflected in improved life expectancy and reduced child mortality. People are more prosperous, healthier and better educated today, and there is an emphasis on social spending. Spending on defence globally has gone down from 3.7% in the year I was born to 2.2%.

Today’s world is in many ways a much smaller one. There were 401 million air passengers in 1997; in 2016, the figure was 3.7 billion. The world is much more closely connected as a result of the internet. Half a trillion text messages are sent every day; there were hardly any in the mid-1990s. These are the most significant changes and outweigh possibly the biggest innovations of previous centuries—John Harrison’s marine chronometer and the establishment of GMT.

Politically, too, there has been progress. The number of countries considered democratic or largely democratic in the year I was born was 34; today it is 87. The number of people living in a largely democratic environment has risen from 1.7 billion to over 4 billion today. This will not necessarily mean, however, that they are stable countries; nor does it mean that there are loyal and sustained identities for people in those countries, many of which exist as a result of decolonisation and the effects of two world wars.

On disruption and change—the title of the first section of the report—what comes with democracy is a belief that the individual is a stakeholder. Democracy establishes a social contract which requires the Government to deliver against the expectations of those who vote them into power. Therefore, the rules-making bodies are even more significant, given that the expectations of the people are much higher. Now, the growth in populations is creating a greater need for services and trained staff in schools and hospitals, and Governments are unable to meet the demands of their peoples.

In addition, trust in state institutions such as broadcasters, statistical bodies and the civil service is coming under increasing pressure—including in the United Kingdom. Populations are becoming less trusting of the United Nations, as is shown in trend data from the Brookings Institution and Pew research.

As we have heard consistently in this debate, both the US and Russia increasingly take a transactional relationships approach in response to these changes. These are huge global shifts, and they take a transactional, state-by-state approach, putting country first—disruption and destabilisation in order to extract advantage. This is inconsistent with what we consider to be the British approach of stability and co-operation to create an environment in which we can gain advantage. In addition, other organisations and structures are growing to challenge the established 1945 order, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Howell.

Because of these seismic shifts, there is a more conducive environment for benign and malignant non-state actors to thrive. I do not necessarily disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, but a simple reliance on the concept of the nation state does not reflect the changes we have seen in this past generation.

Finally, what can the UK do in response to this? The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was absolutely right in his devastating critique. If we are to be a leader on cybersecurity threats, the rule of law, progressive trade, the ethics of artificial intelligence, human rights, privacy, generational opportunities, investment for youth, transparency and anticorruption, and to be a lead investor for Africa and a top governance partner on global goal 16, we have to have respect in the world. On a visit to Iraq last year, an MP said that they were watching the Brexit proceedings there every day, and laughing and crying at us—neither are what you want to see as a reflection of British foreign policy.

If we are to take advantage of these changes, perhaps it is as the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, said. His contributions always warm my heart in these debates, and even more so today because he quoted from Memory Hold-the-Door by John Buchan—a former constituent of mine, perhaps, in the Borders—which I quoted in my maiden speech in this House. Buchan said that the Borderer qualities, and those that he admired most in human nature, were,

“realism coloured by poetry, a stalwart independence sweetened by courtesy, a shrewd kindly wisdom”.

I hope that those characteristics will be reflected in our foreign policy in the future.

Yemen: Giving Peace a Chance (International Relations Committee Report)

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 1st April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, following the powerful contributions from the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on the humanitarian situation and their personal reflections, the noble Lord, Lord Luce, on the geopolitical situation, the noble Baronesses, Lady Amos and Lady Anelay, on highlighting the failings of a process that is actively excluding the majority of people, women—I will touch on that later—and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, there are limited areas on which I can make an original contribution to this debate. It has been very powerful, even if it has been brief. I have the pleasure, as do others, of serving on the committee so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and I concur with all of the contributions from my colleagues on the committee today.

I direct the House to my entry in the register of interests. Yesterday afternoon, I returned from a two-country visit to the Middle East. It was said to me then, as others in this debate have remarked, that we have lost with his resignation a Minister who is widely respected, not only in this House but, more importantly, in the region. A week on from his resignation, it is depressing to see there is no Minister for the Middle East to replace him in the Government. It is not acceptable that the Middle East is now covered by a Minister extending the scope of Africa and a Minister extending the scope of Asia. I hope the Minister will give the positive response that the Prime Minister will appoint a Minister for the Middle East as a matter of urgency.

I want to address the first element on which many noble Lords have commented, our arms and defence relationship with Saudi and the UAE. Any reader of the FCO website on GOV.UK will see two articles. The first has the headline:

“Britain has been shaping the world for centuries. That won’t change with Brexit”.


That is immediately followed by:

“Yemen crisis won’t be solved by UK arms exports halt”.


There is a jarring visual element to reading the articles by the Foreign Secretary, not just from looking at the website. I commend the Foreign Secretary for visiting the region, taking a strong special interest in this and supporting Michael Aron, our ambassador for Yemen, and his excellent team based in Amman, who are doing hard work.

The article by the Foreign Secretary said that the “strategic relationship”, by which he means our arms and defence relationship,

“allows us the opportunity to influence their leaders”,

by which he means Saudi Arabia and the UAE. He wrote that, if we stop this relationship, our position would be “morally bankrupt” and we would be bystanders. He gives the impression—in fact he states—that Stockholm would not have happened and we would not have the peace process. That is a regrettable article and it undermines some of the humanitarian work that the UK has provided in that area. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, it jars with the position of Germany and the United States Congress.

If countries buy over £5 billion of work from us, most objective people will wonder who provides the influence. Is it the seller or the buyer? There are questions on not just the use of the armaments that we sell but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has said, on the down-the-line impact of the training on those weapons and targeted training, and the deeply ingrained relationship we have. It is right for the committee, if not to say it explicitly, to ask for a serious and urgent reconsideration of our defence relationship, given this conflict.

I declare an interest in that I chair the UK board of Search for Common Ground, which has worked in Yemen since 2010, with consistent and active programming throughout the conflict cycles, not only of the last four years, but the last nine years. It has active projects running across seven different governorates, in both north and south, covering stabilisation, countering a culture of violence, conflict sensitivity among the humanitarian sector and trying to support the national peace process. In addition to the UK Government, work there has been supported by diverse UN agencies, USAID and the foreign ministries of the Netherlands and France, among others, showing that it is an international area of consistency. It is also an international shame that this crisis can still exist in the 21st century.

I commend the UK, however, for its government support and humanitarian aid delivery. I would like to see the Government moving beyond a do-no-harm approach to humanitarian assistance and more into the development sphere. From the many visits I made to northern Iraq when Mosul was occupied by ISIS, I saw that insufficient consideration of good governance work post peace process means that those who have been most affected will not be involved in the long-term reconstruction and rehabilitation of communities.

Other noble Lords have mentioned the three-phase process of the UN envoy. Phase one is the redeployment of forces away from Hodeidah. Phase two is a prisoner exchange, which is complex, as I understand there are high-value prisoners from the Saudi side. We know from the situation in Northern Ireland over many years that prisoner exchange is a highly charged and problematic issue. Perhaps we can offer some good lessons on the second area of prisoner exchange. The third phase is for a joint committee for Taiz which, I hope, will meet soon to agree a peaceful way forward.

As indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, and others, the confidence process is one of incremental stages. If it does not create a degree of momentum, which can be buffeted by wider political considerations of other partners, including Saudi Arabia and Iran, it will be hard to consider what progress is. It would help if the Minister can say what areas of progress the Government consider are sufficiently robust to reassure both sides that there can be movement to the next stage of the peace process.

It is worth putting on record the good offices of the Omani and Jordanian Governments, but I also return to the point mentioned so powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and others. Over recent years, we have seen the negative impact, both in Iraq and Libya, of processes that exclude women. This does not have an academic element, nor is further research needed. We know for a fact that the majority group has been excluded and that these peace processes are less robust because of it. Even in the last week in Amman, an event took place in which no women participated, contrary to the UN principles indicated by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. It may be time for the UK to say to the United Nations that an empty-chair approach could be necessary until women are actively part of the process.

As Mark Lowcock indicated, 24 million people need assistance. A population the size of London will be hungry tonight in that region, and we consider most of those victims to be women. It is simply not acceptable anymore, in how we go about our diplomacy and peacebuilding work, that women are considered a group that deserves to be consulted but not to participate. I hope the Minister says that our approach to look for an opportunity for the participation of women in this peace process before Ramadan will start to see some urgency.

Violent Extremism

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2018 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the report of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for the British Council Building Young People’s Resilience to Violent Extremism in the Middle East and North Africa, published on 12 December 2017, what are their priorities for preventing and countering violent extremism.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as an office holder of the All-Party Group on the British Council. I was a member of a sub-committee of the all-party group which worked under the able chair, David Warburton MP, on putting together a report with my colleagues, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson and Lady Suttie, and, for a period, the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, all of whom are in their places. Together we forged a degree of consensus after receiving a great deal of evidence from witnesses, to whom we are grateful. Our report, which was published last year and formally earlier this year, I hope is a contribution to a debate which will continue to be of considerable importance not only for the United Kingdom but for our allies and partners across the MENA region. That work was ably supported by Siobhan Foster Perkins and Zafran Iqbal, who was at the British Council at the time. Without their support we would not have been able to put together our recommendations and conclusions.

Two weeks ago, 8 million children across the Middle East and North Africa sat their end-of-year school exams. Many will have done so after overcoming significant challenges—displacement, poverty, child labour, poor school transportation, overcrowding, lack of teachers and facilities and low-quality education. One in five of all children across the region live in conflict-affected countries. Those children do not only deserve our admiration but consideration of the role we can play to help them grow up in a safe, stable and prosperous region where they can realise their ambitions.

It might be only a tiny proportion of these young people who become violent as a result of being radicalised, but their violent behaviour has an impact on the wider age group across the whole of the region. The all-party group sub-committee therefore considered the best ways of improving resilience among young people to overcome this and whether our government policy needs to be reviewed. I am pleased that the Minister will be responding to this debate. He commands a great deal of respect not only from myself but across all parts of the House.

Nearly a third of the region’s population is aged between 15 and 29, with a further third aged below that. This demographic momentum, therefore, will last for at least two decades. The phenomenon of some young people using violence as an extension of their extreme views may also now be a long-term issue that requires long-term solutions, given the scale of violent conflict affecting the area. The sub-committee found that there was a need for new thinking. However, often the debate has not been helped by casual terminology. While we found a lack of consensus around definitions and language, we settled on the broad descriptions used by the United Nations on countering violent extremism by focusing on the so-called pull factors of the individual and preventing violent extremism by focusing on the so-called push factors of the wider community. However, even that division is too simplistic. We considered carefully whether we have the correct balance between CVE and PVE. We found that without undermining the security considerations of CVE, once extremism has exhibited itself, the balance should rest upon the priority being on PVE to reduce the risk factors in an individual’s capacity and the society’s ability to reduce vulnerability to violent extremism.

Those risk factors within the society fall within three broad areas—economic, civic and social. The economic factors in the region are stark. Research by UNICEF shows that in 11 League of Arab States countries, the under-18 population stands at approximately 118 million, or 6% of the world’s child population. Of those 118 million, 82 million—70%—live in acute or moderate poverty. There is no evidence to make a direct link between poverty and violent extremism. Nevertheless, countries afflicted by conflict and with such acute economic difficulties often present fertile ground where extreme ideology, and those who use it as a tool, can develop. A further complexity is that we know through research that the majority of the most extreme violent young people have educational qualifications. Simply looking at access to education will therefore not be so revealing. Rather, witnesses told the committee that the type and quality of education available to young people in the region was of the greatest importance.

The risk factors associated with the civic sphere are plain to see for anyone visiting the region. Too many young people see their respective Governments as unresponsive, unrepresentative, corrupt and distant. A body of research presented to the sub-committee suggests that this is likely to be a major continuing factor of risk in the region. The state capture of non-state actors is also very present. Social risk factors often receive the most publicity. The simplistic, often verging on the Islamophobic, characterisation of religious radicalism belies complex and multifaceted issues concerning young peoples’ beliefs, identities and loyalties. Work in Tunisia by the peacebuilding charity Search for Common Ground, which we met over there, shows clearly that young people in the region are not a homogeneous group and that drivers for radicalisation are often localised and differ from one community to another.

Given this highly complex set of circumstances in a deeply troubled region, we found that focusing on upstream activity—in other words, on the building of greater strength and capacity in communities and societies, and on the individual herself or himself—is a more effective route to follow than countering it once it has materialised. It is not, however, the straightforward route. The UN Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism states that,

“there is no authoritative statistical data on the pathways towards individual radicalization”.

However, we learned of clear evidence of programmes delivered by the British Council itself or by UK-based or international NGOs where interventions to reduce the risk factors for individuals and the community have worked and are continuing to work. I want to put on record my admiration for DfID’s staff and others within the charity sector who are doing sterling work.

The sub-committee made a number of recommendations which we believe would help build on this work, informed by our witnesses and the evidence we received. Our principal conclusion was that there needed to be scaled-up activity in preventing violent extremism along with better co-ordination of effort by both donor and recipient Governments as well as the international NGO community. This reflects our view that while there are many complexities and cross-overs between the push and pull factors in addressing violent extremism, we believe that the principal focus on investing in building the resilience of communities and the individuals living in them is the most effective way to build the capabilities of young people and the stability of their community, so that they reject the proponents of violent extremism and the ideology which they promote. They can also recover more quickly from violent extremism when it manifests itself in the community or their country.

I cannot do justice to the 28 conclusions and recommendations in the report, nor will I try to rattle them all off for the benefit of the Committee, but I know that neither will the Minister be able to respond in detail to them all today. I wish to highlight some which I feel are important, and I am sure that colleagues will highlight those that they consider to be the most important to them. First, relating to the risk factors within the economic and education systems in the region, we found a need for much greater co-ordination among its education ministries on data, statistics, skills gaps and curriculum reform. We believe that an annual MENA education forum, supported by the British Council and the Government, would have merit.

We also saw many examples of excellent programmes to support young people, but there has been insufficient consideration of how they can be scaled up. That is not easy but it is necessary. In the civic space, we saw that the benefits would be much greater collaboration between NGOs and Governments on the rollout and use of participation programmes, and we suggested consideration of a MENA-wide national citizen service. In the social sphere, we recommended that more work should be done to identify individual risk communities within countries and to share this data.

A recommendation to our Government is that they should set out a clear UK strategy for and approach to preventing violent extremism and offer more clarity on what programmes they fund and why. To address what we found to be the continuing lack of an evidence base on effectiveness, we called for donors to invest more effort into ensuring that programmes are evidence-based and carefully evaluated, with their impact being properly judged, and to publish the lessons learned for future programming.

We argued for much more work on the violent extremism theory of change and seeking consensus based on a much greater level of sharing good practice. To help bring this about, we called for a violent extremism community of practice, and I am delighted that the British Council has accepted this recommendation and will be convening it soon. I hope that the Government will offer their full support. This could be extremely valuable and, I believe, is the first of its kind. We also recommended that the Government should encourage other Governments in the region to commit to a whole-government response rather than the agenda being led by the security or interior ministries. Finally, we believe that all of this could be enhanced by the UK promoting a PVE charter which would show consistency of language and a consensus on the effectiveness of interventions, and would work in parallel with the UN.

I returned from the region at lunchtime today. Every time I visit the area I see small pockets of hope in a deeply troubled region. Those 8 million children who sat their exams will be just as anxious as our children will be later in the summer when they get their results. What our kids take for granted in this country, we should make every effort to ensure that children in the MENA region can also take for granted: a safe, open and tolerant society in which their ambitions can be fulfilled.

UK and the Western Balkans (IRC Report)

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, whose views I share. I will touch on some of those as regards the UK’s position on Brexit before I turn to my own remarks. It is certainly not my place to answer on behalf of the committee or on our report, but I can assure the noble Lord that our valued colleague on our committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, shares service in the OSCE parliamentary assembly. She raises the role of the OSCE on a regular basis. When I accompanied her on our split committee visit to Bosnia-Herzegovina and Belgrade, the contribution made by the OSCE was frequently raised by her with those we met.

If the entire western Balkans were one country, its gross domestic product would be about €96 billion, the same as Slovakia and barely over half that of Scotland, while the population would be less than that of Romania. The host of last week’s EU western Balkans summit, the Prime Minister of Bulgaria, Boyko Borissov, asked whether the region represented the “big fear” and whether it is threatening the European Union. Donald Tusk drily responded by saying:

“When it comes to troubles per capita, the western Balkans are much bigger than, for example, Germany and France together”.


During the committee’s deliberations, one witness commented from the sidelines that at the moment we are suffering from a capacity issue within our foreign services. The number of crises that can be managed by our diplomats and officials is now almost at exhaustion. As said by my noble friend Lord Ashdown, given that lives are not regularly being lost, it is understandable—but depressing, in a way—that the eye has been taken off the ball somewhat.

However, the complexities are such that we should continue to see this as not simply a historical lesson, but one for our modern age. I witnessed them quite clearly and reflected them from the thrust of what my noble friend Lord Ashdown has said in previous contributions and writings. I saw first hand a situation where the Government of one country believe that they are the legitimate Government of citizens of another country. That is no different from what we have seen in parts of north Africa and the Middle East. There are common issues—not least those that were debated in the Chamber yesterday on Northern Ireland—and common factors that require us to address this in a much more assertive way. For allowing us to navigate some of these complexities, I pay tribute, as other committee members have done, to our clerking staff, witnesses and specialist adviser, Professor Kenneth Morrison; his knowledge and understanding helped us greatly.

In advance of the inquiry’s commencement, I read my noble friend Lord Ashdown’s diaries of his time as a high representative. Listening to his contribution today, as well as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, it was clear in my mind that we are now at the start of the third phase after the conflict. There was considerable progress in the first decade, there was a decline in the second and we are now at the pivotal stage of making decisions in the third. If President Juncker is correct that the Commission may well be looking at the entry of Montenegro and Serbia at the end of its next period in 2025, it will be doing so on the 30th anniversary of the tragedy. As other committee members have said, and as the underlying warnings in our report’s conclusion suggest, we cannot take this decade of success for granted. Indeed, I hope that the Minister will respond positively to my noble friend’s clear warnings.

I felt that we had two broad themes in the inquiry. The first, which was addressed to me recently by Dr Kate Ferguson of the charity Protection Approaches, is that the last period has been about the inadequacy of our response to not just a post-conflict scenario but a post-trauma one. We are living through that trauma now in the wider Mediterranean and Middle East region. The complexities that we are failing to address now will grow even greater.

Our report’s conclusions broadly endorse the often-quoted observation of my noble friend Lord Ashdown that the Dayton agreement was good for a cessation of violence but not for creating sustainable governance. We have seen limited progress over the past 20 years, primarily in the first decade where there was economic growth and the establishment of tax authorities and other representative bodies. Even though that was as painful as my noble friend indicated, those bodies were nevertheless established and started to function, along with elections and peace.

In the context of world-leading levels of youth unemployment—Bosnia has the highest levels in the world—we are also seeing the state capture of institutions, which is not seen anywhere else on the continent or in the world, and organised crime with tentacles that reach as far as the UK, north Africa and beyond. Only two places in the world have negative development, and one of them is in Europe. Visiting that place allows us to say that the current level of action is not sufficient. As other committee members have indicated, and as is clear in our report, the troubles per capita to which Donald Tusk referred include those associated with state capture, where we continue to see powerful individuals and small groups of individuals monopolise control of state institutions, political parties and state-owned enterprises. On our visit, we saw clearly their malignant influence on the media and the private sector, too.

With 62% youth unemployment in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the brain drain of young people and the level of pessimism outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, one of our more depressing findings was that it is arguably in the elite’s interest that this is not addressed. The state capture thrives on the inadequacy of policy responses which might undermine it, hence the inherent tensions in the debate on EU membership and whether they are in a position where they are likely to meet the requirements of the acquis or whether our intervention levels are now sufficient to allow them to do it. We need to support those at high levels within the western Balkans who see this clearly as a way of developing their own countries.

We met an official from one of highest levels in the Serb Government who said that they need membership of the European Union to save them from themselves. This was a cri de coeur from very serious people who I believe are genuine in their view that European Union membership is critical to the future of their nations. There is a degree of self-awareness there which is undermined by the lack of functioning architecture, as my noble friend Lord Ashdown indicated.

It was therefore no surprise that we saw the Sofia priority agenda agreed last week at the EU western Balkans summit. The top two priorities were tackling corruption and rule of law. However, experts with far more knowledge than me found some of the language used at the summit by key European Union partners slightly confusing. The official summit communiqué expressed,

“unequivocal support for the European perspective of the Western Balkans”.

Let us compare that rather delphic phrase with the declaration of the first EU western Balkans summit in Thessaloniki in 2003, which provided clarity in stating:

“The future of the Balkans is within the European Union”.


President Macron referred only to “anchoring” the western Balkans to Europe. Chancellor Merkel called for a clear membership “perspective”. If I may refer again to my noble friend Lord Ashdown’s diaries—I doubt that it will do book sales any good, because I borrowed it from the House of Lords Library and my noble friend chided me for not buying it—it is clear that what was of assistance in the first decade was there being a British Commissioner, a British Secretary-General of NATO and a British high representative able to communicate freely with authority at every step. That is not there at the moment. Also worrying is the lack of clarity, even from last week. We hope that the UK position can be very clear.

However, how can the UK position be clear on espousing the benefits of European membership when our narrative is almost exactly the reverse? Of course, the United Kingdom has a role in supporting good governance, in security, in transparency in the operation of the media, in fighting corruption and in all the areas in which it can lead—no doubt the Minister will say that is a critical part of the agenda. But how can our fundamental narrative be with regard to the EU as the key driver—on chapter 23 of the acquis, on judiciary and fundamental rights; on chapter 24, on justice, freedom and security—when we are saying that it is not sufficient for the United Kingdom’s future? I hope that the summit will be a success, notwithstanding Britain’s current position in our debate on Brexit.

Finally, the two Members in this debate who have the deepest knowledge and experience, as other Members have said, perhaps gave the most pessimistic view of the future. I see it not necessarily as pessimism but as a realistic warning based on their life experience and their professional judgment. It is not pessimism because both outlined key actions that can be taken to address the situation. I hope the Government will respond and that—with others, particularly the young people we met at the round table and in evidence we received on our committee visit—in the third phase of the post-trauma recovery of this European crisis, the actions taken in London in July will herald a more beneficial third decade than was the second.