Military Interventions Overseas

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, notwithstanding the excellent question from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, with which I associate myself, is it not the case that Operation Prosperity Guardian—under the umbrella of the Combined Maritime Forces and Combined Task Force 153—now has strategic aims rather than responsive ones, as we would categorise an emergency. On that basis, there is a strong likelihood that British forces will continue to be needed to deployed and to carry out actions. On that basis, given the experience in this House, and indeed, as the Leader said, given the ongoing review of the Cabinet Manual, is it not time that we had a full debate in this House in particular so that we can discuss the Red Sea and the need for British deployments as well as the Cabinet guidance?

[Lord True (Con)]

That matter was alluded to yesterday. I said we would reflect on these matters in the usual channels. There was a debate on the Red Sea situation in the other place. I pointed out yesterday that we have a debate tomorrow in your Lordships’ House on Ukraine, on which there has not been a debate recently in the other place. The Government will continue actively to consider the best ways of keeping both Houses informed and involved in these situations.

Action Against Houthi Maritime Attacks

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, there is an enormous weight of diplomatic activity going on. It is important to note that China backed the UN resolution which called for this activity to stop and to enable lawful traffic on the seas to go ahead. As far as the accountability of Parliament is concerned, I have spoken about it. We also have a Question on the matter from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, tomorrow, which may provide a further opportunity.

The Government are conscious of their duty and of their duty to protect servicepeople who may be sent into hazardous operations. There is also a balance there as to the time and nature of information that can be disclosed.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the UK is a penholder within the United Nations. In addition, the UK signed a development partnership agreement with the internationally recognised Government of Yemen last summer. Can the Leader of the House outline whether that agreement is still in place? Also, in the Statement he said that humanitarian assistance was central to this issue. I agree with him, but he will know that the UK has reduced humanitarian assistance for Yemen by up to 80% over the last three years. If the partnership agreement with the internationally recognised Government is still in place, what plans are there to restore the humanitarian assistance to Yemen that we have reduced?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, these arrangements are still in place. My noble friend Lord Ahmad on the Front Bench here was whispering in my ear that he was speaking to the Foreign Minister of Yemen only last week, so we count this to be extremely important and ongoing.

It is vital that we continue, if we can, to get support into Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen. As noble Lords will know, the Houthis have said that UK and US staff working for the UN in Yemen should be ready to leave their controlled areas of Yemen in 30 days. Those kinds of statements, plus these unlawful attacks on the shipping that imperil the bringing in of aid by sea, suggest that the noble Lord should use considerable influence, as I know he does, to ensure that these malefactors cease making it more difficult to get humanitarian aid to their own people.

Defending the UK and Allies

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

Absolutely so, my Lords. My noble friend and my other noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon are both very actively involved with this, along with the Foreign Secretary. Some people can say things in a place such as this House and say things publicly that maybe they cannot say in other forums. That may well be the case in diplomatic exchanges. However, I can assure your Lordships that few people support the disruptive and malign activities of the Iranian regime in seeking to destabilise an area of the world where we must spend all our efforts to bring stability and prevent escalation. That is our constant objective. I can promise my noble friend that we will certainly continue to make the distinction between protecting international shipping and the situation in Gaza, because that is the truth of the matter. As I said in my first response, the Houthis were firing on ships that had absolutely nothing to do with Israel. That is an activity which must cease.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, this is the 18th time I have asked a question on or raised Yemen in this Chamber in the past three and a half years. The first time I was referencing UK humanitarian and development support for Yemen, which was £235 million. It was justified by the Government—correctly—on the ground that the UK has a long-term interest in a more stable Yemen, with the kind of prosperity and human development to which the Leader referred. That £235 million has been cut by two-thirds over the intervening period, without an impact assessment being published by the Government, so the figure the Leader referred to is now less than one-third of what it was three and half years ago. What was the strategic case for that?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, Yemen has been through an extraordinarily difficult period of conflict and the noble Lord is quite right to bring the matter to your Lordships’ House, as have many other Members of this House. The United Kingdom Government have stood with the Yemeni people, and we continue to stand with the Yemeni people. As the noble Lord will know with his expertise in these matters, there has been a de facto settlement in some of the conflict in Lebanon, which Saudi Arabia has been involved with, and there is a good chance of a peace in which we could develop further humanitarian aid. Again, the Houthis should recognise that. Frankly, if you are worried about humanitarian aid, whether you are a Houthi or anybody else, firing on commercial shipping is about the worst thing you could do.

Long-Term Strategic Challenges Posed by China

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, on a number of occasions when opening this debate, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to “epoch-defining”. I believe that an epoch is the shortest geological period, but it refers to a few million years. I find myself agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, that we do not have to go far back to China’s referring, as it still does, to the century of humiliation between the mid-19th and 20th centuries, the source of which was a repudiation of British approaches of colonisation, exploiting minerals and goods, unequal treaties and territorial exploitation. We must be self-aware that what we are calling for now is in many respects in direct opposition and contrast to how we were perceived more than 100 years ago.

The noble Lord, Lord Swire, is absolutely right: the interesting backdrop to the debate today is the discussions between President Putin and President Xi in Beijing and the joint statements that were made as part of what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to as the friendship without limits. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, is right: sometimes our opponents may become friends, but we often maintain friends with limits on that friendship. That is the context of the debate today, and I am grateful, as we all are, for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I must say that with his growing list of sanctions against him, I am getting slightly envious; I think I am doing something not right enough. He is putting us to shame, but that is testimony to his persistence and work in highlighting human rights abuses, and it is to his credit.

The authoritarianism and assertiveness that the noble Earl, who is not in his place, mentioned at the start of this debate is that the PRC is growing both internally and externally. Only yesterday, I met a delegation of senators from the Philippines who told me of China’s increasing harassment of shipping, which is of growing concern to them.

The recent reforms to liberalise the Philippine economy are now being seen through a national security lens in critical sectors. I will return to this later regarding consequences within the UK, but it is worth repeating that concerns raised on these Benches are not on the people-to-people relations with the Chinese people—whether students or workers in education or culture, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, indicated. However, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, was right to highlight the International Relations and Defence Committee’s report, which signalled the concern that there was a strategic void in the approach of the Government. While the Minister indicated the three pillars as the Government’s response, I find myself in agreement with the noble and gallant Lord that this is not a sufficient response to the committee’s recommendations.

We know that China’s approach is long term and strategic. After my party’s conference—at which I had meetings with those from Hong Kong as well as Liberal Democrats who have left China because of the concern for human rights abuses—I travelled to Malawi, Ethiopia and, last week, for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, I was in Hanoi and the Vietnam/Laos border area. It was fascinating to be in Lilongwe, at a Parliament built by China on a road that is being constructed by China from the airport; then to be on a flight from Lilongwe to Addis, which goes through Lubumbashi in the DRC and which filled up with Chinese workers because Chinese companies own 15 of the 19 industrial copper cobalt lining concessions in the DRC; and then to travel to Hanoi from Dubai, seeing the myriad flights across the whole country.

I return to the very points that the noble Lord, Lord Swire, made regarding why we should not complain about this; we should observe it, but also act ourselves. It was fascinating to be in Vietnam on the WFD programme because of the desire of the Vietnamese to expand and deepen their relations with the UK on a strategic basis, in everything from education and research partnerships to sharing some of our experience so that they can diversify their relationship with China.

Regarding Africa, however, the noble Lord, Lord Swire, is right. It is very welcome that His Majesty will be visiting Kenya for his first non-European state visit. However, the last time that a British Prime Minister made a bilateral visit to an African country was when Theresa May went six years ago. She promised then that the UK would be the biggest G7 investor in Africa by this year—a commitment that was dumped within six months. It is no surprise, therefore, that when it comes to what could well be more predictable partnerships, they will look to China as being a more reliable partner.

We know, though, that China’s trading relations in African countries are not unconditional. Its use of strategic debt is not necessarily an approach that we would take in the 21st century. Therefore, a valid opportunity still exists for the UK to be a reliable and predictable partner. However, as has been said in the debate, we have had six Foreign Secretaries in eight years, often with differing views on our relationship with China. We did not have a development strategy for six years and now we will have two in two years. That uncertainty and lack of predictability is a concern.

I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Swire, mentioned David Cameron; I did not want to. Part of my concern, interestingly, was previously raised by the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, which criticised his chairing of the UK-China investment fund. That is on the record. My issue regarding that project, which David Cameron was paid an undisclosed sum of money to promote, is that it is now owned by China, since the previous owners defaulted on their debt to China. Therefore, the UK not responding to the use of strategic debt in that region is of significance, and a former British Prime Minister should be more self-aware in that regard and not have his bank balance as his top priority.

We have heard about not just neighbouring countries, but Taiwan. The UK must always stand on the side of democracy, human rights, international law and multilateralism—and I welcome the noble Earl, Lord Howe, back to his place. Our relationship with Taiwan is a very good illustration of how we can both meet our need to support democracy in the region and develop more strategic, economic and diverse trading relations.

At the same time, we need to reduce our economic dependency. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I have repeatedly raised our concerns that our level of deficit in trade in goods with China is unsustainable. As the noble Earl correctly indicated, total European trade with China is €450 billion, but the UK trade deficit in goods—just the deficit—is 10%, so over £40 billion. This affects how we communicate with our consumers, who find the importation and purchase of Chinese goods easier through Amazon and online purchases, but find it increasingly hard to buy from our European neighbours. This means that, if there are coercive tactics, or decisions that are arbitrary or made by Beijing, they will affect the British economy disproportionately. When it comes to the resilience of these goods being shipped through the region, we are additionally vulnerable.

I agreed with the earlier comments of the noble Lord, Lord Collins. If there is a Labour Government after the next general election, whether alone or in coalition, in whatever circumstances, we will support their requirement for a strategic audit of the UK’s relationship with China. This should lead to a comprehensive UK strategy based on our values of respect for human rights and the rule of law, aligned with our European partners, but clearly identifying the parameters of engagement that should exist to tackle issues such as biodiversity, health, nuclear non-proliferation and more sensitive areas such as AI regulation.

In returning to the UK economy, I hope that any strategic audit includes a full industrial strategy enabling UK companies to be more aware of what this trading relationship is, to be competitive and more self-reliant with additional government support. This means that we will review the preferential UK market access agreements with China. The noble Lord, Lord Swire, referenced President Xi’s visit, and many of us were in the Royal Gallery to listen to his speech. The Government’s accompanying statement signalled the 17 preferential market access agreements across all ranges of the service sector and the economy. Not one of those, including the continuing ability for Chinese state pension companies to have open access to UK pension funds, and vice versa, has been reviewed to assess whether it is fit for purpose. If, as the noble Earl indicated, China now poses an “epoch-defining” challenge, how on earth could we not review the preferential market access that it has been given as part of the strategic challenge that we face?

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to Newport Wafer Fab. In welcoming that decision, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, what other parts of the economy would be reviewed on a similar basis to semiconductors at Newport Wafer. He rejected even the concept of a review across the whole sector. That is not sustainable. Similarly, we need to review research co-operation and intellectual property vulnerabilities in our economy. Countries such as Vietnam and others are open to entering into more transparent agreements here.

I will close on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Swire, ended with, because I agree with him. Every Member of this House, particularly the Minister, knows my view about the unlawful reduction of official development assistance. In my view, it is not just the morally wrong thing to do, which is the primary reason I am opposed to it, but a strategic error of enormous importance. This is because of not only the impact that it has had in creating a vacuum which China fills, but the signals it sends, which Moscow and China are using strategically in an alternative narrative. I am afraid that we will find, to our peril in the long term, that although money may well have been “saved” by the cut to overseas development assistance, we will see less return for our strategic value in the future. Whatever happens, we need to be more dependable when it comes to delivering on what we said we would deliver. We need to be a reliable and predictable partner. In many ways, as we have heard in the very excellent contributions so far, we need to do what China is doing, just better and in our way.

The Importance of the Relationship Between the United Kingdom and India

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Viscount. As others have done, I warmly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for securing this debate. It has allowed us to hear and pay tribute to Lord Soley, who is no longer with us—I think he is having his drinks upstairs. I thought it was a neat trick of his to ensure that he had a standing ovation before and after his speech, with the Adjournment. We enjoyed it very much.

We also enjoyed the maiden speeches. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, will be busy in this House, along with her colleagues from Northern Ireland. We look forward to her contributions, as we do to those of the noble Earl, Lord Minto. As someone who took the title of “Tweed”, lives in Roxburghshire, has been to Minto, is from the area and represented a neighbouring constituency, I welcome him particularly warmly. There are few records—I checked—of the Elliots reiving from the Purvises; I think that that is solely because we were so poor that we did not have cattle. Nevertheless, from his family having the honourable profession of being reivers in the Borders, it has been a slippery slope down to law and politics. I welcome him very warmly to this House.

In introducing the debate so well and comprehensively, the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, remarked how interesting it is that it has taken place after a debate recognising 75 years of the Windrush generation. Some of the similarities that she referred to struck me. In a debate that we recently had on India, I said that there is no part of our country that is not touched by our relationship, whether it is our high streets, our research centres or our NHS, which is the same age as the Windrush generation and Indian independence. We are the country that we are today because of India and the contribution that it has made. In the visits I have been fortunate enough to make there, I have been in awe of the magnificence and diversity of the history and culture of the world’s largest democracy.

There is another alcoholic link beyond the beer entrepreneurship of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, if he will forgive me. India is quite a remarkable destination for malt and Scotch Whisky—our combinations are not just beer.

Some 3.1% of the population of this country is of Indian descent; that is the size of a nation within our family of nations in the UK. The contribution has been huge. That close relationship allows us to debate the complexities, as the noble Lords, Lord Swire, Lord Anderson and Lord Hannay, indicated, when it comes to our relations with other friends with whom we have similarly deep relations, such as Pakistan. We can have debates on sensitive areas such as the dispute in Kashmir and raise issues such as the decision in 2019 to remove special status. We can seek to play a role, with the United States and others, in having an understanding to seek peace in this area. We very much understand the complexities associated with this.

Dr Gareth Price, a former senior research fellow in the Asia-Pacific programme at Chatham House, has commented widely on some who may be reconceptualising the secular agenda in India. The diaspora in this country has very close relationships to those debates. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Sharif has called for third-party support in the relationships with the UAE in particular. I would be interested to know from the Minister whether we are engaged with our allies—India, Pakistan, the Gulf and the United States—on this debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Swire, talked about recent decisions. India is a full, sovereign country making its own strategic decisions for its interests, but they are not always aligned with ours. We recognise that; we are friendly nations. We want to be partners in areas but, as the noble Lord indicated, on the decisions on oil purchases, the rupee-rouble swaps that I have raised with the Minister previously and voting in the United Nations, we need a proper, mature relationship—both on our interests, which I will come on to, and on areas where we disagree.

In areas of human development, we are partners. It is interesting to read the FCDO’s human rights report, published in December, which highlights areas where the UK and India are working together on tackling some of the world’s most complex and difficult issues, such as workers’ rights in garments factories. India is taking the lead in tackling human trafficking in Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat, while the UK and India are working on preventing bonded labour in Uttar Pradesh as well as working in West Bengal and other areas to support development for vulnerable children.

I have seen for myself UK and Indian partnerships in Kolkata—for instance, the support for a charity for girls that focuses on sport and rugby. I took rugby kit bags from the SRU to Kolkata and saw how the UK and India are working together.

I have one final area of concern before I move on to the enormous opportunities that the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, rightly highlighted; it will be no surprise to the Minister. The Government have indicated that, at the Carbis Bay summit that we led, the G7, alongside the Republic of Korea, South Africa, India and Australia, signed up to an open society statement. Oxfam, directly to me, and the Government have recognised that the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act in India—it has halted the work of Oxfam India—is jarring when it comes to the open society statement. I would be interested to hear what the Minister can say on the dialogue we are having with India about that.

The opportunities here are enormous. The noble Lord, Lord Sahota, rightly referred to the five areas of the 2030 Roadmap for India-UK Future Relations. The first area is connecting our countries and people and, at its heart, enhanced institutional structures. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline at the outset where we are on this and where we want to be. I, for one, would love to have much greater links between this Parliament and the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, parliamentarians to parliamentarians. I have been to both chambers through Commonwealth Parliamentary Association work but I would love for there to be far more bilateral parliamentary work, Parliament to Parliament. Our committees could do joint work with theirs as we work on some of these areas. I would love for parliamentary institutions to be included.

As for trade and prosperity, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and others indicated the deep level of relationship that could be enhanced by free trade. I, too, welcome the sense of reality on the trade agreement that now exists with the current Secretary of State. I am enthusiastically in favour of a trade agreement. In terms of key areas and sectors to be developed, I would love for there to be innovative discussions on mobility and to have some kind of agreement with India that is similar to what we have with Australia and New Zealand—it is slightly painful to me that France is ahead of us on the mutual recognition of qualifications—as well as discussions on procurement, services and research. As the noble Baroness indicated, in terms of a defence and security partnership, no two nations could have a better way of working on cyberspace, when we look at the difficulties. Work between the UK and India on the non-proliferation of cyberaggression could be a gift to the world. Of course, there should also be discussions on the climate.

Finally, there is another 75th anniversary next week: that of the death of Gandhi. He said:

“Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever”.


I reviewed the Hansard of the Second Reading in the Lords of the Indian Independence Act on 16 July 1947. From these Benches, my predecessor, Viscount Samuel, ended his remarks by describing the then Bill as

“a treaty of peace without a war.”—[Official Report, 16/7/1947; col. 832.]

We celebrate 75 years of peaceful relations between two sovereign nations, sometimes with disagreement but, more often than not, with agreement. Our people and communities are so linked together that, whatever we do, our future is dependent on our Indian relations and the world’s is dependent on India.

COP 27

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the Government are scoring international climate finance against ODA, and their 0.5% cap means that that spending has to be offset by cuts to developing countries elsewhere. The £90 million that the Leader referred to for the Congo Basin was actually part of funds announced last year in Glasgow. My question to the Leader is simple. Was any of the support announced at COP 27 extra money which will not have to be met from cuts elsewhere in the development budget for least-developing countries?

[Lord True (Con)]

The noble Lord was typically enthusiastic about government policies. On the climate finance target, the Prime Minister said in the Statement that we regretted that the goal would be met later than 2020, as originally expected, but it is important to recognise that significant progress has been made. Under our presidency, 95% of developed countries have come forward with ambitious new commitments on finance, with some doubling or even going up to four times their commitment.

I agree that more needs to be done to ensure trust in the process. That is why we asked Canada and Germany to develop a delivery plan for the climate finance target with all developed countries. It remains one that, with commitments, we are confident can be reached, but we regret and acknowledge that the goal will be met later than 2020, as originally expected.

Covid-19

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I agree with the noble Baroness’s last point but I think that she miscategorised me slightly. I did not say that antivirals were the only answer; I said that they are one part of a suite of things that we need to be doing, from ventilation through to hygiene and cleanliness. There is a whole range of things that we will need to do, but she is absolutely right: we need to understand how we can live with Covid and not continually chase our tails, because we can see the damage that it causes.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I received my two vaccines in Scotland but my booster jab in England. I have been informed by NHS England and NHS Scotland that there is still no way of having that booster jab recognised under the Scottish system. Likewise, after so many months of this pandemic, why have both Governments not worked this out together? When will this be resolved?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I completely understand the noble Lord’s frustration. My niece is at university in Cardiff and is in exactly the same position; she has had to go back to Wales over the holiday to get her jabs. I will certainly take his request to bang heads together back to the department.

Afghanistan

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, in representing a military barracks in my former constituency during the military phase of our operation in Afghanistan and personally knowing bereaved families, I admire as others do the great sacrifices our service men and women have made. But it is our duty to ask questions, however awkward, difficult or uncomfortable they may be for our country.

The Government told the International Relations and Defence Committee on page four of their response to our Select Committee report on Afghanistan that:

“UK forces lead assurance of security in the capital, Kabul, working alongside NATO Allies. This is vital for the security of the Afghan government and diplomatic presence”.


When the Taliban were making manoeuvres and it was obvious that they were approaching the capital, why were the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary absent? Did UK forces advise the Government that there was a likelihood that the capital would fall? Were contingency plans put in place for what we are now seeing happen in a chaotic manner? Why did the Government not indicate what those contingency plans may be?

The assumptions underlying the integrated review and even the defence Command Paper published on 30 July, plus the warnings from the head of MI5 and others, including Ministers, in response to our committee report, range from security from terrorism to the fact that the illicit trade in heroin from Afghanistan represents 95% of all heroin on UK streets. This will be used strategically by the Taliban and is now a direct national security threat. Will the Government now urgently update the integrated review and defence Command Paper, taking into consideration the new realities?

Regarding development and people, there were many warnings that there would be consequences of a 43% reduction in UK aid to Afghanistan for 2020-21, with further cuts being planned. Can the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, confirm that the position is the same as when he told the committee that UK support for Afghanistan was conditional on the Taliban not forming part of the Government? Is that still the position of the Government? Given the fact that half of UK aid went directly into Afghan Government funds, which are now defunct, is this aid to be new money, as the Leader of the House indicated? Is it not simply a reallocation of what had been proposed for three years of direct UK government support and has now been reallocated to the United Nations? On people, the government resettlement scheme does not permit third-country applications under law. That means that those who have fled to other countries from Afghanistan are not currently able to apply for UK resettlement. Will this now be changed by the Government in legislation?

Finally, it is no surprise to me, with the great difficulties that we have seen in Tunisia, that it was reported that the ISIS newsletter has sent out messages around that world that, for Libya, Tunisia and now Afghanistan, democracy does not work. Very simply, we must reassert that if the UK is committed to supporting open, tolerant and democratic approaches, we must publicly and openly work with our Gulf allies and the United Nations to offer as much leverage as is now possible. If there is to be dialogue and practical humanitarian support within Afghanistan, we must use all the allies, as uncomfortable as it may be for Pakistan, and ensure that we have a clear and public UK presence.

Official Development Assistance

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem for asking this Question and outlining it so clearly and powerfully. Many of his points were supported by those taking part in this short debate.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Greengross, referred to the relatively little-noticed but devastating submission by the World Health Organization to the IDC in the Commons, which referred to the set of 20 neglected tropical diseases which

“affect the poorest people in the poorest countries”

and which

“kill, blind, disfigure and maim, causing considerable and largely untold suffering to millions of people worldwide.”

The submission goes on to say that,

“as a consequence of the aid cuts, 20,000-30,000 individuals are likely to die, with the uncertainty in that estimate related to expected recent increases in disease incidence due to COVID-19-related programmatic delays.”

It concludes:

“the withdrawal of UK funding makes it likely that an estimated in-country inventory of”

277 million tablets

“donated by British and international pharmaceutical companies will expire and need to be incinerated”.

Can the Minister commit that no tablets meant for the poorest people in the world will be destroyed as a result of these cuts? That is my first question.

My second question relates to something that the Leader of the House was unable to provide me. Last week I asked her, as a member of the Government, to do something which members of the British Government have been doing for 25 years, which is to encourage the other richest countries in the world to meet their UN target of 0.7%. She was unable to do that, so I would like that reassurance in this debate today that it remains the position of the Government that we are encouraging all other developed countries to meet their obligations, which this Parliament enshrined in our law.

G7 and NATO Summits

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

At the NATO summit, leaders did indeed recommit to NATO’s defence investment pledge target of investing 2% of GDP in defence—10 allies meet that target now, and 20 are on track to meet it by 2024. Since 2014, defence investment by non-US allies has increased for seven consecutive years, with a real increase of 4.1% in 2021. So there is still work to do, but we are getting there.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Unlike the UK-hosted Gleneagles summit, which had the communiqué reference to the 0.7% target and the UK encouraging all other G8 members to meet it, and unlike the Lough Erne summit, where the Prime Minister’s official documentation and public statements encouraged other G8 members to meet the 0.7% target, this year there was no mention of any Minister encouraging any G7 country to meet that target. Will the Leader, as a member of the Cabinet, take the opportunity now, at the Dispatch Box, to encourage her G7 counterparts to meet the 0.7% UN target?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I am certainly happy to reiterate at the Dispatch Box that the UK is a world-leading aid donor. We have the third-largest budget in the G7 and will spend at least £10 billion in aid this year. We remain one of the highest contributors to overseas development in the G7, as a share of GNI and pound for pound.