Zimbabwe

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Boothroyd]

My Lords, I, too, express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his initiative in securing this very timely debate.

I pay tribute to the thousands of brave Zimbabweans who remain committed and in the front line of the struggle for democracy and human rights. I have had the honour of meeting some of them when they have visited us here at Westminster. There are countless others in towns and villages across that country whose dedication compels them to risk imprisonment, torture and even death in order to bring freedom to their people. Many of them are women. I think particularly of the courageous trade union leaders: Lucia Matibenga, General Secretary of the Commercial Workers Union; Gertrude Hambira of the General Agricultural and Plantation Workers Union, who is now forced into hiding and exile in fear of her life for exposing the way that members of her union were persecuted by Mugabe's regime; and Thoko Khupe of the Zimbabwe Amalgamated Railway Union, now Deputy Prime Minister.

It is heart-warming to see the solidarity with these heroes shown by the international trade union movement. The Confederation of South African Trade Unions has been staunch in its support, and in this country individual unions have mobilised support for their affiliated unions in Zimbabwe—the CWU with the Communications and Allied Services Workers Union, and the NUJ with the Zimbabwe Union of Journalists. Practical support such as this directly aimed at those working with people at the grass roots is enormously helpful, and I hope that more such links will be promoted.

Not long ago I had the pleasure of giving tea in this House to a member of the rather small union that I used to belong to, the Speaker of the Zimbabwean House of Assembly, Mr Lovemore Moyo. As well as being pleased to meet Speaker Moyo, I was delighted that the assistant accompanying him, Mr Zitha, has spent time studying at the University of Leeds, close to my home town. That reinforced for me the relationship between Zimbabwe, which has been spoken about earlier in this debate, and the United Kingdom. There are many deep and personal links at all levels of society between our two countries, so this debate and the many occasions when we can raise issues regarding Zimbabwe are most valuable.

At my meeting with Speaker Moyo I discussed some of the important protocols that protect Parliament. They have to be fiercely guarded if parliamentarians are to be free to conduct thoroughly and without hindrance the tasks entrusted to them by the electorate. I gave Speaker Moyo copies of our sessional orders, which I used as Speaker and which were agreed at the beginning of each new Session of Parliament. They protect Members of Parliament from obstruction or interference in the conduct of their parliamentary duties. These rights are vital to parliamentary democracy, by whatever mechanism they are enacted and however they are enshrined, and I am very disappointed by recent reports from Zimbabwe that show that they are not being upheld.

I make no apology for deviating for a moment. Only a few minutes ago, I had a note handed to me that comes from a very reliable source. It tells me that a court ruling in Zimbabwe today says that the conduct of the secret ballot by which Speaker Moyo was elected was improper. This is a very worrying development and a serious situation. It is another example of the way in which the judiciary is often used to undermine democracy. A re-election could of course be used as a shoo-in for a new Speaker sympathetic to the Mugabe regime. That could be the case if enough of the MDC MPs are kept locked up in jail. Although there is not much longer to go in this debate, I hope that the Minister will have something to tell us about that devastating news when he winds up.

Six years ago yesterday, on 9 March 2005, I raised the case of the Member of Parliament Roy Bennett. My concern then was the imprisonment of Mr Bennett as a result of an altercation in Parliament. The penalty imposed was out of all proportion to the misdemeanour for which he had unreservedly apologised. Mr Bennett was sentenced to 12 months’ hard labour in the most inhuman conditions. Six years on, Mr Bennett is in exile but continues to devote himself to fighting for the rights and dignity of his fellow citizens.

The arrest of any Member of Parliament is a serious matter. A few weeks ago I learnt of the arrest of Mr Douglas Mwonzora. Mr Mwonzora is co-chairman of the parliamentary constitutional select committee, as was mentioned earlier, and is jointly overseeing the process of consultation on a new constitution for Zimbabwe. He simply lodged a complaint with the police about the violent disruption by Zanu-PF militia of a meeting that he was holding in his constituency. In what seems an utterly bizarre turn of events but sadly is not at all unusual, Mr Mwonzora himself was subsequently arrested by the police outside Parliament in Harare.

As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has mentioned, we got the news that Elton Mangoma, MDC Minister for Development and a member of the MDC negotiating team on the global political agreement, was picked up from his government office by police. The reasons for the arrest are unknown to me. Perhaps the Minister will have some news of this latest arrest in his wind-up.

Politically motivated arrests affect other citizens too. Vexation charges are brought but time and money that can ill be afforded are then needed to mount a defence. Court proceedings are deliberately delayed, leading to protracted uncertainty. There seems to be a calculated process by which key people like Mr Mangoma and Mr Mwonzora are diverted from their duties and important responsibilities, and it inevitably means that the vital reforms so desperately needed in Zimbabwe are delayed or derailed altogether. Arrests of this nature have become far too commonplace. It is what that brave lawyer Beatrice Mtetwa has called “rule by law rather than rule of law”.

I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us when next there might be an opportunity for the Foreign Secretary or the Minister for Africa to discuss these matters with the South African authorities. After all, the current political dispensation in Zimbabwe was imposed by South Africa. Robert Mugabe was able to engineer his so-called “victory” in the presidential elections only because he manipulated the figures in the first round and managed to deny Morgan Tsvangirai an outright win. In the second round, Mugabe unleashed such a wave of violence that Morgan Tsvangirai felt compelled to withdraw from the race to prevent further bloodshed. As we know, the former President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa then used his powerful position within the region to manoeuvre for a settlement that propped up Mugabe and allowed him to remain in office. It was not a good development for democracy. It never is when the will of the people, democratically expressed, is denied, subverted or overridden. The way in which deals have been brokered allowing presidents to remain in office, just because they want to stay put despite losing an election, is to me a very worrying development.

We have to deal with the world as it is today. We have heard much about the global political agreement signed in 2008 by Mugabe and Tsvangirai. It is supposed to be guaranteed by South Africa as well as by the AU and SADC. Furthermore, it has been incorporated into the constitution of Zimbabwe. What is shameful is the continuing contempt with which Mugabe treats the obligations to which he solemnly signed his name. He has continued to take unilateral action on key appointments, and has threatened to call elections unilaterally without consultation with Prime Minister Tsvangirai and without waiting for the approval and implementation of the new constitution.

Surely the Minister would agree that such action is in contravention of the global political agreement. I feel very strongly that these issues need to be raised with Ministers from SADC countries. But I ask whether they are raised. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us.

Surely we can negotiate with SADC countries. I do not need to remind your Lordships that we grant substantial sums of aid to them in our budget. We have good relations with them and most are members of the Commonwealth. Can we not use that leverage for the benefit of Zimbabwe? I hope the Minister will agree, after all, that political progress in Zimbabwe will help the progress of the whole region.

The government statement on priorities for UK overseas aid made it clear that we want to see value for money. I agree with that. Surely an important aspect of this, in the context of Zimbabwe, is that we need to deal with the causes of the crisis and not simply with the symptoms. The causes are political and the symptoms affect the whole of southern Africa. In footing the bill, should we not make it clear that we need the partnership of the region to overcome the political obstacles that are holding back development of SADC as a whole?

Last week I was encouraged to read the comments on these issues made by Marius Fransman—

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we are quite tight on time.

[Baroness Boothroyd]

I am so sorry; I will bring my remarks to an end—as important and fascinating as they are. As a former Speaker I must do that.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister what steps the Government will take to impress upon members of the AU and SADC the gravity of the commitments they have made. I particularly look forward to his comments on the possible Speakership in Zimbabwe that I spoke about in my comments.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the role of a Whip is a painful one during debates. We are very tight on time. It would be very helpful if noble Lords could manage to bring their remarks to a close before “10” appears on the clock.

Middle East and North Africa

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Monday 14th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I think it is the turn of the Conservatives. We will then return to the Labour Benches. Perhaps I might encourage the several Labour Peers who wish to intervene to consider in the mean time which of them they would like to yield to first.

[Lord Tugendhat]

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of how welcome will be the Foreign Secretary’s statement that we will be following a distinctive policy in the Middle East? Will he also take it from me that his initial remarks about the moment of opportunity in relation to the Israel-Palestine talks are a very welcome start? I very much hope that he will be able to press that case in the days and weeks ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Marquess of Lothian]

My Lords—

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I suggest that we hear from the noble Marquess, then from the Liberal Democrats. Then there will be time to get back to the Labour Benches.

[The Marquess of Lothian]

My Lords, at this time of emerging democratic awareness in the Middle East, will the Minister and his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs use their considerable influence to encourage the Palestinian Authority to adopt a true, full and honest electoral process in the months ahead so that those who speak for the Palestinian people in the future do so with a genuine mandate for the Palestinian people as a whole?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords—

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

If we are very quick we might get three speakers in. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has been trying to intervene since the beginning.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

How do the Government intend to press the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority to resume the peace process? Is not that a matter of extreme urgency? Hamas and Hezbollah have repeatedly expressed the view that Israel ought to die. Against that background, is there any prospect of resuming meaningful discussions between the Israelis and Hamas and Hezbollah?

Middle East and North Africa

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Friday 11th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the debate. I do not think that he spoke for a moment too long. The House was very grateful to hear what he had to say and for his covering the issues so comprehensively. I declare an interest as chairman of the Arab-British Chambers of Commerce and a frequent visitor to the Arab League countries. My other interests are all covered in your Lordships’ Register of Interests.

As the Minister has said, events on the ground in the region are moving very quickly and dramatically. For many, the unrest seems to have come as something of a sudden explosion. However, for many of the commentators who have spent time in the region, the sense of unease and growing dissatisfaction, particularly among young people, has been evident not just for several months but for many years. The UNDP report on Arab development, written by Arabs for their Governments some seven or eight years ago, stressed the huge pressure for jobs, particularly for young people. That pressure, it was said, would grow markedly between 2010 and 2020. It was calculated that 100 million jobs—an enormous number—would be needed in the region if it was to meet the needs of a young and growing population. Those populations are growing very fast in every country. Certainly, in Egypt, as we have seen with the activity of young people in Tahrir Square, to which the Minister referred, half the population is aged under 25. Sixty per cent of Saudis are aged under 20—an extraordinary figure.

Education standards have risen throughout the region—in the Maghreb, particularly in Morocco but also in Tunisia; in the Levant, particularly in Jordan; and in the Gulf states, especially in the Emirates and Qatar. These major improvements in education have not been matched by the number of jobs coming on to the market. The shortfall between educational attainment and job opportunity has led to disillusionment and unrest. Most of the Arab League leaders have recognised this for several years. In recent months I have discussed the real problems—indeed, the dangers—of increasing numbers of young, well educated people who have little opportunity. I have discussed it in Libya, the Emirates, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. It is a real difficulty that arises when expectations are raised and then hopes dashed in the reality of disappointment.

Moreover, the increases that we have seen in basic commodity prices have been very sharp and steep. The costs of basic food and energy have risen in Egypt, Jordan, the Maghreb and even in some of the Gulf states. Most of the Governments have been swift to recognise the toxic combination of these price rises and joblessness, particularly after the events in Tunisia. I was in Libya the weekend following President Ben Ali’s departure. There were demonstrations even in Tripoli. However, President Gaddafi made a broadcast saying that similar events were not to be anticipated in Libya because of the sound ideology which the people recognised and valued. I understand that a very similar speech was made by President Bashar Assad in Syria. However, the Libyan Government none the less deployed its huge wealth very quickly to subsidise food. The demonstrations that took place in Jordan were much smaller but they prompted the direct injection of money into public services. In Kuwait, the Government even went so far as to make direct payments to their people. Twitter channels have been full of plans for demonstrations this coming weekend. When I was in the region 10 days ago, I watched on the TV rioting in Beirut and near rioting in Cairo. Reports were coming through of unrest in Algeria and Syria and of planned demonstrations in Bahrain and even activity elsewhere in the Gulf.

The desire for democracy and a real say in how one’s country is governed is common to all people in all parts of the world. I have never agreed with the argument articulated by some organisations and individuals in the region that somehow democracy is a western ideology being foisted on the rest of the world. The young people in Tahrir Square today are evidence of a burning desire for democracy in the region. Their determination and sense of capturing the moment are, it seems, infectious. But I do think that we have to respond to this with humility. I remember in 2004 when President Bush decided on his agenda for Arab reform, including a move to democracy. He laid out a blueprint for that transition. There was outrage in the Middle East. As Minister for the Middle East at the time, I was asked to hold an urgent meeting with all the Arab League ambassadors in London. They all conveyed the same message and it was a simple one: “Don’t tell us how to run our countries. Don’t lecture us about democracy. Don’t lecture us about reform”. This occurred at the same time as the abuses in Abu Ghraib were coming to light, and their other message was not surprisingly, “Don’t lecture us about human rights”. Indeed, Jack Straw, then Foreign Secretary, had stressed the importance of reform coming from within each country, as the noble Lord has said today. What was right then is right today.

The fact is there is no single blueprint because all the Arab League countries are very different from each other. What may work in Morocco, with its democratic institutions which are now well embedded, will not be acceptable in Syria. What is right in Lebanon, as it precariously forms its Government—that is a delicate operation, as the Minister has said—is not necessarily anything like appropriate in Oman. To be frank, I think that the United States’ initiative at that time caused so much offence that many reformers in the region found themselves suddenly accused at home of merely dancing to the American tune. As the White House began to claim that every reform in the region was the result of American diplomacy, the enthusiasm for a home-grown reform agenda faltered. In short, at that time many reformers in the region found that the ground was cut from under their feet. Therefore, I hope that the western powers can resist the temptation to take any credit for what is happening at this time and lay it fairly and squarely where it belongs—on the shoulders of the people of the region.

We are possibly watching history unfold but this is a moment for cool heads and sound judgment—the sort of judgment that plans very carefully for what may happen next. Although the world’s attention has been turned from Tunisia to Egypt, the fact is that Tunisia is acting decisively—I applaud the Foreign Secretary for his visit there this week—on human rights, where the Council of Ministers has implemented its plan for the future. Tunisia is embracing the protocols. It has set aside capital punishment and any use of torture by accepting the protocols. It has now accepted the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. It is drawing up rules for fair and free elections on the basis of a public consultation and it is drafting laws on bribery and corruption. As one Tunisian colleague said to me this week, “Our people want the same as all human beings—justice, equality, fairer distribution of wealth, the possibility of participation in political life, better living conditions—above all, better lives for our children”.

Meanwhile in Jordan, the new Government have a clear mandate for reform from the king. Everyone I met in Jordan 10 days ago was talking about reform—mostly about economic reform, but some of it was, indeed, constitutional. The street demonstrations there have been relatively small—in the low thousands out of a population of 6 million. The entrepreneurial groups recognised not just the pressing need but the real urgency for reform of government institutions. It was they—the middle-aged, the business people—who were pressing their case so vigorously in Jordan.

The question for us is what help and support we can offer to the institutions growing in the Middle East to find their own way forward. We will not do that by public lecturing—I agree strongly with what the Minister has said on that. The sort of help and support that the British Council gives, and which the Westminster Foundation for Democracy is rightly acknowledged as nurturing, is what is needed. I am glad to hear about the £5 million fund that the noble Lord told us about. It is a good idea, but we already have the institutions in this country that could help so much on the ground. I know that the Minister may find this problematic but, frankly, the cuts being made to the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, the British Council and the World Service are just plain wrong. If Ministers really mean what they say about values, democracy, partnership and support, as opposed to making speeches about them, they must recognise that the savings are paltry in their effect on our economy. They are completely misconceived in so far as they are fettering the sort of help that we can give in the region.

We all know that elections are necessary but not sufficient for democracy to flourish. Elections without the rule of law are a licence for the tyranny of the majority over the minority. The rule of law, without human rights to protect the individual against the state, can justify abuse of those who do not conform. However, this is not a one-sided issue. Without proper security there is a threat of instability which attracts groups of people looking for a safe haven for their activities, whether it is promoting extreme ideology or engaging in criminal activity. We can, and should, mobilise the European Union in its dialogue with the Mediterranean Middle East and in its exchanges with the Gulf Co-operation Council. We need to strengthen the EU/Arab dialogue, and we need that to start now. There is a huge range of issues, not just security or counterterrorism, where we should be engaging. We should be talking more about the future resourcing of food and water, oil and gas and cybersecurity, and about human trafficking. Country to country and region to region we need to establish the relationships now which we may need in the very near future. We Europeans are good at that. We understand it, and at times we understand it better than our American cousins.

These changes in the Middle East may lead to real increases in tension with close neighbours—I mean with Israel and Iran. As we all know, elections often mean real change. The unelected have more freedom on how to control security both within their countries and with their neighbours. The Foreign Secretary was right to suggest that the already faltering peace process in the Middle East will not get any easier. Israeli security has in large measure been protected—I argue that it has been guaranteed—by Egypt and Jordan, often in the teeth of virulent criticism from within their countries and sometimes from their neighbours. However, Israel may find attitudes hardening if people on the Arab street have a decisive say in what happens next.

Most recent Israeli Governments have indeed been coalitions, where often the freedom of the ruling party is fettered by the ideology of the coalition partners. Debates in the Knesset are indeed democracy at work, but that democracy has hardened attitudes over what can and cannot be negotiated in the peace process. If Jordan and Egypt at any point in the future have Governments elected on an anti-peace mandate, we shall all be the losers. It is a sobering thought. Democracy may bring us real problems in that respect.

Like many, I believe that trade is a vital component in international relationships, and I applaud the Foreign Office’s active engagement. In my day, it was the Business Secretary who went frequently to the Gulf—and very well he did it too. I look forward to our current Business Secretary getting cracking on this agenda, particularly in Saudi Arabia, where there is so much opportunity and so much that can and should be done. However, as I am sure the Minister knows, there is growing concern in the region that the Foreign Secretary’s emphasis on trade has become too dominant.

The outstanding political powers in the region are of course Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Saudi has the biggest economy, is a member of the G20 and, frankly, dominates the international oil market. Egypt is by far and away the most populous nation, with 1.4 million men under arms, and is the guarantor of regional safety. It is splendid to visit the UAE and Qatar, which I am always happy to do. It is important for British jobs and it is important for British trade. However, foreign policy is not a one-way street. Our Secretaries of State need to engage far more vigorously in political dialogue, particularly with Saudi and Egypt—not through loudhailers, as the Minister said, but through relationship building; not on the telephone or through envoys, but in person and in country. It is noticed and remarked upon that Britain seems to care more about the depth of the pockets in the region than about those countries’ policies. I am sure that that impression is wrong, but it needs to be corrected—and soon.

As we all know, today is another possible turning point for Egypt, and I finish where the Minister began. It may well be that the unrest has gone well beyond the point where people will be satisfied with anything less than real change throughout their Government and their constitution. However, that is their decision. We all want peaceful transition. I agree with virtually everything the Minister said on this subject. As I speak, it is possible that Friday prayers are finishing in Cairo, Alexandria and Suez. For us, democracy, the rule of law and human rights are the best foundation. We all hope that the people of Egypt will find their best foundation and that they will find it very soon.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I say simply that this is not a time-limited debate. If speakers take an average of 12 minutes, we should finish by around 2 pm. Noble Lords will recall that the Companion suggests that to avoid tiring the House the maximum time for speeches should normally be 15 minutes.

Legislative Reform (Civil Partnership) Order 2011

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Legislative Reform (Civil Partnership) Order 2011.

Relevant documents: 4th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, this order was laid before the House on 25 October last year under negative resolution procedures with an Explanatory Memorandum as required for all statutory instruments. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, under the chair of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, considered this draft reform on 10 November 2010 and concluded that the proposal met the tests set out for LROs in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, that it was appropriate to proceed as an LRO and that the negative procedure was appropriate in this case.

However, when the Regulatory Reform Committee in the other House considered the draft on 9 November 2010, it concluded that, although the draft order is uncontroversial—all statutory preconditions and tests have been met—and would not prejudice any existing protection, the proposals contained in the LRO were more than a de minimis change in the law, so the order should be raised to the affirmative resolution procedure.

Section 210(1)(b) of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, in specifically designating that the registration officer must be a UK-based diplomatic officer, does not allow for flexibility in those consular sections within an overseas British post where there are no longer any UK-based diplomatic officers and where civil partnership registration is a service that can be provided. The FCO has been going through a programme of localisation, including regrading of staff. Where there has previously been a consular officer who is a member of Her Majesty’s Diplomatic Service, in some posts there are now only locally engaged staff, and for consular customers resident in such consular districts, we can no longer undertake civil partnership registrations as often as we did previously.

The change in the order will allow locally engaged non-diplomatic consular officers, at any post that is affected by the localisation programme, to be nominated to undertake the registration of civil partnerships and civil partnership ceremonies. The amendment will not affect other aspects of civil partnership registration overseas, which can be undertaken only if local authorities do not object. This will also address two current disparities. First, staff of equal seniority have different powers. Depending on the local circumstances, a consul or vice-consul may be a Diplomatic Service officer or a local member of staff. For example, the vice-consul in Tokyo can undertake this work while the vice consul in Sydney cannot just because one is a member of the Diplomatic Service and the other is a member of the local staff. Secondly, Parliament empowers local members of staff to conduct marriages but, at present, does not empower local staff to conduct civil partnerships.

I am satisfied that the order is compatible with the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. This order is important but, I trust, non-controversial. I hope that it will receive the full support of the Committee.

[Lord Smith of Finsbury]

My Lords, I want to contribute briefly to the discussion on this proposed order because I think I am right in saying that I am the first Member of your Lordships' House to enter into a civil partnership, as I did nearly 5 years ago. I regard it as one of the most progressive and forward-looking steps that we, in this country, have taken over the course of the past decade or so.

The order is wholly welcome. It makes a relatively minor and sensible change in enabling the performance of a civil partnership ceremony to take place where consular staff are locally drawn, rather than originally based here in the UK. This will enable more civil partnerships to take place. It is therefore a very good thing.

However, the debate enables us to reflect on the interesting table attached to the order and its Explanatory Notes that set out the status regarding civil partnerships in a whole range of different countries across the world. There are of course some countries where homophobia is not only rife but encouraged at the moment. We have only to think of some of the very distressing occurrences in Uganda recently to know that that is the case. Sadly, I suspect that it will be many years before we are able to see civil partnerships performed for British nationals in Uganda.

There are many countries across the world, some of which are full members of the European Union, where British nationals resident in that country would not be permitted to perform a civil partnership ceremony under the auspices of the British consul. I hope that the Government will continue to make representations to those Governments where we might have a degree of influence, either through common membership of the European Union or from old Commonwealth ties, to ensure that a more progressive and liberal approach to the possibility of civil partnerships is gradually taken in some of these countries. It would be very interesting to hear from the Minister exactly what steps are being taken in that respect.

Having said that, I believe that this order is entirely welcome. I fully support it. It is a sensible measure and I am very pleased that the Government are bringing it forward.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, my contribution has been largely pre-empted by what my noble friend Lord Smith had to say. The Committee will not be surprised to learn that Her Majesty's Opposition fully support the order. It is a sensible flexibility to the current arrangements and a real advance for those who would otherwise have to travel long distances in order to register their civil partnerships. It is important to recognise that in one sense this is part of a series of changes in the devolution of powers in the Diplomatic Service to locally engaged staff. We have seen that particularly in commercial sections and increasingly in consular sections in our embassies, high commissions and consulates throughout the world.

In the coalition’s business plan for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, there is a clause that says that the coalition Government will continue to slim down consular services across all our embassies, high commissions and consulates. Does that mean that the Minister envisages that, increasingly, locally engaged staff will undertake work that has heretofore been undertaken by members of the Diplomatic Service?

My question is similar to that posed by my noble friend in relation to those countries where same-sex relationships are currently illegal. Can the Minister tell us in what countries we are actively engaged in discussions with their Governments on that point? There is a rather more subtle point as well. In a number of countries in the world, same-sex relationships are not necessarily illegal but are not necessarily welcomed by a number of institutions. What training of locally engaged staff are Her Majesty's Government undertaking in this respect so that those who might have misgivings about officiating at same-sex civil partnerships not only are made to feel comfortable themselves but do not make those who are engaging in civil partnership ceremonies feel uncomfortable when they come for such an officiation?

I noted that during the consultation period, Stonewall and others responded to the order in an entirely positive way. I also remind the Committee that this was something begun under the previous Labour Government and I would therefore expect spokesmen on this side of the Committee to give it full support. Will the Minister engage in the slightly wider point about the devolution from the Diplomatic Service to locally engaged staff of other forms of consular activity?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I thank all those who contributed to the debate. I will start by responding to the point on locally engaged staff. Yes, it is part of the FCO's business plan to slim down consular posts where possible and reduce costs by taking on more locally engaged staff. I take the point that there are some delicate tasks that locally engaged staff may need to be sensitised to with reference to a range of the issues that they have to deal with in consular posts. I promise to write to the noble Baroness on that issue.

We all recognise that, on the whole question of civil partnerships, we have all been moving forward slowly over the past generation. If one goes back far enough, the law in Britain was pretty closed on these issues. A number of other countries are moving forward much more slowly or are further behind us on the curve. Our predecessors in government—and we continue to do the same—have been pushing to encourage others to move further. My notes say, for example, that the posts that were unable to offer civil partnerships as a result of moving to locally engaged staff included posts in Japan, Australia, Portugal, Austria and Ireland. However, this is no longer a problem in Portugal, Austria and Ireland because, in the past 18 months, they have changed their domestic legislation so the problem no longer arises.

As noble Lords have remarked, there are still other members of the European Union that have not got that far. The previous Government’s Europe Minister, Chris Bryant, wrote to Denmark, Germany and Slovenia, each of which has its own legal recognition on same-sex relationships but does not recognise UK partnerships. Denmark replied to suggest that, as a result, it will amend its legislation to recognise UK civil partnerships. Replies from Slovenia and Germany are still pending. He also wrote to all EU member states that do not have their own civil partnership legislation to ask for permission to conduct civil partnerships in our posts overseas where at least one half of the couple is a British national. Latvia, Cyprus and Bulgaria have replied to say that they do not object as long as their nationals are not involved. Estonia and Poland have said that they continue to object. We have not yet heard from Romania, Lithuania, Malta, Italy, Slovakia or Greece, but all are presumed still to object. We are currently consulting the Government Equalities Office on next steps.

I have a note which says that the training given to local staff will be the same as is currently provided to Diplomatic Service staff. Staff guidance is also being updated so that staff have this additional point of reference. It may be of interest to the Committee to know that the figures I have on the countries in which civil partnerships have most often been registered show that Australian posts come out at the top, then those in Vietnam and then those in Japan. After that, for some reason, it is Colombia. Please do not ask me to explain in detail why it should be those countries; others may wish to investigate.

Having said all that, I recommend this proposal for approval. It is a necessary and highly desirable change that will take this country a little further forward to the goal of becoming an open, liberal society.

Motion agreed.

Turkey

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we are very short of time in this debate. If all Members could end their speech when the sixth minute comes up on the Annunciator, we would be very grateful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Maginnis of Drumglass]

My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to speak. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on his insightful contribution to the debate. I expected no less, knowing that he traces his roots back to my home county, Tyrone. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, on obtaining this timely debate and hope that, with her more natural authority to speak on these issues, she will be more successful than I have been during the past 28 years in seeking to obtain fairer play, justice and human rights for Turkish Cypriots. That is the issue that I want to address and I declare an interest: I have had a long-term interest in and association with Turkey and northern Cyprus.

How does one even begin to inject reality into the Cyprus situation where, for example, the Greek Cypriot President Christofias, in his most recent verbal aberration, declared that if he could meet President Gul and Prime Minister Erdogan,

“the Cyprus issue could be solved over dinner in a fish restaurant on the Bosphorus”?

Forget the pretension, ignore the insult, because Christofias obviously has little regard for either truth or reality. His mind is so conditioned by his own propaganda that he can easily overlook the Greek Cypriot repudiation of the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, their rejection of various agreements since then, most recently the 2004 rejection of the Annan plan, and the fact that he, like his predecessors, is willingly held to ransom by the Greek Orthodox Church.

I wish that I had more time to expand on the negative part played by the Orthodox Church in respect of the rejection of the Annan plan and its relation to the ethnic cleansing that was visited on the Turkish Cypriots between 1963 and 1974. Only a knave or a fool can remain unmoved by the ghettoisation of the minority Turkish Cypriots, by the Akritas plan or by eyewitness accounts of the slaughter that was carried out during the Makarios presidency and by Nikos Sampson and the EOKA-B. I do not have to remind noble Lords that the same democratic deficit, moral deviance and violent hatred still pervade Greek Cypriot attitudes and are still being orchestrated and encouraged today, even on the football field and basketball court.

What angers me, and shames us all, in respect of the propaganda over much of my 28 parliamentary years, has been the willingness of a limited but verbose group of parliamentarians—mainly, but not exclusively, from another place, through an all-party group, lately known as the Friends of Cyprus, now the Cyprus all-party parliamentary group—to work exclusively to give credence to the Greek Cypriot line while effectively excluding any Turkish Cypriot participation, argument or rights. I remind noble Lords that it was I who was verbally and physically attacked when I dared to enter a publicly advertised meeting sponsored by the Friends of Cyprus in the Jubilee Room, where I spoke merely to remind those promoting the sectarian Greek Cypriot line that the history of Cyprus did not just start in 1974.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Order. Interventions in the gap should be a maximum of four minutes.

[Lord Maginnis of Drumglass]

I apologise and I will wind up. I simply implore the Government to take a more enlightened perspective than the politically myopic Chancellor Merkel, who obviously believes that the way to assist in finding a solution for Cyprus is to visit the Greek Cypriots and lecture Turkey from afar. She did not arrive in Cyprus to support the ongoing talks; rather, she went to stick her oar in before they fail. Berlin’s only interest is to keep Cyprus as an anti-Turkish card and I hope that the coalition Government will acknowledge that.

Human Rights

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Thursday 2nd December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, perhaps I may first thank my noble friends on the Cross Benches for providing time today for this debate, which focuses on human rights abuses worldwide and looks at the thoughtful recommendations put forward on this important question by the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission.

It is self-evident from the list of speakers that our debate will be enriched by huge and varied experience. In particular, I know that we will await with eager anticipation the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Hollins.

It is also self-evident that, in too many countries around the world, people are denied basic human rights to which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts they are entitled. From Burma and North Korea to Iran and Saudi Arabia, from Somalia, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo to Cuba, Colombia and many other parts of the world, people face the risk of imprisonment, torture, sexual violence, forced labour—which is modern day slavery—displacement or disappearance if they attempt to express their views openly or to practise their religion freely, or even, in some cases, if they mistakenly say or wear the wrong thing or are in the wrong place.

Terror, ideology, caste, ethnic superiority, systematic abuse of women and children and the brutal violation of minority rights in countless situations and places disfigure humanity. For Jews and Christians, with a belief that each person is made in the image of God, imago Dei, and for secular humanists, who insist on upholding the innate dignity of every human being, there is common ground.

At this time of Chanukah, the festival of lights—we will greatly look forward to hearing later from my noble friend Lord Sacks—it is worth remarking that, earlier this year, 52 rabbis, as part of the Yom HaShoah, the annual commemoration of the Holocaust, wrote that continuing atrocities and conflict in the Congo,

“has produced a terrible humanitarian crisis … This is a moral outrage which the international community must act to help put right”.

An estimated 6 million people have died in the DRC, a country which I have visited. The situation in neighbouring Southern Sudan, where last year more people died even than in Darfur, is equally perilous.

Two nights ago, in a Committee Room of your Lordships’ House, I hosted a meeting attended by Mende Nazer, a young Sudanese woman abducted from her home in the Nuba Mountains and turned into a slave. Her story was movingly re-enacted by Feelgood Theatre Productions. After seven years, she was passed to a London family and escaped, only to face a new struggle for political asylum. Women like Mende Nazer look to us, who enjoy democratic liberties and freedom of speech, to ensure that their stories are told and their rights defended.

Modern human rights discourse is rooted in our fearsome experiences of the 20th century. The horrors and degradations of Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen gave birth to the rich language of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights which asserts that,

“disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want”.

The first three articles of the declaration make it clear that human rights are not subject to territoriality. Article 1 unequivocally states that:

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”.

Article 2 states that:

“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction ... or … any other limitation of sovereignty”.

Article 3 insists that:

“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

These articles and the 27 articles that follow remain the basis for our discourse on human rights today.

During the Cold War years which followed that declaration, it would once again be the plight of European Jews—Russia's refuseniks—and the Helsinki Final Act, promulgated in 1975, which began to challenge consciences and rouse nations. Points 7 and 8 of the Act bound the 35 states that signed it to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, and equal rights and self-determination of peoples. According to the Cold War scholar John Lewis Gaddis, the Helsinki accords,

“gradually became a manifesto of the dissident and liberal movement ... What this meant was that the people who lived under these systems—at least the more courageous—could claim official permission to say what they thought”.

In every generation, the challenge is to consider how best to turn those great declarations into policies and initiatives and to give hope to benighted people whose human rights are violated daily, to create as William Hague, our Foreign Secretary, has put it, a foreign policy with a conscience, an approach one might anticipate from the biographer of William Wilberforce.

In opening this debate, I want to explore some principles and practices that should commend themselves to the Government and to give two examples of countries where those principles and practices might be applied—North Korea and Sudan—both of which I have visited in the past three months. Let me refer to the excellent proposals developed during the five years preceding the 2010 general election by the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission. My noble friend Lord Hannay of Chiswick, who cannot be present today, has particularly asked me to commend the United Nations Association of the UK for the work which it undertook in assisting that commission. It produced some incisive reports, complete with recommendations for policies to address sexual violence as a weapon of war, the implementation of the United Nations’ “responsibility to protect” mechanism, child soldiers, press freedom, religious freedom and reform of the United Nations. The reports contain practical and worthwhile mechanisms for putting an aspiration into effect. I am conscious that many members of the previous Government, not least the former Africa Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, have a long and distinguished record of championing human rights, and it seems to me that this is therefore an approach around which political consensus can be created.

Let me illustrate this by highlighting the commission's recommendations for how the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's institutional capability to address human rights can be strengthened and, in doing so, I ask the Minister to share with the House the stage of implementation or consideration that these proposals have reached. The most important recommendation made by the commission was for the appointment of a Minister of State for International Human Rights within the FCO with an ability to focus solely or primarily on human rights. Currently, the Minister responsible also has several other responsibilities besides human rights, including south-east Asia, the Far East, the Caribbean, Central/South America, Australasia and Pacific, consular, migration, drugs and international crime, public diplomacy and the Olympics. The commission proposed that a Minister of State for International Human Rights would be able to give human rights concerns greater attention if they could focus solely, or at least primarily, on human rights.

The commission also suggested that a Minister for Human Rights should be invited to attend relevant Cabinet meetings and security and foreign policy Cabinet committees to co-ordinate policy with other appropriate Ministers and departments. The commission proposed that the Minister could be supported by an ambassador-at-large for international human rights, with responsibility for co-ordinating the work of embassies and the Diplomatic Service on human rights issues. This could either be an experienced diplomat with a proven commitment to human rights or a human rights expert with an understanding of international foreign policy and diplomacy. In turn, the ambassador-at-large could oversee a number of thematic portfolios—special representatives or special envoys responsible for issues such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, religious freedom and women’s rights. The United States has an ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom and several special envoys for thematic human rights issues. France and the Netherlands have made similar appointments.

The commission proposed that the ambassador-at-large and the special envoys could work in a strengthened human rights and democracy unit, which would oversee the continued publication of the annual report on human rights, which I hope the Government will today assure the House will continue. Interest in today’s debate underlines the appetite for this, as do repeated all-party calls for the establishment of a House of Lords Foreign Affairs Committee, a proposal supported, I know, by the Minister. Simply shining a light into dark places and reminding perpetrators that one day they may be made to answer for their actions, as in the case of Liberia’s Charles Taylor, or Slobodan Milosevic, challenges a culture of impunity.

The commission also recommended that the Government provide time in both Chambers for an annual debate on the international human rights situation and the findings of the FCO annual report. Religious freedom is one such vital basic human right, enshrined in Article 18, which underpins and intersects with other freedoms: freedom of speech and assembly, to name just two. It is estimated that more than 200 million Christians in over 60 countries face some degree of restriction, discrimination or persecution while Baha’is in Iran, Rohingya Muslims in Burma, the Ahmadi Muslim community in Pakistan, Sufi Muslims from the Sunni tradition in Somalia and Tibetan Buddhists, among many others, all face serious violations of human rights.

The commission recommends, and I endorse this proposal, that the current FCO freedom of religion panel should be expanded, made permanent, and convened regularly, and that reporting of religious freedom violations be given greater prominence, either in the annual human rights report or indeed, as in the United States, in a separate report. I commended this recommendation during the debate on the Queen’s Speech in May and I wonder whether we are any closer to doing it. I also wonder whether it is still the case that the FCO, which the Minister inherited in May, with its vast team of officials, has only one person in its human rights team who is responsible for religious liberties issues. While in some parts of the globe religious liberty is suppressed, elsewhere—in a country such as Iran, for instance—theocracy executes, amputates, tortures and imprisons. The struggle for religious freedom and democratic freedoms are stable-mates, and contempt for either can have calamitous consequences.

The final set of recommendations to which I draw the attention of the Minister and the House are these proposals: that Foreign Office staff receive training in understanding the key human rights issues in countries on which they are working; that a code of conduct should be drafted setting out the expectations and requirements with regard to human rights promotion for each ambassador, for all key embassy staff, including consular staff and visa application officials, and for London-based heads of section and country desk officials; and that diplomats who display outstanding commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights should be recognised and rewarded. By championing in-country the cause of brave dissidents as, for instance, we have consistently done in the case of Aung San Suu Kyi, and by marking key anniversaries, such as the international Human Rights Day on 10 December, we can make it clear that British foreign policy truly has a conscience.

In the few moments that remain, perhaps I may refer to two countries which I have visited recently: North Korea and Sudan. I declare a non-financial interest as chairman of the All Party-Group on North Korea and as an officer of the All-Party Group on Sudan. During my visit to North Korea with my noble friend Lady Cox, who at the moment is returning from the Burma border, we were accompanied by Mr Ben Rogers, who is vice-chairman of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission and kindly acted as secretariat. We have documented our visit and recommendations in a report, Building Bridges, Not Walls: The Case for Constructive, Critical Engagement with North Korea, which is available on the web. In that report, we suggest that, as well as raising security issues, which has been a one-track approach during the six-party talks, it is imperative that we adopt, as it were, Helsinki but with a Korean face. We also put firmly on to the agenda human rights questions in North Korea, where the United Nations estimates that as many as 300,000 people are currently languishing in its camps. We desperately need a new peace conference to bring an end to a 60-year war which is neither a war nor a peace, merely an armistice. The events on the Korean peninsula last week underlined how often we are simply waiting for a Sarajevo moment to occur, sucking us all into the vortex which 60 years ago this year claimed nearly 3 million lives. We have to engage constructively but critically with North Korea, and the approach adopted during the Helsinki years—the Cold War—is the one that we should be adopting in North Korea today. The Minister has seen the report and I hope that, when he comes to reply, he will be able to respond to that.

Perhaps I may also briefly mention the situation in Sudan. In just a few weeks’ time, in January, there will be a referendum there to determine its future. I was surprised to find that Mr Henry Bellingham, the Minister from the Foreign Office who led a trade delegation to Khartoum, recently said:

“We want to see more UK banks taking a positive view towards Sudan”,

adding that it would be “wrong” for Britain,

“not to encourage the trade”.

Omar al-Bashir, the President of Sudan, is indicted by the International Criminal Court on genocide charges. Anyone who has visited Darfur, as I have, where 200,000 people have been killed and 2 million displaced, will wonder why we would be conducting business as usual.

All of this points, as do many situations in other parts of the world, to the need for Britain to have a clearer policy and approach to human rights. One size never fits all but over-reaching principles are crucial: adumbrating our own nation’s belief in the articles that form the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and attempting to live up to them; patiently engaging, cajoling and constructively criticising where necessary; and linking development and key foreign policy objectives to human rights goals. These are the things that we must do. I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, this is a very popular debate with 19 speakers in two and a half hours. I ask noble Lords to bear in mind that, when the clock says six minutes, they are into their seventh minute.

Diplomacy

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Thursday 11th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords, I welcome the debate introduced by my friend—if I may call him that, as he is my friend—the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I was in the UKREP office referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, on the very day that David Hannay’s name was in the papers—I think it was the Daily Mail—as being appointed a people’s peer. The people in UKREP said that they had not heard anything so funny in their lives.

I add my thanks to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, about whose diplomatic experience, in the broadest sense of the word, we have just heard. I have witnessed the remarkable outreach job that he does in the St Paul’s area and in London generally—a job that the Anglican community does in many countries around the world.

My noble friend Lord Monks—John Monks—is the fifth former general secretary of the Trade Union Congress to come to this House. He joins an illustrious list: Walter Citrine, who had an historic reputation in the trade union movement, including for his short book, The ABC of Chairmanship, which is used from the Pacific Islands to the Falkland Islands; Vincent Tewson, who followed Lord Citrine; and Victor Feather—George Woodcock must have declined the invitation, but I do not know that for a fact—who took the TUC through the difficult years of 1969 to 1973, from the proposals of Donovan and In Place of Strife to Ted Heath and all of that.

John’s only fault is that he is too fond of irony. At a meeting with Mrs Thatcher in 1980 on the issue of red tape—too much regulation on small firms and so on—John asked, tongue in cheek, “So why not exclude small firms from the 30 miles an hour speed limit?”, at which point Mrs Thatcher turned to a civil servant and said “Take a note of that”. The white van man has certainly taken a note of it.

There is another similarity between working for the TUC and the Diplomatic Service. I was reminded of this only yesterday when the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, chaired a meeting with senior American diplomats on Afghanistan through the All-Party Group on Multilateral Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, of which I am the secretary. One of them remarked that it might be useful to distinguish process from outcomes. I recognised that distinction and noted that trade union officials do that every day of the week. Before John mentioned the trio—now the duo—sitting in front here, I thought that perhaps the TUC should do some job swaps with the Foreign Office, but I think that they are probably already doing it.

I have given the Minister—whom I admire without always agreeing with him—notice of this question: what is the headcount of the FCO and DfID at the present time, both in Britain and overseas? In the latter case, there is also the separate category of locally employed staff. We need to be able to track where, when and how this transition takes place, with the position before the cuts being the benchmark or starting line.

I know from experience that, if there are missions from five, six, seven or eight different European countries in a small African or South American country giving different advice about auditing, project finance or whatever, the messages from London, Berlin, Paris and Stockholm and so on are different, no matter that they get together once a week. Reality stands all this talk about defending the national interest on its head, because small countries often have only one man and a dog to listen to all the conflicting advice. That can be counterproductive and give a totally wrong impression. I have seen countries in many parts of the world waste the time of a very small number of competent people.

Someone should, therefore, challenge the doctrine of keeping all the UK missions quite separate. As we have very distinguished diplomats, we should—here I follow the message of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—be on the front foot in the European External Action Service.

Coming to my final sentence, I have some sympathy with the argument about the cuts—

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we are very tight on time.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

But that is an economic argument that goes wider than this debate.

Afghanistan

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Wednesday 27th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd]

My Lords—

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, has tried several times to ask a question.

[Lord Rowlands]

My Lords, can the Minister elaborate a bit further on the statement that the area under the control of the Government in Kabul is increasing? Can he tell us in how many provinces today it can really be said that the Kabul Government’s writ is running and that there is some kind of effective Kabul Government?

Latin America

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hooper]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, on securing this debate at this particular time. It is now, as he said, a few years since we held a dedicated Latin America debate in your Lordships’ House, but the interest and contributions from your Lordships today underline the value of holding such a debate. This is a particularly interesting time in the affairs of many Latin American countries. Like others, I rejoice in the results of the latest elections in Colombia. Former President Uribe is a good example to everyone in not having tried to stand for a further term, as he must have been tempted to do.

I also represented Her Majesty’s Government at the inauguration of Evo Morales for his second term in office. The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson, talked in detail, and most interestingly, about Bolivia. However, I believe that we should not only look closely at what is happening in the energy sector in Bolivia; we should also remember the changing role of indigenous people in Latin America and the cross-boundary/cross-border effects that this increasing alignment may have. That could well be the subject for a further and separate debate.

This debate is timely also because of the recent developments in relations between the United States and Latin America, to which reference has already been made. I am rather concerned about the attitude of President Obama and Hilary Clinton as regards, for example, our relationship with Argentina over the Falkland Islands. However, this is also an excellent moment to underline for the new Government the significance of Latin American countries in world affairs and the value of our special relationship.

I do not need to repeat, but would like to emphasise, all that has been said about the historic links that bind us, whether we are talking about the independence movements, the bicentenaries of which we are currently celebrating, or the other historic links that include the founding of the navies of Chile and Brazil by Admiral the Lord Corcoran—who has a special association with your Lordships’ House since, until 1998, a direct descendant of Lord Corcoran sat on the Red Benches.

I would also emphasise the importance of the ongoing trade and investment links which British companies have maintained in Latin American countries. Amazingly, these links survive despite the focus and priority that, I am sorry to say, successive Governments have given to other parts of the world. Perhaps I should declare interests as a former president and current vice-president of Canning House and as vice-chairman of the Institute for the Study of the Americas. While the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool was speaking, I reflected on the fact that the reason I learnt to speak Spanish and take an interest in Latin America, following a postgraduate course there, is that my mother came from Liverpool. Liverpool is the port of the Americas and my mother realised the importance and significance of the Spanish language. I am happy that the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, was able to emphasise that point so well.

Like the noble Viscount and others, I deplore the way in which the official British presence in Latin America is diminishing through the closures and downsizing of our embassies and the British Council. In the Evening Standard last night, I noticed a rather caustic comment to the effect that the high life enjoyed by British diplomats abroad faces the axe. The Foreign Office already has a £55 million efficiency programme that includes spending less on consultants, closer working with other departments, increasing the sell-off of embassy space and cutting low-priority programmes. We must all regard this with grave concern because it builds on the many cuts and downsizing programmes that have been carried out in the past. I can only hope for and seek reassurance from the Minister that the axe will not fall inordinately heavily in Latin American countries.

Fortunately, our relations with Latin America are not just bilateral. The European Union is the channel through which many of our activities in overseas development, and our policies in relation to the American, Caribbean and Pacific group of states, have an impact—in the latter case, particularly in the Spanish-speaking Caribbean countries. It may well be that in the future the lack of bilateral representation in Latin American countries will be replaced by EU representative offices. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that possibility.

Reference has already been made to the trade agreements between the European Union and Mexico, Brazil and Chile, as well as negotiations with the Mercosur countries and so on. I would be interested to know if any reviews or analyses have been undertaken into the effect of these trade agreements. Can the Minister give us any information about this? If I remember correctly, as far as the first of those trade agreements—I believe it was with Mexico—is concerned, the effect was to increase greatly the importation of European Union goods into Mexico but not the reverse, which should be the object of the exercise. In all this, I hope we may also have an assurance from my noble friend that the United Kingdom will play its part in European Union policy formulation with regard to Latin America and not leave it to Spain and Portugal, perhaps the traditional colonial powers in Latin America. But we are also increasingly working together, particularly with Brazil and Mexico, within other international organisations such as the United Nations, the IMF, the OECD, the G20 and the G8. All these links have been referred to and it is important to remember them in our efforts to improve our bilateral relations.

When faced with a debate in the broad terms of the noble Viscount’s Motion, it is often difficult to know where to place the focus. The countries we are talking about have diverse populations, different contributions to make and different needs to fulfil—from Mexico in the north, through the Caribbean and central American countries, to the furthest reaches of Patagonia bordering on Antarctica—with, as the noble Viscount said at the outset, a combined GDP equal to that of China. Nevertheless, because of the common colonial history of those countries, the two mainly used official languages—rather than the indigenous languages—the many cultural links and the apparent common risk of natural catastrophes which seem to afflict many countries, particularly the hurricane and the volcano zones of the west coast, we are tempted to regard Latin America as more of an entity than the countries themselves would wish. Rather than concentrate on individual countries, I have decided to deal with certain common issues.

I shall start with one of the difficult ones, that of drug trafficking. This remains a huge problem throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. Only last night, a BBC news programme highlighted the emergence of problems in Monterrey, Mexico’s most advanced industrial centre and a thriving and prosperous state-of-the-art city. That was sad news to me. Peru, we are told, has now overtaken Colombia as the main producer of the coca leaf. Interestingly, Colombia’s output has dropped by some 16 per cent, which shows what can be achieved. I believe that the United Kingdom, as a consumer country along with the whole of the rest of Europe, has a duty to do its part in the fight against drugs in order to lower demand. Here I refer back to 1990 when my noble friend Lord Garel-Jones, then Minister of State with responsibility for Latin America, attended the important and successful drug summit. Leaders of many of the Latin American countries most concerned, together with representatives of the consumer countries, got together and tried to look at both sides of the issue.

The environment is another area in which developments have taken place. Increased awareness of the causes of climate change is leading to positive action. In Bolivia, it is high on the agenda. President Morales travelled to New York to deliver to the United Nations the results of the World People’s Conference on Climate Change held in Cochabamba in April. Mexico, as well as supporting the dialogue on sustainable development, has proposed the creation of a green fund to scale up the amount of resources available for climate change litigation and adaptation activities.

Like the noble Baroness, I am amazed at the way the clock seems to be racing ahead, and I apologise if I am over-running my time.

On his visit to the United Kingdom last year, the President of Ecuador, President Correa, spoke here in Parliament about the Yasuni project. In Brazil, as the principal guardian of Amazônica—the lungs of the world—a great deal of activity is taking place. This is another huge area for co-operation on a bilateral basis as well as within the European Union.

I may have outrun my time. I seek confirmation that the clock is correct.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

It is.

[Baroness Hooper]

Oh dear. I had hoped to talk in a little more detail about energy, education, the issue of visas and the need to review the work of the UK Borders Agency in this respect, and the role of students from Latin America in the UK. However, I shall wind up as quickly as I can.

In my view, Parliament and parliamentary relations are as important as intergovernmental relations in all this, particularly in regard to the strengthening of democracy, and the role of the Inter-Parliamentary Union has to be encouraged and built on. As the newly elected chairman of the All-Party Group on Latin America, I hope we will see far more inward and outward visits.

This debate underlines the importance of Latin America and Latin American countries. We have got to get our act together, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, rightly exhorted us. Let us start that today, not mañana.

Queen's Speech

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2010 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Trenchard]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friends Lord Howell of Guildford and Lord Astor of Hever on their very welcome appointments. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Ferrers and my new noble friend Lady Falkner of Margravine on their excellent speeches yesterday in moving an humble Address.

Not only here but across the developed world, markets are extremely fragile and confidence is shattered. In these circumstances, it is surely a good thing that my right honourable friend David Cameron and my new right honourable friend Nick Clegg have so quickly been able to agree a common programme to tackle the extremely serious structural budget deficit and spiralling national debt that was built up over 13 years of Labour government. I had not realised that my new noble friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches had also recognised that government has become much too large and overarching and must urgently be slimmed down, thereby releasing scarce resources for investment in what we all hope will be a resurgent private sector.

I do not believe that the manifesto of any of the three main political parties adequately recognises the severity of the public sector cuts that will have to be made. Now that the election is behind us, I am confident that our new coalition Government will face up to the Herculean task that they face. I am heartened that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said yesterday that the Opposition will, where appropriate, seek to co-operate, help and support. We shall see.

I must declare an interest: I am employed by Mizuho International plc, a subsidiary of the Mizuho Financial Group of Japan. I am thus doubly unpopular, being both a banker and a politician. But I believe that politicians are trying to pin too much of the blame for the financial crisis on the banks. I understand that the taxpayer is already in the money as far as the shareholding in RBS is concerned and that, if investors can recover a modicum of confidence in the stock market, the prospects are that Lloyds Banking Group will also show a healthy profit.

Corporation tax revenues from the City of London alone have in the past covered our defence budget by 150 per cent. Of course, we need to create the conditions where our manufacturing industry can also thrive, but this will not be assisted by the adoption of policies intended to rebalance our economy away from financial services. There is already evidence that the new powers recently given to the FSA are excessive and harmful. I believe that it is essential that the FSA should show more restraint in the use of those powers. I hope that the Government will review them and consider whether they are appropriate or not as they prepare the draft legislation to reform financial services regulation. I am happy that the FSA has been reprieved and that it must submit to oversight by the Bank of England in respect of micro-prudential regulation.

Much more serious than the question of how far the FSA is subordinated to the Bank of England is the shocking realisation of the fact that it no longer has any power to make any new regulation. Our regulators are, or will shortly be, the European Banking Authority and the other two EU-level regulators. It is also shocking to realise that EU Finance Ministers and the European Parliament have both adopted versions of the alternative investment fund managers directive demonstrating that they now have the power to regulate our alternative fund management industry, which includes UK investment trusts and property funds—indeed, everything which is not a UCITS. That has serious negative ramifications for the City’s future prosperity and I trust that the Government will not let matters rest there.

It is my privilege, utterly unmeritorious, to enjoy the appointment of honorary Air Commodore of 600 (City of London) Squadron Royal Auxiliary Air Force. In the past, I served in the Territorial Army for 10 years. The Reserve Forces provide excellent value for money. I hope that the forthcoming Strategic Defence Review will consider the possibility of increasing further the contribution to our defence effort made by the Reserve Forces. They can also make a tremendous contribution to the Government’s intention to create a big society, and to encourage individual and social responsibility.

I was happy to learn that defence programmes have been protected from the £6.2 billion efficiency savings, because the Ministry of Defence has not benefited from the previous Government’s profligacy in the way that some other government departments have. We are very good at defence and universally recognised as such. It is one of the reasons we punch above our weight as a nation and our economic recovery depends on maintaining our position in our areas of excellence. I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to support fully our excellent Armed Forces—support which they both need and deserve.

I sometimes wonder why so many of our senior FCO mandarins are somewhat deprecating about our ability to continue to exert influence for good around the world through our embassies or acting alone, as well as co-operating with others. I lived in Japan for more than 11 years and have been closely involved in the establishment of financial businesses in China and Korea. In these endeavours I know how greatly I have been helped by the background of the UK’s strong bilateral relations with those countries and the effective presence of our high quality diplomats on the ground. I do not agree with those who think that we can exercise influence around the world today only by combining our diplomatic representation with that of our European partners through the EAS. I regret that the FCO’s budget is to be severely cut back at the same time as spending by the EU on diplomatic representation is being massively increased. This is unhelpful to the perception of the United Kingdom and the promotion of British interests abroad.

The gracious Speech contained a commitment,

“to spend nought point seven per cent of gross national income in development aid from 2013”.

I found this a surprisingly precise commitment compared with other spending cuts. It caused me to wonder why DfID is maintained as a separate department of state. I remember when it was headed by a Minister of State and was operated as a division of the FCO. I notice that it enjoyed an increase of funding in real terms of 12 per cent in 2008-09, whereas the FCO was forced to accept cuts of 11 per cent.

I wholly agree that we should, even in these straitened times, continue to provide development aid to genuinely poor countries, but I would ask Her Majesty’s Government to examine what savings could be achieved from downsizing DfID and merging it into the FCO, which should also ensure that its disbursements are more closely aligned with our national interest. If this were done, perhaps we might find that we could afford even more than,

“nought point seven per cent”,

of GDP for international aid.

Finally, I want to refer to the references to constitutional reform in the gracious Speech. I do not think that the people will thank the Government if much time is spent on debating these matters in contrast to the time that Parliament must commit to solving the acute economic and fiscal problems that the country faces. I welcome the sensible decision to reverse the previous Government’s misguided decision to carve the hearts out of Devon and Norfolk.

I regret the commitment to a referendum on AV and, in particular, the pressure being applied by my new noble friends to bring forward to 2011 the date for such a referendum. I have not liked the AV system since I was not elected to the executive of the Cambridge University Students’ Union in 1972 despite receiving more first preference votes than another one, or perhaps two, candidates who were elected. I believe that most people have only a very superficial understanding of the merits and demerits of various different voting systems. I think that matters such as this should rightly be decided by Parliament. It was so much more appropriate that there should have been a referendum on the Lisbon treaty than that there should be one on AV. It is no surprise that the gracious Speech informed us that proposals will be brought forward for a reformed second House that is wholly or mainly elected on the basis of proportional representation.

Japan replaced its partly appointed and partly hereditary second Chamber with a second directly elected House. I believe that it would be a serious mistake if we were to do the same thing. Another place represents the people and we should never compromise its sole right to do so. We in this House are summoned to advise the monarch—that means the Government. Our role is to scrutinise legislation, to use your Lordships’ undoubted expertise to improve it and to ask another place to reconsider when we believe that is in the national interest. Ultimately, we must defer to those in another place because they are the people’s representatives and we are not.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that the recommendation from the Chief Whip at the beginning of the debate was that we should keep to seven minutes. Having myself in the past often spoken one or two minutes longer than I should have done, I say this diffidently. But if we want to finish by 10 o’clock, we need to hit seven minutes or certainly no more than eight minutes.