Russia in Georgia

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, with the implementation of our sanctions policy, we are acutely aware that there will be attempts to circumvent measures taken on both individuals and organisations. Of course, we work with our key partners, including the European Union, to ensure that once sanctions are imposed, they are applied universally. Georgia itself, as the right reverend Prelate will know, has applied to become a member of the European Union, and these kinds of things are also assessed in its reporting. Whether it is here in London or indeed in Tbilisi or elsewhere in the world, we must always remain vigilant towards those seeking to circumvent sanctions policy or, indeed, launder money or illicit finance.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Government should now make it clearer to the British public that the outcome of the Ukraine conflict has implications for the future of Georgia, Moldova and the various bubbling conflicts in the Balkans, where Russian influence in Serbia and Serbian Bosnia has been very strong? The larger implications of any sort of outcome in Ukraine are not really well understood by our own public. The Government need to lead in informing them.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

The noble Lord has valuable insights on these matters and I agree with him. The situation in Transnistria and Moldova is of extreme concern to us, particularly with the Russian influence and presence there. Equally, with South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the influence remains very clear. We need an outcome where Russia withdraws from the occupied areas of Ukraine and where the breakaway republics are allowed to rejoin the sovereign territory of Georgia. Of course, regarding Transnistria—Moldova is a very small country; I have seen the challenges it faces quite directly in discussions that I have had—we need to ensure that Moldova is equally assured of its territorial sovereignty and integrity.

Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, and to thank her for her time as Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House.

Much has been said, and there will be much more to say over the weeks and months ahead—condolences, of course, to the Royal Family and heartfelt thanks for a life of historic proportions. All of us in public life in one way or another hope to leave a tiny footprint, some small legacy, behind us, but Her Majesty strode as a colossus through decades and generations, dealing with the most incredible personal and public events and taking on those challenges, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Judge, “with fortitude”.

Much has been said about service and duty, but I make no apology for repeating them. This is what Her Majesty’s life was about, right from those early days, described so graphically in this House today. That is why so many felt, like my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, shock when we learned that Her Majesty’s life was fading. Is it only yesterday? The shock was obviously greater, as has been alluded to, because of the juxtaposition with her role as our monarch on Tuesday, inducting the new Prime Minister and doing—yes—her duty. I found myself yesterday evening in a situation that I had never expected to, one of complete irrationality. I started to think, “Not now, not at this moment, please, not yet”. It was totally irrational, but it was because our Queen, over my lifetime, not only demonstrated how a constitutional monarch can do that duty but did it in a way that has held our nation, our United Kingdom, together. I hope that the memory will last with us for decades to come.

Holding our fragile constitution together, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, put it so well, is not an easy matter. We live in very delicate, difficult times for liberal democracy. Our Queen will be deeply missed, but her guidance and example will carry into the life and work of His Majesty King Charles III. Through turbulent and sometimes difficult times, he will display his great strength and compassion, which I have experienced, and his understanding of that duty to us as a nation and to our kingdom.

In my very brief speech this afternoon, I want to say a simple word about conducting ourselves for the future. Of course our respect requires our mourning, but in my view we need to celebrate and rejoice in the life of Elizabeth II. We need to lift people, as well as mourn. I hope it will be possible for public events to resume as quickly as possible so that people, in gathering together, can pay their respects and show their grief, but in a positive and uplifting way.

I have lots of anecdotes, particularly about dogs, as noble Lords will understand, from over those many years, but perhaps appropriately I will finish by giving just two. One was when I was inducted as a privy counsellor 25 years ago. I am sad that decisions have been taken that preclude so many of us on the Privy Council from the Accession Council. Back in those days, I knew it would be difficult and, unusually for me, I was quite nervous. I knew I could not drag the dog across the floor because dogs are not very good at showing you where to kneel on cushions. They are brilliant at all other kinds of other things, but that is not one of them, so I left the dog with Jack Straw. I moved across the room and I managed to hit the cushion, but facing the wrong way. Her Majesty, in what was always her gracious, careful and never patronising way, managed to gently shift me round by touching my arm so that I could just brush her hand.

I also remember seven years ago, much later, when she came to undertake the Maundy Thursday distribution at the cathedral in my city of Sheffield. Because I was retiring from the House of Commons as the longest serving Sheffield Member of Parliament, I had the privilege once again of sitting at a table with her at lunch. I had a member of the charitable community in Sheffield between me and Her Majesty. There was a silence, and I thought I would fill it—inappropriately, as it turned out—by saying to her, “Your Majesty, I have been reading in the papers that the breed of corgi is dying out.” There was a tremendous pause, and Her Majesty then did what she did so cleverly and so appropriately in putting me down. “Mr Blunkett,” she said, “of all people, you should know not to believe what you read in the newspapers.” I know that His Majesty King Charles III will not need, want or ask for my advice, but if he did I would give him one simple piece of advice: in the years to come, do not believe everything you read in the newspapers, and above all, sometimes do not bother reading them.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I am conscious that admitting that I can remember the monarchy before Queen Elizabeth is to admit that I am well over the average age, even in this House. My first image of the monarchy was, indeed, of the Queen’s grandmother, Queen Mary, who used to come to listen to sermons in Westminster Abbey whenever a particularly radical canon, Canon Marriott, was preaching the social gospel—something which would now be considered far too left-wing for any current bishop to talk about. I learned a little more when, as a junior chorister, I sang when the coffin of George VI arrived at Westminster Hall for the lying-in-state, and rather more about the symbolic importance of the monarchy when, as a more senior chorister, I sang at the Coronation.

People have talked a lot about how much the country has changed since then. When I think back to that period, it is astonishing what sort of change we have been through. As I walked past the abbey this morning, I remembered that it was black in 1952, covered in soot. Outside, a gallery had been built for people to watch from over a bomb site, which is now the Queen Elizabeth II Centre. Inside, nearly a thousand Peers were in the north transept, in their full robes and with their coronets, and nearly a thousand Peeresses were in the south transept. In a few months’ time, when the ballot for perhaps 100 of us who wish to attend the next Coronation arrives, we should remember that social deference has ended and the social order in this country is different from what it was then.

The monarchy is about symbolism, holding the country together and reminding us of how much we are linked with the past and with the lives of others in this country. Symbolism, ritual and conventions are an essential part of holding this kingdom together. The Queen has done her best throughout her very long reign to act in a symbolic way that reminds us of that. Because I am associated with Westminster Abbey, I have seen quite a lot of the symbolic services in operation. It is astonishing how she has not only adapted but actively assisted adaptation over the years.

At the Coronation, the only minister of religion participating who was not a member of the Church of England was, of course, the Moderator of the Church of Scotland. I have heard that the Cardinal Archbishop was invited but decided that he would prefer to sit in a gallery outside the abbey. On the 50th anniversary service of the Coronation, the Cardinal Archbishop read the first lesson. Representatives of our nonconformist churches sat at the side of the sanctuary. Under the lantern, in the first row, were representatives of Britain’s other faiths. That is real adaptation and a wonderful change.

For the 60th anniversary of the Coronation, the abbey and the Palace decided to symbolise the idea of the public service of all the nation and organised a procession that would walk from the west end to the sanctuary with an anointing flask, accompanied by a representation of the diversity of the nation. At the back were a Peer and a High Court judge in full robes. The head doorkeeper insisted that I put on my robes over here because he said that I could not possibly manage it when I got to the other side of the road. In front of us were Scout leaders, Guides, petty officers, NCOs and a lollipop lady in full school crossing uniform. That is good symbolism of the public service that everyone does. The Queen symbolised public duty, public service and public good. That is part of what we all need to remember and, I hope, to practise ourselves in our own contributions to this kingdom.

[Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)]

My Lords, one of the privileges of ambassadorial life was the relationship we had with the monarchy and with the Queen. We were proud to be members of Her Majesty’s Diplomatic Service. The Queen came to Paris when I was ambassador to unveil a statue to Sir Winston Churchill. Nothing could better have symbolised Britain or the relationship between Britain and France since the Second World War. The dignity with which the Queen performed her duties was a lesson to us all, British and French.

While the Queen was in Paris, I hosted a dinner for her in our embassy and, according to custom, proposed a rather pompous toast to the President of the French Republic and to Her Majesty the Queen. “What a nice couple,” she replied. It was that mixture of dignity and informality, at times almost irreverence, that was so captivating to millions in Britain and around the world.

In my last job at the Foreign Office, I had the extraordinary privilege to be at Her Majesty’s side when she received new ambassadors. The Queen had been doing this for about 50 years and loved it when things went slightly awry. I remember that a very distinguished ambassador arrived by carriage at Buckingham Palace and had forgotten his credentials. An ever-helpful equerry gave him a plain brown envelope and said, “Present this to Her Majesty and all will be well.” The rather nervous ambassador entered the room and presented the Queen with an empty plain brown envelope. The Queen was generously pleased to accept the empty plain brown envelope and said, with a dignified twinkle in her eye, “How very kind, ambassador”.

Water Companies: Borrowings

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I am deeply worried about it. As I said, I do not pretend for a second that we do not have a problem with pollution; we do. Incidentally, this is not a UK problem but one that affects countries across the European Union. But I also said, rightly, that this Government are the first to take these steps. There is now a legal requirement for those companies to take action; that did not exist before. Our plan will require water companies to deliver the largest ever infrastructure programme, with £56 billion of capital investment over 25 years. If it is followed through, the plan will protect biodiversity, the ecology of our rivers and seas and the public health of our water users for generations to come. As I said, we now have the tools to do this, but of course it is for future Governments, including this one, to ensure that they are used to their maximum.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the Government make great play of being on the side of the people in their opinions, as opposed to the dreadful establishment. From opinion polls over last few months, it is very clear that the popular will is in favour of reversing privatisation. Do the Government intend to stand against the people’s will on this or to go along with it against the establishment?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

We very much share the overwhelming view of the population of this country that more action needs to be taken to protect not just the health of our waters but the resilience of supply. This goes back to the question asked by my noble friend. But we do not believe that nationalisation is the answer: it would place an enormous financial burden on the taxpayer and would not deliver anything like the level of investment that we have seen in recent years.

Offshore Companies: Property

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they made towards ensuring the transparency of beneficial ownership of offshore companies holding properties in the United Kingdom in the recent discussions between the Minister for Asia and the Middle East at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the government of the British Virgin Islands.

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

My Lords, the 2022 economic crime Act creates a register of overseas entities that own properties in the UK. This will apply to legal entities from any overseas jurisdiction that own UK property, including those registered in the British Virgin Islands. The overseas territories already share confidential information on company beneficial ownership with UK law enforcement bodies, an arrangement that has enabled the UK’s first unexplained wealth order.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, it is four years since the passage of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act required the overseas territories to open up their company registers. My understanding is that the British Virgin Islands, which has one of the largest sets of companies owning property in the UK—more than 20,000 properties—has been reluctant to open up its registers fully. One has to ask individually and know what one is looking for. Can the Minister explain what the relationship between the sovereign United Kingdom and these overseas territories is in this respect? Do we require them to accept our instructions, or do we ask them if they would mind?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, we have a very constructive relationship with our British Overseas Territories. We regard them very much as part of the British family, and we have a co-operative partnership with the British OTs. That is the way it should be. In terms of recent engagement, my right honourable friend the Minister for the Overseas Territories, Amanda Milling MP, discussed the BVI’s newly announced consultation on a publicly accessible register, to which it is, along with all the other overseas territories, totally committed, ensuring that there will be working registers by the end of 2023.

Sanctions

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I can certainly speak for the United Kingdom Government. For example, through Operation Orbital we were providing defence support directly to Ukraine immediately after the occupation of Crimea. We have a long-standing relationship with Ukraine: indeed, President Zelensky and Foreign Minister Kuleba have talked of the strong support they have received from the United Kingdom over a number of years. However, I acknowledge that when there is a crisis of the magnitude we now see in Ukraine, with the sovereignty of Ukraine being directly usurped by Russia, it is right that we, the Europeans, and all international partners look to do what we are doing, and do more. There is more still to be done.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I think that everyone in this House would like to compliment the Minister on the enormously valuable work he has done and continues to do on this; we all appreciate it. However, can he take back to his colleagues that saying all the time that we are leading on this and leading on that is not the right tone? To say that we are working with others, we are co-operating, we are in solidarity with our partners and allies would be much more constructive in the current context.

Can I also ask about the domestic dimension of sanctions? I was very struck by the paragraph in the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report which said that the penetration of British society and politics by wealthy Russians resident in London has gone so far that it is now in some ways difficult to untangle. We must now see what we can do to untangle that. Can we be assured that the Government will not only do their best to untangle it, but report to Parliament on what they are doing?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, on the noble Lord’s second question, perhaps I can answer it with his first suggestion. To untangle such challenges we must work together, which is exactly what we are doing. We are working here in the United Kingdom and with key partners to negate the negative influence of Russian money and illicit finance in the United Kingdom and more broadly. As he will have seen from the sanctions we have introduced, they are reflective of that very objective. I am sure he will find that, as further legislation comes forward, further sanctions are applied and we have discussions on the economic crime Bill, we can untangle some of those issues.

On the issue of leadership, I have served with the noble Lord in government and I am sure he agrees that there are times when the United Kingdom leads the way, and I am proud of that. The richness of our history, our experience and our expertise reflects that. It is that leadership which also leads to enhanced partnerships, and that is exactly the approach we have adopted in this crisis.

Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Thursday 24th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on his opening statement. We all believe that sanctions must be tougher and go much further. I agree with everything that my noble friend Lord Foulkes has said, particularly in relation to SWIFT. That is a very good mechanism for bringing Putin and the rest of his mob to reality.

Having visited Ukraine pre pandemic, and having worked with NGOs there, which have wrought such wonderful, positive changes, I urge the Minister, through his department and others, and the embassy in Ukraine, to work very carefully and closely with these NGOs. In particular, might I make a plea for those NGOs working on LGBT issues? When we look at the history of Russia under Putin, and its views and treatment of minorities—particularly the LGBT+ minority—they and we have much to fear, so anything the Minister can do in this regard will be welcomed, not only by friends and sympathisers in this country, but by those NGOs and individuals who currently feel vulnerable and under great threat in Ukraine.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I always think about the inadequacies of the Government’s response to the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report. I recall the paragraph that talks about the penetration of our society and politics by people from these autocratic states, which, to some extent

“cannot be untangled and the priority now must be to mitigate the risk”.

We now need some much more decisive action from the Government to mitigate that risk and to see how far we can untangle this.

I was very struck by the inadequacy of the Government’s response to that report in the following respect. The Intelligence and Security Committee recommended that the Government should publish the evidence that they had collected on foreign penetration of British politics. We know that that has happened on the right and on the left: on the hard right and on the hard left. The Government’s response was that they had

“seen no evidence of successful interference”

in British politics. That is a phrase that I would love to have drafted if I had been a civil servant: it lets them completely off the hook. There clearly is evidence of foreign penetration, whether or not it has been successful, and the Government should now publish that in full.

I will ask the Minister a question about the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories. We are now extending—and there are more to come—sanctions against Russians close to Putin, and their money. Much of the money that has come through the London laundromat has gone on to the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories. When the British Government, as the sovereign, enforces sanctions, what happens to the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories? Do we ask their permission? Do we suggest that they might possibly consider that it is desirable to follow within the next few months, or do we, as their sovereign, say that on a matter as important as this, they must now follow?

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to ask one very specific question about the impact of sanctions, but before I do that, I would like to associate myself with the earlier remarks commending the Minister on his introductory description of where we are and why we should roundly condemn Russia’s actions. He got the tone of that exactly right, and we need to continue with that.

I am conscious that, later today, we will take the Statement from the Prime Minister and have an opportunity to debate that, and we will have a long debate tomorrow. I therefore intend to restrict myself to sanctions, although I share all the ambitions of previous speakers that we will be able to extend our influence on a legal basis against the interests of people who are supporting this dreadful and inexcusable criminal behaviour that is taking place as we speak.

Here is my question. These sanctions need to be meaningful. I carefully read the debate on them in the other place, and I have read the letter that the Minister sent to us all thereafter, which deals with a number of the technical and legal points that were raised in that debate, some of which have been repeated here today. I am clear that nowhere in that debate did the Minister say at any point what the three persons mentioned in the sanctions on Tuesday—Gennady Timchenko, Boris Rotenberg and Igor Rotenberg—are not able to do today that they were able to do on Monday; nor did anybody say what impact these sanctions would have on any of those relatively small banks. They may be very important, but what are those banks not able to do today that is within our jurisdiction that they were able to do on Monday?

I raised this issue with the Leader of the House when that Statement came on Tuesday to your Lordships’ House. I said specifically that I recognised that this was a framework for the sanctions to be made, but the implementation of them depended on a suite of legislation, not only for their existence but for their actual use properly for the purpose for which they were designed. She gave me a very comprehensive answer, but the answer was all, “We have plans to”, “We intend to”, “We are working on”, “We are looking at”. I am not quoting her exactly, but it was all prospective.

We need to put into position a suite of powers that will then allow us to do what we need to do, so as we debate these sanctions, we should not kid ourselves that we are having an impact on Putin or any of his acolytes today, but we may have in the future. Interestingly, today, before the Prime Minister makes the Statement to the House of Commons, it is being reported that he is promising massive sanctions designed—and this is the interesting phrase—“in time” to hobble the Russian economy. Why do we not already have the ability to change the way in which Companies House practises and its ability to pour out shell companies that people can use to hide their assets? Why do we not have anti-money laundering legislation that is used in an impactful way to prevent the sort of stuff that is going on? Why do we not already recognise that we have people in the City of London who make a significant living out of facilitating all of that sort of behaviour, and they do it openly, with nameplates on the door that tell people that that is what they are doing?

It is important that the Government recognise that what we are doing here is legislating for potential, but it is not potential that will be impactful, although it may, for a couple of days, affect the sentiments of the stock exchange.

Europe: Foreign Policy and Defence Co-operation

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Monday 21st February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord knows, Ukraine is a sovereign nation with a long and rich history of cultural and political independence. Ukraine has the absolute right to determine its own future. The sovereignty and integrity of Ukraine, and other partners, are not remotely up for discussion.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, could the Minister take back to the Foreign Office the strong message that it does not help the cause of close co-operation with France and Germany if Cabinet Ministers make comments which suggest that they are weak and we are strong? For example, the suggestion that there was a whiff of Munich in President Macron going to Moscow was not helpful for Franco-British co-operation. I am well aware that the Blair Government did much the same in criticising the French in the run-up to the Iraq war. That damaged our co-operation with our major European partners, too.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, I hope that what I have already said today in response to questions put to me reassures the noble Lord that we do not take lightly the importance of our relationship with major European powers when it comes to confronting these common challenges. What I have said today is a perfect reflection of the Government’s position.

Autocrats, Kleptocrats and Populists

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, that we have to say something about the UK’s standing as a democracy because that affects our ability to respond to the current situation. We all agree that we face a global push-back against democracy and the rule of law. It is led by China and Russia, supported by the central Asian states that emerged from the USSR, and now also by Turkey, with governing parties in two EU members, Hungary and Poland, drifting into that camp.

I want to stress the role that Middle East autocracies are actively playing in this development. We have seen the wealthy Governments of the UAE and Saudi Arabia actively working to suppress the democratic efforts of the Arab spring, supporting the military coup in Egypt, funding anti-democratic forces in Libya, helping to undermine democracy in Tunisia and contributing almost as much as Iran and Israel to the destabilisation of Lebanon. Their elites also penetrate open democracies such as the UK, employing PR companies and buying football clubs to bolster their reputations. They buy mansions and country estates and gain acceptance within our political and social elites. The current rise in energy prices will increase their ability to extend their influence through societies like ours.

The global reputation of democratic government has been shaken by recent events in the United States and Britain. The American Republican Party, which some in our Conservative Party still see as a model they wish to follow, is engaged in voter suppression and election-fixing. Here, we have a Prime Minister who has broken the Ministerial Code on numerous occasions and stretched the boundaries of reasoned debate, respect for opposition and the rule of law.

The Lords will shortly be scrutinising the Elections Bill—it was originally entitled the election integrity Bill but has now dropped the claim to integrity—which has been designed to tilt our democracy further in favour of the Conservative Party. That will be followed by the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, an almost direct copy of Republican efforts within the United States, which is intended to extend state influence over university teaching and appointments.

Populist Ministers in our Government repeatedly attack the BBC for its failure to present the government line uncritically. The Prime Minister loves to talk about Britain as a “soft power superpower”. I remind the Minister that the integrated security strategy published a year ago noted five key elements of British soft power as the BBC, the global reputation of our universities, the generosity of our international development efforts, the work of the British Council and the strength of our cultural sector. All have been undermined since then by government decisions and ministerial attacks.

Our populist Prime Minister loves to talk of Britain “leading” a group of democratic nations across the world. Sadly, we are in no position to lead the democratic world now. A glance at overseas media across continental Europe, south Asia and North America shows that the political antics of recent years have replaced respect with ridicule. I sympathise with the Minister, who must of course defend the Government; he is somewhat better than this, but he will be painfully aware of the damage that current events have done to Britain’s global reputation.

However, at least we can do something to reduce the penetration of British politics, society and business by kleptocrats from authoritarian states. One of the most disturbing statements in the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report, in paragraphs 50 and 53, was that the integration of post-Soviet oligarchs into

“the UK business and social scene … cannot be untangled, and the priority now must be to mitigate the risk”.

Boris Johnson’s attempts to downgrade and delay government action in response to the recommendations of the Russia report are one of the most disgraceful aspects of his premiership.

Priority in the next parliamentary Session must be given at last to the economic crime Bill and revision of our outdated Official Secrets Act. I hope also that the Government will accept the amendment I have tabled to the Nationality and Borders Bill to suspend the tier 1 investor visa scheme, which has allowed oligarchs to import corruption into the UK and buy access to the top of the Conservative Party. Such changes will reduce the damage that has been inflicted on Britain by corrupt and hostile foreign influences. But other changes will be needed to restore our damaged global reputation as a democratic, open society.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

We were due to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, but he is not here. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, would now like to speak.

Russia: Sanctions

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, on the central point of Ukraine joining NATO, it is first and foremost a defensive alliance. A country can make an application and it is considered by all members of NATO. No country should be told specifically that it cannot be a member of a particular alliance; it is very much for Ukraine to request its membership and for members of NATO to decide.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the presentation in Washington has often been—as I have seen in recent days—that the United Kingdom has only really acted under American pressure. That does not look good in Washington. Can the Minister reassure us that that was not the case? While we are tackling this issue, late as we are to it, can the Government ensure that we take a broader attitude to the question of Russian influence within the British elite, which the ISC Russia report flagged up three years ago? We need now to deal with not just the immediate question of the Ukraine crisis; there is a much broader question. Lastly, have the Government done any impact assessment of, for example, the implications for the property market in London and the south-east of imposing sanctions?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

On the noble Lord’s last point, I suppose I should declare an interest: I am a property owner in London and the south-east. In all seriousness, without going into too much detail, as I said—and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, had to leave, but I recognise the courtesy extended by his note to me—we are looking at the broader impact, as the noble Lord indicated.

On the issue of engagement in Washington, I assure the House that we have been engaging on the front foot. Let us not forget that we have been engaging on this issue longer than the current US Administration. We have always made the case as strong partners of Ukraine—one can ask Ministers present and past in the Ukrainian Government. I have sat with a number of them at the United Nations who have indicated their strong support, not through us asking them, but quite genuinely, for the leadership the United Kingdom has showed in solidarity, support and friendship for Ukraine.

Diplomatic Influence Post Brexit

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Wednesday 12th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

As I said, my Lords, we retain good diplomatic relations with European states and share foreign policy goals with them, particularly on issues around Russia, Iran and China and indeed on the issue that the noble and gallant Lord raises. The trade and co-operation agreement provides for future co-operation on emerging security challenges—everything from counterterror to cyber- crime. It also provides for an agreement on security of information that will allow the UK and the EU to exchange classified information on a voluntary basis.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

I remind the Minister that Lord Carrington and Geoffrey Howe, two of the main architects of the institutions of European foreign policy co-operation, said on many occasions that this was one of the most valuable aspects of our membership of the European Union; that should not be forgotten. It was agreed in the Foreign Office 20 years ago that we could cut our staff in bilateral embassies across Europe because we did so much of the business in Brussels. Has the Foreign Office now accepted that we need to increase substantially our staff in bilateral embassies across Europe, even as the overall diminution in the size of the Diplomatic Service is still under way? We need to increase those bilateral staff if we are to maintain our contacts.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

In the last decade our diplomatic network has expanded by over 10%, making it the fourth largest global network of embassies and high commissions after China, the US and France. We now oversee one of the world’s largest diplomatic networks, with 282 posts covering 179 countries and territories, including 161 embassies or high commissions. In the EU, the Foreign Office has carried out a comprehensive review of resources across Europe to ensure that we have the right staff focused on the right priorities. However, the noble Lord makes an important point that is fully accepted by the Foreign Office.