Ukraine: Support

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs what action the Government are taking to maintain moral and physical support, in the United Kingdom and internationally, for Ukraine’s war against the Russian invasion.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton) (Con)]

My Lords, no country has done more than the UK to maintain physical and moral support for Ukraine. Our military support has made a critical difference on the battlefield and paved the way for others to follow; our fiscal support has helped to keep the Ukrainian economy going; the British people have invited over 280,000 Ukrainians into their homes; and this July we intend to sign a hundred-year partnership agreement to demonstrate that a century from now the UK and Ukraine will still be standing shoulder to shoulder.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that, and for his efforts in the States recently. As he says, it is imperative that moral as well as military support is maintained, not just to reassure Ukrainians that we will back them till they win but to make sure that Russia knows that we will do that too. Given that the Kremlin watches our every move, would not a multi-year commitment have given a clearer signal to Putin that we were there until Ukraine won, rather than the programme for just one year and £2 billion that was announced?

I have just come from a meeting with a delegation from the Polish parliament, which thanks us for all the things that the Foreign Secretary has said and was full of praise for us. But those parliamentarians from Poland noted, interestingly, that they had not prepared their people for what happened in February 2022. They said that the challenge now was for all of us to persuade the people of our nations that this fight is worth it. Will the Foreign Secretary make the case domestically to stand firm against Putin in the interests not just of Ukraine but of the whole of Europe? Ukraine is actually fighting our war.

LGBT People: Diplomatic Service

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the apology on 5 July 2021 by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office for the historic ban on LGBT people serving in the Diplomatic Service, whether they will take steps to ascertain how many staff were dismissed or forced to resign between 1967 and 1991 as a result of the ban; and whether they have considered compensation similar to that proposed by Lord Etherton’s Independent Review into the service and experience of LGBT veterans who served prior to 2000, published in July 2023.

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

My Lords, the FCDO has rightly apologised for the unjust ban on LGBT+ officers serving in the Diplomatic Service prior to 1991. The department is also actively monitoring the outcomes of the Etherton report, its effectiveness and the lessons learned, which could be learned for our organisation. I know the noble Baroness’s interest in this. I will follow up with her directly as we make progress in this respect.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that. Many years ago, my former colleague, the rather brilliant Gareth Williams, was a high-flying diplomat, but he was dismissed from the service the very moment he revealed that he was gay—no future, no career, no apology, no debate, and a great loss to the country, which therefore could not use the services of this very talented man. The Minister took action on this after I and my noble friend Lord Collins raised it with him, and we got the very welcome apology to which he referred. The problem is that that was not sent to my friend Gareth Williams nor, of course, to all the other people who were dismissed from the Foreign Office, and there has been no attempt to identify who was dismissed so that they can have the apology before anything else. Could we maybe look through the records and see who else lost their job, and at least make them aware of the apology for the ban on LGBT people working in the Diplomatic Service?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

Of course. That is a very pragmatic and practical suggestion, which we will take forward. I assure the noble Baroness that we are doing exactly that and working with the sensitivity that is required. The noble Baroness would have noticed my Written Ministerial Statement issued at the start of this month on issues of accreditation, as part of modernising the FCDO for the diversity of our workforce today, for the kind of diverse families that are now involved with and rightly celebrated within the FCDO.

UK-EU Relationship

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. It is very nice to be reunited with her. My first job in politics was as the candidate’s researcher at the Vauxhall by-election, where she got elected and my office was picketed every day by local residents. At least we have ended up in the same place.

As the noble Baroness said, I had nothing to do with negotiating the Windsor Framework, so I can say with real feeling that I think it was a superb negotiation. The EU said it would never reopen the withdrawal agreement and it did; it said it would never give an emergency brake, yet it did when it came to Stormont; and it never really makes exceptions for single market access for non-single market countries, yet it has. I absolutely understand her concerns and worries about it, but I think it was a good negotiation. I think it can fulfil the seven tests that the Democratic Unionists have put forward. I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is working extremely hard to try to put the institutions back together again.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, the Foreign Secretary mentioned that one of the areas of common interest was migration. Given the signing of the treaty with Rwanda today, can he tell the House what discussions he had with the EU and its member states on that? Can he also tell the House whether Parliament will have the choice to debate and agree that new treaty?

[Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton (Con)]

One of the things that has changed the most in my seven-year absence from all this is that the debate in EU countries about migration has completely changed. Many more of them are extremely worried about the scale of illegal migration and the need to do some quite creative thinking about how to deal with this problem. I did speak about this with Commissioner Šefčovič. I fully support what the Government are doing because we have to stop these illegal boat crossings. There is nothing more destructive to a country’s immigration system than to have a continued and very visible amount of illegal migration. The approach that is being taken is to break the criminal gangs and their ability to say to people, “We will get you to the shore of the UK, and from then on you are safe”. We have to stop that, and that is what the Rwanda plan is all about. I am sure it can be debated to a great extent in this House, and I am sure that my colleagues would be very happy to take part.

Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [HL]

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 21st November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, it is always nice to follow the noble Lord, Lord Frost. We sparred a few times on Brexit, and as he was running the Scotch Whisky Association and I was running Alcohol Concern, noble Lords will not be surprised that we have slightly different views about the duty on whisky. In welcoming the new Foreign Secretary, I assure him, as the first woman to be able to welcome him today, that he will find that we are a quarter of this House and are normally far more in evidence than perhaps we have been. If he thinks he is going to get away with gentlemanly behaviour in the future, he may find that we also have a voice.

I am particularly pleased that the Foreign Secretary made his maiden speech on the CPTPP, as it is the flagship of the post-Brexit policy that followed after he had left No. 10—despite, as we have heard, its very modest impact on our current trade arrangements. That is partly because, as we have heard from a number of speakers, we already have agreements with the majority of the 11 members, particularly Japan of course, but also Australia and New Zealand, the FTAs with which we have looked at the FTAs in this House quite recently.

I know that, in welcoming the new Foreign Secretary, the Lib Dem Benches will be particularly pleased to be reminded by these Benches that they were once in coalition with him in government, something they often fail to declare. However, my Labour colleagues and I of course welcome him. He has a vital role to play, partly in rebuilding trust and confidence in the UK following Boris Johnson’s attempts when he was Prime Minister to break international law by threatening to abrogate part of a treaty he had so recently signed, and today, at a time when the Government are threatening to renege on international law and our own legislation and common law in their desperate desire to fight an election with pictures of planes taking off to Rwanda. I hope that the Foreign Secretary, whom we know is an honourable man, will help to restore trust and decency in the Government and thus re-establish confidence in the bona fides of the country that we all love and want to serve.

The Foreign Secretary will by now have been well briefed—we hear from the usual reliable sources that he is very well briefed and reads everything—on the intricacies of the CPTPP. It was a pre-cooked agreement which involved us merely joining rather than being able to negotiate, as with other agreements. It is, as a number of speakers have said, a significant partnership. It embraces 11 countries stretching from Vietnam to Peru, many of which, if not all, are experiencing growth and—of particular relevance to this country—are increasing potential markets for the products and services for which we are so well known.

However, to make this work for our exporters, which is the important issue, the Department for Business and Trade will have to step up the support which it offers to companies and individuals who want to do business in a CPTPP country. The Bill hardly touches that side of the main part of the partnership agreement, which we trust will be fully debated here, as has been mentioned already. The Bill really just deals with three issues which require some tweaks to our legislation, whereas the majority of the agreement does not need any legislative changes, hence the need for a fuller debate.

When I was still chairing the International Agreements Committee some two years ago, it examined the negotiating objectives and there was very broad support for accession at that moment. Nothing seems to have diminished that, according to the evidence submitted to the new inquiry. Indeed, our committee’s current inquiry, as described by my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, is into the outcome of negotiations. Some of the stuff we have been looking at already suggests that some of the major questions are about the practicalities. Those include whether the lack of a fully functioning and permanent secretariat to this rather complex agreement will suffice to iron out the technical and other issues that are bound to develop not just with our accession but with its continuing growth; and, I am afraid to say, why the department’s recent dialogue with stakeholders appears to been so dismal just when business most needs help to plan for and get help with our accession. The benefits of this agreement will be realised only with considerable assistance from the Government so that businesses can take advantage of what is there in the new trade freedoms.

The British Chambers of Commerce, which supports the “speedy ratification” of the agreement, says that it wants to work with the Government

“to ensure firms get the best possible access”

to what it defines as a “thriving market”, but this will depend on the department reaching out to stakeholders and providing the advice, guidance and, indeed, the access that they need.

When we looked at the agreement two years ago, the UK Fashion and Textile Association said that it had not seen much export development take place, while the NFU wanted the Government to put more energy and resources into export promotion and marketing. It would therefore be helpful to hear about the Government’s plans for working with relevant industries and professional associations to make the most of the enhanced business mobility possibilities that have already been touched on.

Indeed, to give just one example, I have had a query from a sector possibly impacted by the Bill, which I will outline here. My concern is less with this particular issue and more that it has not been ironed out by the department talking to the relevant industries. The question relates to Clause 4, which amends the rolled-over EU regulations to enable the Secretary of State to cancel trademarks and geographical indications retrospectively.

The question is: might this new power cause some conflicts with the EU should the Secretary of State remove trademarks that apply in the UK and the EU simply to satisfy a demand from a CPTPP member? Does the Bill really need to make this provision for the CPTPP to apply in UK law, given that GIs are determined on a bilateral basis between CPTPP member countries? Perhaps the noble Lord can clarify this matter and—more importantly—confirm that relevant stakeholders impacted either have been or will now be consulted before we ratify and the procedures come into place.

I turn to broader political issues. There is one early discussion, already touched on, that will involve the Government now that we are members—that is, of course, about the future expansion of the CPTPP. We are the first country to join since it was established by its 11 inaugural members, and we are the first European member—which sort of stretches the definition of “Pacific”. On the agenda for the partnership now is the application for China to join. Needless to say, we will be particularly interested in the Foreign Secretary’s view on this. As my noble friend Lord Collins and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, have emphasised, this strategic issue is of central concern to the UK and, indeed, to other countries. We look forward to hearing the Government’s views on that in due course.

Most commentators see the importance of the CPTPP as being part of the Indo-Pacific tilt—a diplomatic and security matter as much as a straight economic one—so the Minister’s views on where we sit in that sphere will be of continuing interest to this House. It is particularly good that we have the Foreign Secretary, from the FCDO, sitting alongside the Minister from the Department for Business and Trade. It stresses again the need referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, for the strategic framework. Trade is part of foreign policy and, indeed, defence policy. Therefore, seeing how this all fits together is an important challenge for the Government.

The new Foreign Secretary has already been warned that there is a lot on his plate; we add this to it. For the moment, this Bill, a small but important part of our accession, is to be welcomed. I wish it well.

China

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2023 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of Sino-British relations following the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre on 4 June, and the recent suppression of peaceful demonstrations in Hong Kong.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, in rising to ask the Government this Question, I particularly look forward to the contribution of my noble friend Lord Leong, who has a greater understanding of this issue than anyone else I know.

Hong Kong’s aptly named 1997 bar, which I confess I visited in the late 1980s and which later became Club 97, closed in 2016 after 34 years, during which time that bar witnessed the trepidation and then the hope—or even optimism—of 1997, followed by disappointment. The bar was there in 1989 when the Tiananmen Square protests and massacre took place in Beijing. There, it is simply known as the June 4th incident—an early, Orwellian version of Russia’s “Special military operation”.

On that June day, brave men and women called for greater democracy and basic freedoms, standing against the Chinese Communist Party and risking imprisonment and death. We should never forget such bravery, nor its cause. As late as 2019, thousands of people participated in a commemorative vigil at Victoria Park in Hong Kong, the last place in China where the Tiananmen Square anniversary could take place peacefully. But these demonstrations have been banned since 2020, with many Hong Kong people jailed for participating in such vigils.

Since the 2020 national security law, protestors and pro-democracy activists have been arrested, media outlets silenced and the judiciary’s independence compromised. So it is right that today we acknowledge and applaud the courage of individuals like Jimmy Lai, founder of Hong Kong’s most popular newspaper, Apple Daily, and a pro-democracy advocate who has been targeted and imprisoned, including for participating in a peaceful vigil in May 2021. He has been imprisoned for violating the national security law and today, he still faces charges of foreign collusion and sedition, which risk life imprisonment. Despite his being a British citizen, Beijing has overruled a Hong Kong court’s decision that he can be represented by a British lawyer.

It is sad that Hong Kong, once seen as a potential beacon of freedom and democracy in the region, has instead witnessed the erosion of its autonomy and civil liberties, with the “one country, two systems” principle promised under the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration completely undermined and dissent silenced. Thirty-four years after Tiananmen Square, we see how the 2020 national security law, imposed by the Chinese on Hong Kong, has restricted human rights, press freedom, civil liberties, freedom of expression and the rule of law. It criminalises a swathe of activities and has led to the closure of nearly all Hong Kong’s independent media outlets. It has given powers to authorities to monitor individuals, allowing warrantless searches, electronic surveillance and interception of communications—all undermining privacy and interfering with personal data.

Crucially, it is eroding the independence of the judicial system, allowing certain cases to be transferred to mainland China, where fair trials and due process rights are far from guaranteed. The appointment of judges and prosecutors is subject to political vetting, compromising their impartiality and independence. In a chilling echo of Tiananmen Square, there have been crackdowns on pro-democracy activists, dissidents and opposition figures, with the arrest, prosecution and imprisonment of people following peaceful protests, online expression or political activities. Nearly 250 people have been arrested and many more forced to flee.

For years, the only 4 June commemoration took place in Hong Kong, where today even books about it, or on Hong Kong’s own protest movement, were removed from libraries in the lead-up to the 34th anniversary. In May, the Pillar of Shame statue commemorating Tiananmen Square which stood at the university was seized by the national security police as supposed evidence in an incitement to subversion case.

We are seeing events that we had hoped would not occur in post-1997 Hong Kong—indeed, we thought that was guaranteed. The trial of 47 democrats involved in unofficial primaries in 2020 opened in February this year. Most of them have been detained for two years, and they stand accused of conspiracy to commit subversion. What are their crimes? Participating in electoral activities: clear evidence of the fear of those in authority.

Indeed, we see fewer and fewer elections taking place as the proportion of democratically elected seats on district councils has been slashed from 90% to just 20%. This week, Hong Kong police issued arrest warrants for eight democracy activists living overseas, three of whom are probably living in the UK. It is unacceptable for individuals, peacefully and lawfully resident here, to be threatened in this way, and for supposed actions carried out not in Hong Kong but while in exile. The charges carry a maximum life sentence, but perhaps as chilling is the bounty on these people’s heads, with the police offering a reward of £100,000 per person.

The latest FCDO six-monthly report emphasises that the Government remain committed to protecting Hong Kongers’ rights and freedoms as part of the Sino-British joint declaration. However, the Foreign Secretary’s proposed visit to China demonstrates the Government’s failure to hold the CCP accountable for its repeated violations of basic human rights in China and Hong Kong. It also sends the wrong message to Hong Kongers who have fled here and are being targeted on British soil. They are at risk of surveillance and intimidation because of the extraterritorial clauses in the national security law, which claims universal jurisdiction.

This House, and the Government, must hold China accountable for its continued actions in China, Hong Kong and even the UK, violating human rights and disregarding the values that protesters stood for in Tiananmen Square. The Government cannot merely discuss human rights and democracy with Hong Kong and Chinese officials while taking no action. HMG have declared China to be in a state of “ongoing non-compliance” with the joint declaration but have yet to take steps to hold the Chinese Government accountable for these breaches. The UK has a unique responsibility to Hong Kong as signatory to the joint declaration, and a moral and legal obligation to uphold the autonomy and freedoms in the handover agreement of 26 years ago. We must remember the hopes exhibited in that 1997 bar and by its people.

In a way, Hong Kong is the canary in the mine. China’s rise poses a great challenge to many of our assumptions as its growth has been matched by greater repression at home and assertive behaviour abroad—in Hong Kong but also in Taiwan and the South China Sea. These actions concern us, but the Government appear divided and inconsistent, flip-flopping between tough talk and muddled action.

We need to be strong, clear-eyed and consistent on China, as Labour will be if in government, starting with a clean, full audit of our relationship. Of course, we will look at our economic and security policy, engaging where it is in our national interest on climate change, trade and global health. But we will stand firm on human rights and will champion the values that we hold so dear and which were lacking in Tiananmen Square on 4 June 1989 and are lacking in Hong Kong today.

I look forward to hearing the views of others and, in particular, to hearing the Government’s response to the question I posed.

Working Practices (International Agreements Committee Report)

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

To move that this House takes note of the Report from the International Agreements Committee Working practices: one year on (7th Report, Session 2021-22, HL Paper 75).

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the House notes the Working Practices: One Year On report, published back in September last year. This was, of course, produced under the distinguished chairmanship of my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith—no, not the Minister, the original one—to whom I pay tribute for his sterling work in setting up and leading the International Agreements Committee, aided and abetted by Alex Horne, our specialist adviser, and our brilliant team led by Jennifer Martin-Kohlmorgen.

As colleagues know, our remit goes well beyond trade. But in regard to that, I pay tribute—if it does not end his political career—to the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone of Boscobel, for his unfailing courtesy in answering our many questions, appearing before us both virtually and in person, and ensuring that his departmental officials were on hand to deal with some of the very fine detail of trade agreements. I especially mention his official who delivered four box files of the Australia deal to my home on Boxing Day; the grandchildren were not equally thrilled.

There are five points that I would like to make in opening this debate. First, on trade deals, what became known as the Grimstone rules, which emerged during the passage of the then Trade Bill though this House, have, I am delighted to report to the House as real news, just been confirmed today in an exchange of letters between the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, and myself. These are now the official record of the earlier commitments, engineered by my noble friends Lord McNicol and Lord Stevenson at the time of the passage of the Bill, and they will remain in place unless our committee, alongside the International Trade Committee in the Commons, with which we worked, agrees to their amendment.

Secondly—here I have to move to “more work yet to come”—this welcome exchange of letters covers only trade. Treaties can emerge from the Home Office, such as on the Istanbul convention, family issues and immigration; from the Ministry of Justice, on prisoner exchange; from the Department for Transport, on the recognition of licences and navigational aids; and from the Ministry of Defence, as with the UK-US-Australia deal and provision of weapons to Ukraine, which we also dealt with. All those departmental treaties are overseen by the Foreign Office, but on those we have been given no such assurances as to how the relevant department will interact with Parliament to ensure effective scrutiny, given that the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, or CRaG, is insufficient for the task, particularly when it comes to complex agreements.

Pending amendment of CRaG, there are other ways in which the Government can work with us to ensure that we can do our scrutiny job on all agreements properly. Our interactions with the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, and today’s exchange of letters have shown that this has been possible for trade agreements. We now ask the Foreign Office to establish an equally constructive dialogue with us on the other types of agreements.

We hope—this is my third point—that CRaG will be reformed. It was passed in the days when the EU negotiated our trade agreements, with the European Parliament doing detailed and very powerful scrutiny, and with the power to say no to a negotiated deal. That ability to say no ensured that the European Parliament was consulted throughout the negotiations, so that the final result would be acceptable to it. We hope there will come a time when this Parliament also has to consent to trade deals and other important agreements.

Relating to this is my fourth point—that when we last negotiated our own trade deals, back before 1973, as some of us remember, there were no devolved Governments, so the UK Government were the sole authority. With devolution, treaty-making remains a reserved power, albeit that such deals can now cover devolved competences and interests. It is vital that, going forward, devolved Administrations are fully involved throughout the negotiations to ensure that their interests and competences are considered and fully respected. Meanwhile, we say to the devolved Administrations that, if they wish to raise any issues on treaties being negotiated, our door is open and we hope to hear from them directly.

My fifth point is about agreements which are not actually treaties. One example is amendments to treaties which, if significant, should also come to Parliament but at present are not always covered by CRaG. Perhaps more important, and certainly more urgent, is the issue of deals being signed by way of memoranda of understanding rather than by treaty. This means they do not even have to be disclosed to Parliament, let alone laid and debated here. I raised this in a Private Notice Question on 25 April in regard to the deal on deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda. That was done by an MoU, without any debate or approval by Parliament. The committee this morning opened an inquiry on this issue, and we will have a call for evidence on the MoU on our website shortly.

This use of “less than treaty” memorandums of understanding flies in the face of the 1924 Ponsonby rule, whereby any significant international agreements, commitments or undertakings would be brought before Parliament. We were astonished on 9 March to hear the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, in exchanges on my Oral Question, I think in answer to a supplementary by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, say that

“the Ponsonby rule survived for 86 years before it was supplanted by CRaG. I can completely confirm that now … they are governed by CRaG”.—[Official Report, 9/3/22; col. 1421.]

It was never suggested in 2010 at the time of the CRaG Act going through that it supplanted Ponsonby. Indeed, CRaG covers only treaties and not memoranda of understanding.

After the answer that the Minister gave to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, we wrote to the Foreign Office on 25 March, but Amanda Milling’s response, received on 11 May, simply says

“the Government and the Committee have different views on the content and status of the Ponsonby Rules. The Government does not accept there has ever been a constitutional convention … whereby non-legally binding arrangements are routinely published or submitted to parliamentary scrutiny”.

She asserts that it is for government to decide what to tell us.

I draw to a close on this issue. Whatever the status of Ponsonby, it is surely not acceptable for the Government to sign far-reaching agreements with foreign powers, with human rights, expenditure, diplomatic or even security implications, without so much as a nod to Parliament, let alone any chance for a debate. We have to do better than that, and I look forward to the Minister being able to supply some more positive and concrete reassurances than his colleague was able to supply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, do you ever feel sorry for the Minister replying to a debate?

[Noble Lords]

No, not really.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

Oh, go on—be generous. I shall comment on the Minister’s response so I hope the other speakers will forgive me for not going through everything they said, although I thank everyone who has contributed, particularly the members of the committee, whose expertise has been witnessed today.

Clearly, important statements were made about our negotiating objectives, and the need for us to discuss those, by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, my noble friends Lord Hendy and Lord McNicol and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. As well as my noble and learned friend Lord Morris, I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley also mentioned the devolved Administrations. As well as involving them, there is a clear need to get other stakeholders involved in this, which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans mentioned, particularly in relation to TAGs. Personally, I was rather disappointed that Which?, the only independent spokesperson for consumers, was excluded by the Government from the domestic advisory group, or DAG—albeit on the Europe issue, rather than on what we deal with. This suggests that the Government do not really want to listen to other voices.

Today’s main point, to which we must return—I am sorry not to touch on the others—is about where control over all this happens. Most of this debate, as my noble friend Lord McNicol said, is about the role of Parliament in scrutinising what the Government are doing. I do not think that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, used the phrase “bring back control”. However, she and my noble friend Lady Liddell were essentially asking what the point was of having brought things back here, away from the hands of foreigners, if only to give them to an even smaller number of Ministers. The Minister has just used the phrase “with a big majority in the House of Commons”, as if to tell us in the House of Lords where to go. That was not point of bringing things back to Parliament—that they should just be done. As the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, other Parliaments manage this. I have just come back from Washington DC, where the Committee on Ways and Means interferes far more with deals than we do—so we are not asking for anything ludicrous.

I must spend a moment on the MoU, given the debate we have just had. Sweden and Finland probably think that what we promised them was binding. Hearing now from the Minister that it is not may concern them just a bit, particularly if Turkey is going to hold them out of NATO for a while. So the Minister has now told us that the only security they have been given is not worth the paper it was written on. This is something of a surprise.

The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, warned that MoUs should not be used as a substitute for scrutiny, and my noble friend Lord Stansgate, I think, used the expression “should not evade it”.

I must now come to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who asked us to consider his TICs—taken into considerations. The only thing taken into consideration is that, sometimes, he is quite outrageous—even though he is a maestro. He at least honoured Ponsonby when he was at the Foreign Office. The idea that CRaG got rid of Ponsonby is a really big legal issue that we will have to discuss. There will no doubt be very experienced lawyers, even now, offering to give their opinions on it.

I am grateful to the Minister for attempting to respond to this debate. I felt a bit sorry for him—but not very. I am really worried about his view that CRaG, passed when we were in the European Union, is still fit for purpose. Despite trumpeting the view that we have now taken the ability to negotiate our own trade deals, he somehow considers an Act passed to deal with trade deals when we were not dealing with them as fit for purpose. He needs to go back to his department and look at that. He says that there is big difference because the public are now more aware; I think that the bigger difference is that we are not in the European Union and we are doing our own deals.

The House will have to come back to Ponsonby. In addition to our disagreement on the view, the Foreign Secretary sent the most bizarre letter I have ever received on 11 May, saying that she should not meet us as a committee, given the positions held—that is, that we differ from each other. I thought that you met when you had a disagreement to reach consensus. That is what happened with the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone. It is true that we had some private discussions in the bar, but we also had discussions in our committee and we reached the agreement.

That agreement is not a concordat, as the right reverend Prelate wanted, but we suggested an exchange of letters instead. We said that would do, if the Government did not want to call it a concordat. We got there; we reached a compromise, because we sat down as a committee and agreed it there. So the idea that a Foreign Office Minister will not meet us because we disagree seems quite extraordinary.

We need to move forward on this. Our committee will meet next week, when I am sure we will discuss how to take it further. As I say, our discussions with the Department for International Trade have shown that we can move forward. I very much hope that the Minister will take back to the Foreign Office that we are willing to reach a compromise and we need to move forward in a better way, with Parliament being able to scrutinise the decisions the Government take under Crown privilege or any other way. I undertake to the House that our committee will continue to scrutinise treaties and other agreements and less than agreements and undertakings, and will report to the House accordingly.

While I agree with my noble friend Lord Stansgate that the Government should take note of our report, my position is to formally move that this report is noted by this House.

Motion agreed.

EU-UK Partnership Council

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Tuesday 18th January 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what will be on the agenda for the next meeting of the EU-UK Partnership Council, and when will that meeting take place.

[The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)]

My Lords, the date for the second meeting of the Partnership Council has yet to be confirmed. The first Partnership Council met on 9 June last year; it marked an important milestone in standing up the trade and co-operation agreement governance structures. The agenda for the next meeting will be agreed with our EU counterparts. We will push hard to ensure that priority issues for the UK are discussed and our interests are protected.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

If this means that the Minister has replaced the noble Lord, Lord Frost, I welcome him to his new position; he is saying, “No fear”, so I thank him at least for answering the Question today. As we have passed the authority in both Houses to establish the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, the membership of which is due to be announced very shortly, can he give us an undertaking that our Foreign Secretary, as co-chair of the Partnership Council, will report both before and after meetings of the council to the newly established Parliamentary Partnership Assembly?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I will certainly convey the noble Baroness’s message to the Foreign Secretary; I cannot make an undertaking on her behalf, but it certainly seems in the spirit of the approach she has taken of involving both Houses and maximum transparency.

International Day of Democracy

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, which is why we have consistently called for adherence to the agreements that China has signed. Indeed, the one that it signed when it came to the issue of Hong Kong was an agreement that has been lodged with the United Nations —and it needs to stand up and fulfil its international obligations. On the issue of calling out for the full release of those who have been detained, I agree with the noble Lord, and we consistently do so publicly and bilaterally with China.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

Not to take away too much from anything that has been said, before we look too much at the mote in other people’s eyes, might we just look at the beam in our own? The attempt to undermine our human rights legislation will not be received well around the world. We have two reports here written by Members of our House with between them 500 years’ service in Parliament, one called Democracy Denied? and the other Government By Diktat. Can we do something about our own democracy before we preach too much to others?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that, when it comes to the world stage, we have nothing to preach about. I often say that we need to ensure that we make it clear, when we talk to others on a range of the key pillars of democracy, that our own journey was something of a struggle, to get to where we are in 2021. The job is never done. One needs always to reflect on one’s own backyard before we start talking about the importance of democracy elsewhere. That said, I believe that the United Kingdom is and remains a real beacon of democracy around the world, and we continue to share our experiences, lessons and history with others to see how we can strengthen democracy globally.