Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief Bill

Jonathan Lord Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 17th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

My hon. Friend continues to demonstrate both why her role is important and why her indomitable presence in the role is of such value to all those who need to be championed.

[Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

May I put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce)? I am co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Egypt, and she has been such a help on the issues of freedom of religion or belief.

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

I thank my hon. Friend.

Another achievement of my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, with my noble Friend the Minister for human rights, Lord Ahmad, was hosting the fourth international ministerial conference in 2022. This event brought together Government delegations, faith and belief group leaders, human rights actors and civil society from over 100 countries to address the challenges to the right to freedom of religion or belief. This is just a small example of the work so diligently undertaken by our special envoy. Last month, in the other place, I was pleased to hear the Foreign Secretary restate his support for this Bill and acknowledge the excellent work being done on freedom of religion or belief.

On a more sobering note, the scale of abuses and violations of the right to FORB across the world remain deeply concerning, which data, including from the Pew forum and the Open Doors world watchlist, continue to reinforce. And history has shown us that, too often, where freedom of religion or belief is under threat, other human rights are at risk too.

We are firm in our position that no one should be persecuted, abused or intimidated because of their religion or belief, or lack thereof. Protecting and promoting the right to FORB has been a long-standing commitment of this Government, and the FCDO is working on this in a number of ways, including through our multilateral and bilateral work, to embed FORB across our programmes.

I now turn to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton and agreed in Committee on 24 April. Legislation imposing duties on the Prime Minister is very rare and limited, and the amendments thus remove the statutory duties placed on the Prime Minister, instead placing them on a Minister of the Crown, which is more appropriate in this instance. However, the special envoy will continue to be known as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for FORB. Retaining this title will ensure that the role continues to have the appropriate authority and recognition internationally, enabling future role holders to continue advocating for FORB globally, as my hon. Friend does with such dedication.

The duties of the special envoy have been clarified, setting the same high expectations of delivery for future incumbents as have been achieved by my hon. Friend. The Bill’s title was also amended to Special Envoy for Freedom of Religion or Belief Bill so that it refers specifically to the special envoy. This adjustment more accurately reflects the Bill’s scope and content. The amended Bill furthermore removes the requirement to establish a separate office of the special envoy, ensuring that existing resourcing arrangements are maintained.

To conclude, His Majesty’s Government are committed to protecting and promoting freedom of religion or belief for all. The Bill cements our commitment to the role of special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, and delivers on our manifesto commitment to implement the recommendations of the Bishop of Truro’s review. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Ahmadi Muslims: Pakistan

Jonathan Lord Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2023 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for securing this important debate. I commend his work and his ongoing support of freedom of religion or belief. I also pay tribute to his work as vice-chair as the all-party parliamentary group for the Ahmadiyya Muslim community, which continues its vital work to raise awareness of the issues that we have been discussing today. I know that my hon. Friend addressed the annual conference in Hampshire earlier this summer, which was a very important event.

Colleagues will know that the noble Lord Ahmad, Minister of State for the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and the UN, is responsible for this portfolio, but being in the other place he cannot speak in this Chamber. Therefore it is my great pleasure to respond on his behalf today. I met him in advance of the debate to talk about this topic. Members will acknowledge his personal deep insight into these issues.

I am very grateful to hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. We recognise the strength of feeling. I will try to respond to the points that have been raised.

[Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Leo Docherty]

Very briefly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lord]

In particular there was an allegation, or certainly a strong implication, that UK international aid might be going towards textbooks that contain lies or expressions of hatred. Can the Minister assure the House that our aid does not go directly, or indirectly through Governments, NGOs or charities, to textbooks or educational aids that contain lies or hate, and that it will not do so in the future either?

[Leo Docherty]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that question again. I was already going to respond to it; I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for putting the same question earlier. We continue to engage on the critical need for freedom of religion or belief in schools. The UK has supported initiatives to review the national curriculum of Pakistan, providing technical assistance to Pakistan to create a more inclusive curriculum and textbooks, so it is something we are very much aware of. At Pakistan’s universal periodic review in January, the UK formally recommended that Pakistan ensures that school textbooks are inclusive of all religions and that religious minorities can access suitable alternatives to compulsory Koranic studies. That was, of course, at the UN periodic review of human rights. We do keep that continually in our sights. I cannot confirm 100% today that there is not an ongoing problem, but it is something that our mission and our other diplomats are energetically focused on.

Although the debate centres on the persecution of the Ahmadiyya community, I think it would be useful to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to defending the rights and freedoms of all those persecuted for their religious beliefs in Pakistan and, indeed, across the world. The Ahmadiyya Muslim community’s roots run deep in Pakistan, as has been mentioned. From Abdus Salam, Pakistan’s first Nobel laureate, to its distinguished first Foreign Minister, Sir Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, Ahmadi Muslims have made a tremendously invaluable contribution to modern Pakistan. It is poignant that a community so entwined with the founding of that country now faces such devastating persecution.

As has been described today by colleagues, the situation is dire—we recognise that. Discrimination against Ahmadi Muslims and other religious groups starts with Pakistan’s constitution, which declares Ahmadis non-Muslims. The misuse of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws to target marginalised communities is all too common. Preventive legislation is weak, and poor implementation of existing laws allows hate speech and violence to spread with impunity. Over the past few weeks alone, we have seen the appalling incidents of mob violence in Pakistan and the desecration of Ahmadi, as well as Christian and Hindu, places of worship. We stand in solidarity with the victims, and I know all our thoughts go out to those affected. Colleagues may have noticed that today Lord Ahmad tweeted in condemnation of the recent appalling attack on the Ahmadiyya Hall in Karachi in Sindh province.

In terms of UK action, defending religious freedom is at the heart of all our work in Pakistan. Our approach to protecting freedom of religion or belief of the Ahmadiyya Muslim community and all persecuted groups has three pillars. First, we use our close relationship with Pakistan to influence and advocate. Secondly, we support communities through our programme and development work. Thirdly, we use our global influence to spur the wider international community into action.

International Child Abduction

Jonathan Lord Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

Thank you, Mrs Cummins, for the opportunity to speak in the debate. Like my colleagues, I believe that this is an important topic, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for securing the debate.

First, I welcome the supporters of the group Hague Mothers, who are attending the debate. As we know, the 1980 Hague convention was intended to ensure the quick and safe return of children removed from their primary carers and taken abroad by their non-custodial parents. In that regard, the convention is highly effective. Hague Mothers, however, points out that about 75% of the parents brought before the courts are mothers with the primary care of their children, most of whom are fleeing domestic abuse or trying to protect their children from abuse.

There are limited options under the convention for mothers to oppose orders for the return of their children, and in most cases the courts decide that the child must return. The only defence available under the convention that could apply to domestic abuse is the article 13(b) defence that provides that the court may not order return of a child if the person opposing return establishes that

“there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.”

The courts of most contracting states interpret what constitutes a “grave risk” very strictly. Most cases of domestic abuse are not considered to give rise to a “grave risk” or “intolerable situation” for a child. In particular, it is almost impossible for mothers to prove that coercive and controlling behaviour, which has rightly been a criminal offence in England and Wales since 2015, constitutes the basis for an article 13(b) defence. Despite the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 stipulating that children who see or experience the effects of domestic abuse are victims in their own right, those same children can be and are returned to the country and often the care of the abusive parent.

Mothers escaping domestic abuse across borders are therefore left in the terrible position of having to choose whether to return with their children or to send their children back on their own. Most mothers decide to return and face continued, or worse, post-separation abuse; sometimes, they face destitution, homelessness, isolation or even criminal proceedings. They frequently have little or no family, social, financial or legal support, which provides a perfect context for continued abuse.

I want to bring the attention of the House and the Foreign Office to the case of my constituent Nataly Anderson, who is appealing for assistance from the UK Government in bringing her twin boys safely to the UK from Croatia.

[Judith Cummins (in the Chair)]

Order. I take it that the hon. Member is not referring to a live case in UK courts.

[Mr Lord]

It is not a live case.

Nataly Anderson says that her British-Croatian twin boys, who are now nine years old, were taken back to Croatia on the pretext of a holiday by their father in 2016, just as the family had been establishing their life in England, including schooling for the children. She requests that the British Government escalate her complaint about Croatia with the bodies of the European Union, and warns that parental alienation claims can be used to cover up child abuse, including child abduction, to award custody to abducting or abusive parents, and to stop mothers and children moving to locations where they would have more favourable living conditions. She believes that is what has happened to her and her children in Croatia. She believes, further, that mothers and children who are not protected properly from domestic abuse have a human and legal right to asylum in another country, and that those rights should be upheld and enforced. She asks that the phenomenon of mothers and children fleeing across borders to escape from abuse be considered a humanitarian crisis and advocates for the approach advanced by the Hague Mothers project, as one that could be easily implemented and would do much to support the safety and welfare of mothers and children in this situation.

In her own words, Nataly Anderson says:

“This is now a child welfare matter. These are vulnerable children and it is unconscionable that the Croatian authorities have been violating their rights, wishes and welfare needs for so long. I am appealing for the urgent assistance of the UK Government in bringing my children safely home.”

She requests that the British Government raise the question of her case with all the relevant bodies of the European Union.

I have been trying to help and assist my constituent. I am grateful to the Foreign Office and the Passport Office for correspondence I have received. I know how assiduous our Foreign Office, embassy and consular officials are and often can be, but I appeal to the Foreign Office Ministers to have one further look at this case. I will not take up any more time today, but this is an important debate and I have been interested to hear about the other cases that hon. Members have brought forward today.

Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation: Sanctions and Tariffs

Jonathan Lord Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (David Rutley)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this important debate and on her commitment in broadly backing His Majesty’s Government’s approach to sanctions. It is always a great pleasure to work with her because she makes doing business very simple, which is much appreciated, even though the issues we are talking about are complex.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), the Minister for the Indo-Pacific, whose responsibilities include sanctions, would have been delighted to take part in the debate. She is travelling on ministerial duties, however, so it is my pleasure to respond to the important issues that have been raised on behalf of the Government.

[Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

I think there is unanimity across the Chamber in support of what we have heard from the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). Would a good start be to make sure, as a matter of some urgency and importance, that those product lists are the same for Belarus and Russia? That would surely undermine a lot of the shenanigans we have heard about this afternoon.

[David Rutley]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution and I recognise the point he has made. As I will discuss at greater length later in my speech, the sanction lists are reviewed regularly. I understand his point about comparing the lists side by side. Clearly, there are differences in the approach we take to both those countries, but I understand the points that he makes.

In the face of President Putin’s illegal and barbaric war, Britain is doing everything possible to support Ukraine and to make Russia pay the price. I will begin by outlining the extensive sanctions we have already imposed on Russia and Belarus, before turning to more detailed points set out by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden—the nuts and bolts, as she called them in her very well crafted speech.

We have co-ordinated with our international allies to respond to this unprovoked and barbaric invasion, and together we have unleashed the most severe package of sanctions ever imposed on a major economy. I know it is supported by many people and encouraged by many colleagues in this room. The UK alone has sanctioned over 1,500 individuals and entities since the start of the invasion.

Palestinian School Curriculum: Radicalisation

Jonathan Lord Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

It is good news that the Palestinian Minister is undertaking a review. Have we also got an assurance that any textbooks that are found to be wrong, in every sense of the word, will be withdrawn and not used in the next academic year? That is the point.

[James Cleverly]

The short answer is that we do not have an absolute guarantee, but as in so much of the work that we do with Israel and the Palestinian Authority, human interaction, persuasion and good old-fashioned diplomacy can bring about change, and that is what we seek to do in our relationship, hence my right hon. friend the Secretary of State engaging so quickly with the Palestinian Authority’s Education Minister.

As I have said, we expect the interim report in the spring and the full report later this year. It is ultimately for the European Union to decide whether it puts the report in the public domain; it is, after all, its report. However, it has been said on both sides of the House that transparency is our friend in this instance, and we will continue to encourage the EU to put that report in the public domain. I think it is worth waiting for that report to underpin the basis for our response to these concerns and our interaction with the Palestinian Authority. We have regular interaction with our European partners on the review and we encourage transparency.

The Government are firm believers in the positive power of education. We are proud of the support that we are providing for education around the world, including in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. It is a vital part of our wider effort to improve lives. In 2018-19, UK aid enabled 26,000 young Palestinians to be educated, and half of them were girls. We do not want to lose that, which is why I treat with caution calls to withdraw funding from UNRWA, because some young people—particularly girls—might lose the opportunity to have an education at all if that were the case. We are very uncomfortable with that option and that risk.

Our money to support education on the west bank goes into a specially dedicated bank account and is paid only to the individuals who are vetted through the Palestinian-European socio-economic management assistance mechanism. Each payment is individually audited to ensure that the money is received by the intended recipient. It is a rigorous process, which means that the UK can be confident that none of our aid is diverted. No UK aid is used for payments to prisoners or their families. Helping to meet essential education needs does not contradict our clear and long-standing message to the Palestinian Authority about prisoner payments.

Disability-inclusive Development

Jonathan Lord Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

It is an enormous pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). It is a great sadness to many of us that he has decided to stand down from this place. His speech demonstrated to us in a very real way the things that inspire him in politics. It was a vision of compassion, of looking outwards and of helping others. I know that he will not mind me saying that it was also inspired by his Christian faith. We will miss him very much in this place. We thank him for all his efforts in the arena of international development, and on the other issues that he has taken up in this House.

I also pay tribute briefly to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), who has chaired the International Development Committee extremely well. As I think he knows, he is not only very well respected across the House, but very well liked. We will certainly miss him too. I wish him well for the future.

I wanted to speak for two reasons. In general terms, our country is grappling with its future place in the world, and perhaps some of our friends around the world, and indeed our enemies, are wondering when the UK will regain a surer footing on its vision for the future. The work that this country does, ably led by our Department for International Development, in trying to alleviate poverty and suffering around the world, gives a strong signal—it is perhaps not publicised widely enough or known about—to all the countries around the world that might be harbouring one or two doubts about the political difficulties of the past couple of years. It gives a powerful signal that this country stands for the right values, is compassionate and wants to have a leading, positive role in the world.

I am proud that my town and borough of Woking proactively decided to take in Syrian refugees. I am able to report to the House that it has worked extremely well. Some of the refugees had severe health and disability issues. I pay tribute to the efforts of our local national health service’s efforts in giving them the help and support they needed. I also pay tribute to our local mosques, particularly the Shah Jahan mosque, and our Christian churches, which rallied around those people, who had come from a terrible war-torn situation. Many of them had very difficult personal stories of what they and their families had been through. It was very moving when many of those refugees, who are now fully settled—most are looking forward to a future in this country, but if they wish to return they will be helped to do so—decided to cook a feast at the end of Eid and invite the community, particularly the faith communities from the mosque and our churches, to celebrate together. They made it clear how thankful and grateful they were to the churches, the mosque and the wider Woking community for giving them such a warm welcome after their times of trouble.

I will not detain hon. Members any longer. The work that our Department for International Development does is very valuable around the world. It is important that the International Development Committee scrutinises it and encourages it in its efforts; we thank the Committee for its work. I hope that the Minister will tell us in his response a little more about this country’s international development efforts to help and support people from conflict zones, such as Syria and Yemen. The House would be grateful to hear more about its work in those areas.

Britain's Place in the World

Jonathan Lord Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

Yes, I do welcome that. It is no surprise that we have good times coming and that the sun will shine again. We will not be in total darkness, as some people seem to say all the time. The Government have committed to doing deals with Australia, Singapore and others, and the Minister of State, Department for International Trade, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), helped to secure a £250 million deal over five years for milk products from Lakeland Dairies in Newtownards, so things can happen. Life will not stop because we leave the EU.

Tips are a form of performance-related pay, and if staff serving in a public house or restaurant have performed so well that a person gives them additional payment for doing so, it is only natural justice that they should enjoy the full benefit of that payment. I hope we will be able to consider the Government’s measure.

The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) spoke yesterday about voter identification, which we have had in Northern Ireland for a number of years. Voter ID was introduced to stop corruption and illegal voting, and it has gone a long way in doing that.

[Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

We have had a voter ID pilot in Woking for the last couple of years. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the scaremongering about these successful pilots, and about what I am sure will be a successful roll-out, is just so much piffle and nonsense?

[Jim Shannon]

I agree that we should be looking forward to voter ID, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to it. People should not be scared of it, because people have to show their driving licence or some other form of ID to open a bank account. Voter ID has functioned well in Northern Ireland. We have not entirely eliminated electoral fraud in the Province, but we have gone a long way in doing so.

We are committed to the democratic process, we are committed to voter ID and we are committed to supporting the Government on the majority of their far-reaching proposals. We look forward to engaging with Ministers—

UK and Polish War Reparations

Jonathan Lord Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Kawczynski]

That is a very good point and I do not believe there has actually been a formal apology to the Polish nation and people. Germany has not publicly stated to Poland the importance of apologising for what happened and of granting compensation. I have spoken to many Germans this week. They say, “Look, this is an issue that we have already dealt with. We reached an agreement with the Polish Government.” I say, “Which Polish Government?” They say, “The Polish communist Government.” They claimed that they reached an agreement with the Polish communist Governments in 1970 and thereafter. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman will know, those Polish Governments were completely illegitimate. Poland, trapped behind the iron curtain as a result of the Yalta agreement, had no legitimate Government.

[Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

Is it not a matter of historical fact that the Soviet Union leaned on its puppet Polish Government to stop any reparations? That is the basis of what stands now, and that cannot be right.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Absolutely. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for that. The Soviet Union wanted some form of peace in the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance and the Soviet bloc—bear in the mind the importance of getting along with East Germany—so Poland was forced by the Soviet Union to keep quiet and not ask for any compensation. These Communist dictators, whose names are indelibly imprinted on my mind—Bierut, Gomulka, Gierek, Kania and Jaruzelski—were Soviet puppets, imposed on us, who had no right to sign any documentation. Anything signed with the Germans is non-valid and illegal.

The only thing I consider to be valid is the agreement of 1990, where a free Poland, alongside Britain, France and the Soviet Union, signed an agreement with the new Germany—Germany was being reunified—guaranteeing Polish western borders. Exchange of territory in that treaty, whether former east Prussia or Silesia—all those lands—is legitimate. All the previous agreements simply do not hold water because of the illegality of the communist regime.

The Minister will have to correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding from the Library and other sources is that the Germans have paid a total of €75 billion in compensation to other countries for war damage. I find that figure breathtakingly small. When we bear in mind that we are being told to stump up €40 billion for having the temerity to leave the European Union, it is amazing that the Germans have paid only €75 billion for the complete destruction of our continent and the murder of millions of people. Apparently, only 2% of that €75 billion has so far trickled down to Poland. The country worst affected by the second world war has received less than €1 billion in compensation.

I will send the Minister a letter on all the different agreements reached between Germany and other affected countries on the continent of Europe. There are extensive treaties and agreements with the Czech Republic, France, Belgium and many others—even Sweden, bizarrely, which I do not think was a participant in the war. All those countries have received compensation—apart from the country most affected. Of course, Israel and others have received compensation.

I want to read out some of the horrifying statistics, which are indelibly imprinted on my mind. I thank my Polish teacher, Mrs Wątrobska, for helping me to translate some of this information. Six million Poles were slaughtered during the second world war by the German invaders, and—hon. Members should remember this—for every 1,000 citizens, Poland lost 220: a fifth. Think about that for a moment. Out of a thousand people in a community, wherever you go, 220 are killed. By comparison, the United Kingdom lost eight, Belgium 7, Holland 22 and France 15. Poland lost 220 of every thousand citizens.

More than 200,000 children—the ones who looked Germanic—were kidnapped by the Germans and taken to Germany for the process of Germanisation. Some 590,000 people were left forever disabled. More than 1 million people fell ill as a result of tuberculosis, and many of them died, because so many people were kept in such horrific conditions, particularly in forced labour camps. Just under 2.5 million people were exploited in labour camps, and a further 2.5 million were displaced. In 1939 alone, 38% of all Poland’s wealth was stolen.

The hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) is present, and he represents one of our cities that was worst affected by Luftwaffe bombing. In Warsaw, the city of my birth, 90% of factories, 72% of buildings and 90% of the cultural heritage were destroyed and 700,000 people were killed. Of the country’s cultural heritage as a whole, 43% was destroyed or stolen in 1939. I am in discussions with Sotheby’s and many other important British auction houses to try to track down the huge amount of Polish art and literature that was stolen and taken away by the Germans as they plundered Poland and then escaped.

My Polish teacher, Mrs Wątrobska, gave me another point. During the war, a large number of people were experimented on. No one mentions the children who suffered those experiments and who forever remain mentally ill or physically disfigured.

A senior Conservative MP—I will not say who—said to me, “Do not raise this issue now, old boy, we do not want to upset the Germans when we are negotiating Brexit.” Needless to say, I have ignored his advice, because a time of major change on the European continent, as we pull out of the European Union and regain our sovereignty, independence and foreign policy, is exactly the time to raise the issue and to help our Polish allies to get the compensation that they deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.

[Mr Lord]

I think that Members here in Westminster Hall would be interested to know the current Polish Government’s attitude and policy with regard to this very important but obviously difficult issue.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I will come on to that right at the end of my speech, if I may, to sum up.

Let me quickly turn now to British war reparations, because this debate, of course, is about Polish and British war reparations. We have in Westminster Hall the hon. Member for Coventry South, whose city was more affected than any other in the bombing that Britain experienced during the second world war.

In March, I asked the Minister what the British Government’s position is on our claims to war reparations, bearing in mind that the United Kingdom was completely bankrupt at the end of the second world war. We had had to borrow money to fight the war; many British cities had been destroyed; and many British lives had been lost in liberating half the continent of Europe. The answer came back that we had renounced all claims to compensation in 1990, upon the reunification of Germany. I want to know why we renounced our claims in 1990. I can understand why we would want to celebrate and wish the two countries—East Germany and West Germany—every success in coming together, but I want to know why, and how, that decision on British reparations was taken.

I then subsequently asked what consultations there had been with veterans—British war veterans—in making the decision to abandon all war reparations claims. The answer came back as follows:

“Records on this are not readily available. To find this information would incur disproportionate cost.”

Well, I am in discussions with veterans’ organisations and we have put together a team of leading British barristers who are willing, on a pro bono basis, to test this matter through the British courts. I very much hope that those veterans who are listening to or watching this debate on television around the United Kingdom will take note and get in touch with my office, to see if they would like to be part of this attempt to take Germany to court, through our own High Court, to receive compensation.

There is a huge battle ahead for us—for the United Kingdom—as we pull out of the European Union. Poland will have to decide whether she wants to join us and the United States of America in an Atlanticist organisation based on sovereign nation states co-operating on defence and working collaboratively to protect one another through NATO, thereby retaining her sovereignty, currency and independence, or whether she will go along with Germany’s project for a single European superstate, with a single currency, a single European army, a single foreign policy and the rest of it. If Germany is serious in trying to convince Poland to back her in her quest to create a genuine European Union, this issue has to be resolved. Otherwise, I believe Poland will increasingly side with the United Kingdom and America in an alternative alliance.

This has been the most emotional debate I have ever participated in. Bearing in mind how my own family were shot and imprisoned, how our estates were burned to the ground and how all those working for the Kawczynskis were murdered, I will not rest until this issue is resolved.

UN Peacekeeping Week 2016

Jonathan Lord Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) on securing the debate and welcome the opportunity to discuss the challenges faced by UN peacekeeping operations and how we should try to address them. She spoke very well about the scale of the task that UN peacekeeping missions face in some of the most dangerous operating environments around the world, and about the vital role they play in trying to keep vulnerable civilians safe in the face of some of the most appalling threats of violence that any society can be confronted with. I was pleased that she was able to attend the Cenotaph ceremony on 25 May, at which my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Anelay of St John’s laid a wreath on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government as a demonstration of the Government’s support for the work of United Nations peacekeeping missions past and present.

Peacekeeping remains a vital tool of the UN, and one on which the international community depends heavily. The past five years have seen an increase in both the number and the type of threats faced by UN peacekeepers. I echo the tribute that my noble Friend Baroness Anelay paid on 25 May to the men and women in blue helmets who put their lives on the line in order to protect the vulnerable.

UN peacekeeping operations are under strain, and peacekeepers are increasingly being asked to do more than they did in the past. In addition to protecting civilians and helping to restore the rule of law, we now look to them to try to ensure the safe transit of humanitarian aid supplies. Changes are needed to respond to those evolving demands. The Secretary-General’s review of peace operations, which took place last year, highlighted the need for reform. The Government welcomed that review, which provided us and our international partners with the opportunity to reflect on our approach to UN peacekeeping. This country already provides it with significant support, both through our permanent seat on the Security Council and through our financial contributions. We provide £303.6 million towards UN peacekeeping as part of our assessed United Nations contribution. Additionally, we have committed £1 million of programme funding to specific priorities identified by the UN on which more work or help is needed.

However, we are committed to doing more. I acknowledge the kindness of the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire in referring to the extra commitments that the Government have made as part of the Secretary-General’s review, and at and since the leaders summit hosted by President Obama in 2015. At that summit, the UK pledged our support, along with more than 50 nations and international organisations, for Ban Ki-moon’s efforts to strengthen UN peacekeeping for the future. The Prime Minister pledged to double our military contribution to peacekeeping by sending up to 70 troops to support the peace operations in Somalia and between 250 and 300 to South Sudan.

The first of those personnel deployed to Somalia last month, as the hon. Lady said, and we are preparing the ground for the bulk of our deployment over the next few months. We are offering logistical, medical and engineering expertise and short-term training teams, all in support of enhancing the capability of the UN operation, as well as to support troops from the African Union Mission in Somalia and the Somali national army. In South Sudan, the United Kingdom will make a significant contribution to the effectiveness of the UN peacekeeping mission. We plan to stagger our deployment; as the hon. Lady said, we have just deployed our first troops to South Sudan, and we intend that the main contingent should arrive at the end of the year. We are working with the UN now to identify exactly where this country’s expertise will be most effective. That may well include vital engineering work, which is one area in which it seems both to us and to the UN that we could make a particular contribution.

Our pledge to double our military commitment is part of a wider approach designed to help improve UN peacekeeping operations. We want to ensure that the UN is able to get the right people and equipment to the right place at the right time. I can boil that down to three overall objectives: first, encouraging more countries to pledge additional support; secondly, securing improvements in UN planning procedures; and thirdly, boosting the overall quality of troop and mission performance.

I shall say a little more about each of those three objectives. First, on pledges, our vision is that the UN should be able to draw upon a bigger pool of troop-contributing countries than is currently possible. That pool of potential contributions should have a wider range of capabilities than currently exists, so that the UN can pick the right contributions to suit a particular mission in a particular part of the world. That will allow the UN to deploy peacekeeping missions with the resources and abilities to carry out their mandates and the confidence that those objectives can be achieved. We are delivering on the pledge we made last year, and it is vital that others do the same. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will host a ministerial-level meeting in London later this year, which we are looking forward to as, among other things, an opportunity to continue to press some of our international partners to deliver the pledges made at President Obama’s meeting last year.

Secondly, on planning, there is increasingly a gap between the expectation that the United Nations should intervene in difficult operating environments and the ability of peacekeeping missions to meet difficult demands in practice. To improve the co-ordination of peacekeeping efforts and the ability to respond effectively to new crises, there needs to be better planning and analysis. That starts with design and goes through to the set-up of operations and the eventual drawdown and conclusion of a peacekeeping operation. A mission needs at all times to have a clear focus on what it is seeking to achieve. We have already begun funding a new unit in the UN Secretary-General’s office to support improvements in planning and analysis.

Finally, better planning must be matched by improved performance. Increasing the number of available peacekeepers and improving the planning of missions will help, but that will work only if all peacekeepers, wherever in the world they come from, are appropriately trained, fully equipped and properly vetted before they are deployed. All countries that contribute either troops or police officers should deploy peacekeepers who have been trained to the highest standards. We will continue to push for that and for poor performance to be tackled constructively.

The hon. Lady mentioned the very serious allegations in respect of members of the peacekeeping operation in the Central African Republic. As part of our objective of improving the performance of the UN peacekeeping operations, it is a United Kingdom priority to work with the Secretary-General to tackle sexual exploitation and abuse, which, sadly, has been carried out by a small minority of peacekeepers. We welcome Ban Ki-moon’s recent report on special measures for protection from sexual exploitation and abuse and his appointment of Dr Jane Holl Lute as his special co-ordinator in improving the UN’s response. The extra £1 million of programme funding, which I referred to earlier, is being targeted in particular at efforts to help improve the capability of deployed peacekeepers to design a reporting system that local communities and potential complainants feel able to trust, and to ensure that, in the future, we get a stronger and swifter UN response to proven allegations.

The Government are committed to working with others around the world to achieve those reforms. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary will host a follow-up meeting to President Obama’s summit here in London in September.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

I am delighted to hear about all the contributions that the British Government and the British military are making not only to UN peacekeeping on the ground but to future planning so that UN peacekeeping forces can better deliver their missions. To which regions of the world should Britain and the UN be looking to make further and bigger contributions? The Minister says that some are not doing as much as they could. I do not want him to identify countries, but which regions should be doing more, along the lines of the excellent work of our British Government?

Renegotiation of EU Membership (Devolved Administrations)

Jonathan Lord Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Gethins]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, as a former special adviser—a noble trade—who has taken part in Joint Ministerial Committee meetings. It is good that the Minister said today that this will be top of the agenda, but it is just not enough, given the immediacy. The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point indeed.

I say to the Minister that he can win friends and influence people, should he just liaise with his colleagues in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. We can look to Richard Lochhead, Europe’s longest-serving fisheries Minister, who has been making the case for farmers and fishermen, Aileen McLeod, who has been promoting Scotland’s world-class climate change action, or Roseanna Cunningham, who has been championing the European Alliance for Apprenticeships.

The EU matters to the devolved Administrations, and the agenda driven by the UK Independence party and Conservative Back Benchers just does not cut it. I will give the Minister a little point of information: UKIP has never saved its deposit in a parliamentary election in Scotland. That will gladden his heart; UKIP is almost as unpopular in Scotland as the Conservatives are.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. By the sound of it, he is not in favour of a referendum, but surely it is about time the British people had a say—and it is the British people. It is not just the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments or just the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh people; it is the English people too. This is a reserved matter, and surely it is right that it is taken on a whole-UK basis.

[Stephen Gethins]

Let me give the hon. Gentleman another point of information: the Scottish National party stood on a platform of not having a referendum. We won the election in Scotland—you didn’t. You had the worst election result since 1865. Unlike a number of other parties here, we are quite keen on maintaining our manifesto commitments, so we stuck to them. However, the referendum is taking place, and I will come to that in a minute because we have a few things you might want to listen to.