International Day of Democracy
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Lord. It is vital that we stand with democracies, particularly fragile or infant ones around the world, to see how best we can support them. The noble Lord talks about Zambia, and of course we have worked very closely with other key partners in ensuring that democracy not only prevails but is sustained. Indeed, there are notable achievements; most recently, for example, further afield in Africa, in Sudan, the continuing lobbying has resulted in a sense of the restoration of the legitimate Government—but you can never take your eye of the ball, and the noble Lord makes some very valid points.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
The network of liberty is an extremely powerful concept, but does it not exist to some extent already? Is not the growing Commonwealth co-operation on security and defence, which is developing all the time, already part of that network—and is it not an important part of the future story?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Anelay and I had a brief discussion on this very question about 24 hours ago. The United Kingdom has been over time a strong beacon in supporting democracy around the world, and the Commonwealth network is a huge example of how we strengthen democracies and human rights.
Climate Change: COP 26
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, Alok Sharma deserves very high praise for the many deals and agreements he achieved in important areas such as trees and methane. It is obvious, particularly from the speech we have just heard, that Glasgow was a fountain of fascinating new ideas, all to be developed.
Nevertheless, we are now in fact entering an extremely dangerous phase in which people, especially the young, are being deluded into believing that climate violence and greatly increased volatility in price and supply over the coming era can all somehow be averted or much ameliorated by net-zero policies that will cost little and cause minimum upheaval. This is 100% wrong and utterly misleading. In practice, the enormous world energy transition now being contemplated will cause huge disruption and bring massive social, industrial and political change—like the Industrial Revolution but on a vastly greater scale and costing trillions, not billions.
For a start, there is the sheer and complete impracticality of re-engineering the entire power and electricity systems of India, China, Africa and other countries, closing down and totally replacing their countless coal-fired and other fossil-fuel stations—which my noble friend Lord Tugendhat has just referred to—and transforming, in short order, the complex coal, oil and gas fuel mix that has dominated the world for the past two centuries. Not only can this not be done without intense human suffering or within the alleged timescale but just hand-wringing and promising not to finance any new coal-fired power stations does not begin to touch the rising emissions problem that is sitting before us.
The only way of doing so would be to go out to each one of the thousands of coal-fired stations across Asia and around the world and retrofit them with affordable carbon-capture devices—which, incidentally, are yet to be invented—and modern supercritical boilers. This is possible, but the funds required to do it, including not just the equipment but the technology, training and skilled manpower to do the fitting, exceed by a factor of at least 10 anything now being publicly admitted or any of the sums being talked about.
Actually, if aiding the most vulnerable and defenceless in our societies and easing human suffering were the real and genuine purpose, would we be going this way at all? By far the best use of funds and the most genuinely caring and compassionate route would be massive adaptation to protect people better against the inevitable periods ahead—who knows for how long —of climate violence, floods, storms, fires and heat waves, which are, historically, now due anyway.
Although, as we have been reminded, we should care deeply for the small island states, this is a direct threat to our own islands, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, quite rightly began this debate by reminding us. We should tackle the protection and adaptation task with the intensity that the Dutch showed five centuries ago, only now at 100 times the scale.
The management of this transition, phase by phase, will require the utmost skill and intricate strategic energy planning. Without this and proper back-up, we will run into terrible price spikes, causing intense hardship for the most vulnerable and the defenceless, just as we are doing at this moment, although we do not seem to have touched on it much in this debate. Of course, it will also cause real insecurity and power shortages. We can have as many conferences as we like, but it is time for some honesty, realism and real action to prepare and protect our environment, our energy security and the younger generations’ real interests, prosperity and safety.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
Like the noble Lord, I recognise the commitment and huge sacrifice that has been shown by Mr Ratcliffe and the families of other British detainees in seeking the release and return of their loved ones detained in Iran. We continue to call on Iran to end Nazanin’s suffering immediately and to allow her to return home to her family in the UK. But I need to be clear, in the place of my colleague and noble friend Lord Ahmad, who is not here to answer the Question, that the UK does not and never will accept our dual nationals being used as diplomatic leverage. Our priority is securing Nazanin’s immediate release so that she can be reunited with her family.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
While it is absolutely right that the dreadful detention of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe should be kept totally separate from other issues in the relationship with the Iranian Government, will my noble friend explain the delays in the payment of the proper debt for the Chieftain tanks that were never delivered? It seems to me a straightforward matter, entirely separate from this horrible detention issue, which surely could be settled, and settled fast. Can he explain what the delay is because we do not understand?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
As we have said—I know my colleague has said this many times from this Dispatch Box—we are actively exploring the options to resolve this case, but it is not helpful in any way to connect wider bilateral issues with those arbitrarily detained in Iran. It remains in Iran’s gift to do the right thing and to allow British dual nationals home to be reunited with their families.
Cost of Living
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
We are quite aware of the difficulties that inflation and rising food and energy costs present. We have introduced this household support fund—I am not being difficult—which is worth £500 million and which covers up to the end of March, which is six months, and, as ever, the Government will continue to assess the situation. That is the best that I can give the noble Baroness right now. On the universal credit uplift, I and others are absolutely aware of the angst and frustration about this decision. I have to repeat myself: it was temporary and it has come to an end. For people who are not able to work, there is one job to do. However, for people who can work, the labour market has never been so optimistic and we must work with them through that.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, would it not make sense this coming winter, in the face of all the hardship, to consider temporarily suspending all the green levies and carbon charges and the idea, which has been mooted, of a further tax on gas, until at least the spring and at least until the present explosion of prices is over?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My noble friend makes a valid point and I will take it back to not just my department but the relevant department to see whether I can get an answer to his question.
Afghanistan: Security
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I note the noble Lord’s request and assure him that that is being, and will be, looked at. I think this is a moment of reflection. I agree with the noble Lord that with any intervention, we need to consider carefully the intent of intervening in a particular country; the purpose that we go in for; and, equally, the situation that we leave at the end. If we reflect on recent interventions, even in my own lifetime, these are questions that the Government—and, indeed, others, I am sure—ask themselves. It is important that the lessons that we have learned from our interventions continue to remain a focus of what we do in the future. Equally, for the here and now, I assure all noble Lords that we remain very focused on ensuring that the people in Afghanistan who are seeking to leave remain our key priority.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, the Foreign Secretary was saying the other day that we should be talking to China and Russia about the next stage in the Afghanistan tragedy, despite, obviously, disagreeing on many other issues. Surely he is right. Afghanistan should not be a forum of hegemonic struggle but, clearly, nor is it a suitable area for the USA as a world policeman, as we have seen. Can my noble friend say whether these talks have been initiated in any way and what the main issues might be?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on my noble friend’s second question, of course, the issues about security and safe passage of those wishing to leave Afghanistan are in front of us. The issues of human rights and humanitarian aid are all very much part of our discussions. We have engaged with China and Russia, in the formulation of the Security Council resolution that was passed. Further discussions are under way, and I am sure that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will announce those in the near future.
Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, it is not often that I say “Yes, yes and yes” to a Member of the Opposition, but I do so in this particular instance. We have prioritised this. Three countries have decriminalised homosexuality. We continue to work across the board. Yesterday, as the noble Lord will know, we announced both our commitment to hosting an LGBT conference and the appointment of my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs as the PM’s special envoy on LGBT rights and the important role of civil society. The noble Lord and I have discussed this matter extensively; I know that he has been a champion of it. It demonstrates the strength of this House that we are seeing progress in this very sensitive but important area.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. Does my noble friend accept that the enormous Commonwealth network never sleeps and that, despite the regrettable postponement again of the Heads of Government Meeting, vigorous Commonwealth connectivity continues at all levels and has in fact been intensified greatly over the past year or by Zoom technology? Does he also accept that the Commonwealth is a major transmitter of Britain’s soft power as well as a growing source of our security? Further, although my noble friend himself has been thoroughly assiduous in everything to do with Commonwealth matters, does he accept that a good deal more could have been done during Britain’s chairmanship and should now be done not just to fulfil communiqués but to strengthen the institutions of the Commonwealth family?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the personal note that my noble friend raises, having just come out of Ramadan and having been in Rwanda during Ramadan, I fully appreciate the importance of day and night work on the important agenda of the Commonwealth. However, we have published what we have achieved, including our progress on the important issues of Covid-19, girls’ education and cyber—which is demonstrable of the prioritisations that we agreed in 2018.
Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con) [V]
My Lords, your Lordships should be well pleased by one aspect of this review, because it reflects and draws on two seminal House of Lords reports, Persuasion and Power in the Modern World in 2014 and UK Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order in 2018, which urged policymakers and the then Foreign & Commonwealth Office to reappraise the UK’s position in a totally changed world landscape.
I welcome especially the review’s recommended tilt to Asia, including not just China but Japan, India and all the ASEAN counties, in terms of trade and security—a shift which some of us have been urging for decades, long before Brexit, to what is now by far the most vibrant region on the planet. The balanced approach to the tricky China containment issue, which has already been referred to, is also welcome, instead of some of the shotgun-like Sinophobia that has been served up to us from both sides of the Atlantic, which China simply brushes off. Almost every democracy, and almost certainly every Commonwealth member state, is looking for the right balance in dealing with the Chinese. Incidentally, I hope that New Zealand is not going wobbly on this need for developing a robust common approach.
The review is also good on recognising how technology has changed, the nature of warfare and defence—how, in the age of drones, cyber and artificial intelligence, troop power will have to be more skilled but with fewer numbers on the ground—and how soft power and smart power now play a central role in UK foreign policy in a networked and multipolar world, just as we urged seven years ago. The whole of society is now involved in a permanent kind of warfare, requiring entirely new kinds of defence, which some critics frankly do not yet seem to have grasped. Incidentally, I have to ask why the biggest modern soft power network of all, the modern Commonwealth, which the Minister has served so supremely well, gets so very little acknowledgement and no serious appraisal in this review until page 61.
Where the authors go wrong is in not understanding the full nature of the changed relationship with the United States. There is still far too much of a tone of the old followership with America, rather than partnership in the network age. The review seems far too influenced by US think tanks, with their dated obsession with great power dominance and rivalries. Power, trade and even dollar dominance are shifting away from the West, but not much of that seems to come through in the review at all.
Lastly, it has to be asked who on earth decided to put the lifting of the nuclear warhead cap, which goes flatly against NPT doctrine, in with the publication of this review. That inevitably distorted its public reception and its main messages. It really was a very unwise thing to do and spoiled a good, if belated, contribution to our reappraisal of Britain’s position in a transformed world order.
United States: Diplomatic Relations
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness will know from her experience that we work very closely with our allies, of which the United States is the important one, and that includes co-operation on defence and security. We should recognise the positive nature of this engagement.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con) [V]
My Lords, in our relations with the United States, could we please make it clear that what we welcome from the new presidency is more emphasis on partnership in a networked and completely changed world and rather less talk about merely resuming American leadership, as back in the 20th century? For instance, does my noble friend agree that the future of Asia, in which our nation and national story are increasingly involved, goes beyond just US/China competition and that the revival of the nuclear joint agreement with Iran needs a careful coalition of countries and cannot be done by American diplomacy alone?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. That is why the United Kingdom has engaged on an Indo-Pacific tilt in terms of our foreign policy strategy and development objectives, and it is why we are seeking dialogue status within ASEAN. On the JCPOA, we welcome recent announcements from President Biden’s Administration. It is important that Iran also reach out and adhere to the structure of the JCPOA so that we can progress discussions further.
Myanmar
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I concur with the noble Lord. I assure him that we have called in the ambassador of Myanmar and conveyed to him that people’s right to protest peacefully should be respected in Myanmar. We have also urged all forces, the police and military in particular, to exercise utmost restraint and to respect human rights and international law. As I said earlier, there have been reports of live ammunition being used, which is appalling, but I concur with the noble Lord’s views.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con) [V]
My Lords, both the Government’s Statement made here and the measures announced by President Biden are encouragingly robust, but does my noble friend agree that sanctions that isolate Myanmar as a whole will merely drive it further into the arms of China? They should therefore rightly be targeted on military leaders, Magnitsky style, and the businesses that they control, as others have rightly argued. Does my noble friend also agree that this is the time for a strong Asian coalition? These steps must have the full support of Myanmar’s main Asian investors, such as Japan. If China wants to regain any respect at all on the international stage, it should support or at least not counter these moves.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, again, I assure my noble friend that I agree with him. Our challenge is not with the people of Myanmar and they should not be punished for the military coup. He is right to point out that our sanctions regime targets these specific individuals or organisations, which is the right approach. He also raises a key point about the region itself. We are working very closely with ASEAN partners on this. My colleague Minister Adams, who is responsible for that part of the world, has been speaking directly to counterparts across ASEAN to discuss how to respond to these events directly.
The UK’s Relationship with the Pacific Alliance (International Relations Committee Report)
Lord Howell of Guildford Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howell of Guildford
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the International Relations Committee The UK’s relationship with the Pacific Alliance (8th Report, Session 2017–19, HL Paper 386).
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I begin by thanking all the then members of the International Relations Committee when this report was first published; the excellent clerk and support staff for their work; and, especially, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, who urged us to look at this area and whose expertise greatly benefited the committee, and from whom we will hear shortly.
This is, of course, a delayed debate, in the sense that publication was actually more than 18 months ago. Things inevitably move on, as they certainly have done in relation to the subject matter of this inquiry and report. It is a pity in a way, not least because it means that the initiative in discussion and new insights into important issues tend to slide away from your Lordships’ House into other fora. I know that some colleagues will want to say something about these long delays, which may be inevitable, between the publication and debate of Lords reports. In the meantime, at least this delay gives us the chance to update ourselves on fast-moving events in the region we are looking at today. There is sort of a silver lining to the delay situation.
The Pacific Alliance currently brings together Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru. It was founded in 2011 and covers trade and a whole range of wider issues as well. It is one of a number of trade associations and organisations in the Latin America region. In global terms it is relatively small, with a total population of 210 million people, compared with the giant new networks that have sprung up in Asia and are now reshaping the whole of world trade and commerce, such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership—CPTPP—which I will talk a bit more about in a moment, or the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, or RCEP, which, with a market of 2.2 billion people, dwarfs even the European Union.
The Pacific Alliance is certainly thriving, although it has had to survive quite a few political bumps and changes along the way, including several since we wrote this report. As the Financial Times rightly warns, all these will certainly continue. Also, British trade relations with the region have been pretty modest in recent decades, involving in fact only about 0.7% of our total exports and 0.6% of our imports for the four countries in the alliance, and indeed with only 1.5% of our total exports going to the whole of Latin America. Of course, in the distant past things were quite different, and Britain had a far larger and deeper connection with South America. So it may be thought a little strange that your Lordships’ International Relations Committee chose back then to undertake even a short inquiry—as this one is—on these four specific countries, when most of our inquiries tend to be on major and overarching foreign policy issues rather than bilateral single-country relationships.
But there were at least two reasons why we did this. First, the Pacific Alliance is a classic example of the way that world trade is changing. We are not looking at a static picture at all, but at a very fast-evolving one. Saplings grow, sometimes very rapidly, into big trees with wide-spreading branches. The PA is not a customs union; it is something much more modern. I would say it is more of a product of the digital age, when data and services start to form the bulk of international exchange.
If we look at the new world trade pattern as a complex new jigsaw, which it is, the Pacific Alliance is certainly one of the pieces without which the picture is not complete, and to which the time has come to give renewed and close attention. Linkages between the Pacific Alliance and another major Latin American trading group, Mercosur, could well develop soon. Ecuador could join before long. There are co-operation agreements with the Eurasian Economic Union—not much talked about here in the UK—and with the OECD. Partly this is just what happens in the digital age between networks as they weave together, and partly it is because forward-looking states that want open trade and to be champions of liberalisation, as these four countries do, now seek combined defences against the rather ugly modes of protection which are very much around.
Secondly, when it comes to why we looked at this issue and this region, the word “Pacific” tells the story. The four countries involved face the Pacific and are clearly looking to Pacific trade as a key to their future. Three of the four are already members of the CPTPP I mentioned, and, of course, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand are now associates in return, as it were, with the alliance.
This is an area of acute interest to our own future trade policy as we too seek—and, in fact, officially apply for tomorrow—membership of the CPTPP. We will join its existing 11 members, of which six are members of the Commonwealth—a fact which seems to have escaped the notice of Ministers so far. It is located in the region where almost all the growth in trade, consumer markets, world GDP and innovation over the next 10 years and beyond is most likely, and has been predicted, to occur.
The International Trade Secretary used a good phrase the other day in commenting on the UK’s very interesting new comprehensive partnership agreement with Japan. She said we needed a “Pacific mindset” in developing our global trade policy, to which I would add that we need a Commonwealth mindset, since we have the good fortune to be a member of that vast worldwide network and since all these networks are increasingly interconnected with and reinforcing each other. This is the new emerging pattern in which our intense engagement is essential for our future prosperity, as well as our security.
The government response to our short report was broadly positive and helpful but a little prickly about our urgings that the UK needed to do a lot more and have a clearer overall approach to the region and generally to engage more strongly. But I am sure that the august minds in the now FCDO are fully used to this sort of parliamentary nudging, which may have its critical elements, I concede, but which I hope reinforces the efforts of those in Whitehall who are beavering away at these sometimes unfashionable but potentially—and in due course—crucial areas of trade, investment and broader politics.
These countries are far from being the lowest-income states but some of them undoubtedly have severe problems of poverty and need to develop much faster. Like almost every other region, the pandemic has, of course, set them back very grievously indeed.
The UK provides ODA funds of about £180 million in all for Latin America and £600 million in bilateral programmes. But by far the best way nowadays to build lasting links, which we discussed in our inquiry, is through providing well-focused, technology-based solutions to specific areas and concentrating on the mechanisms—which are different in each country—which unlock faster and fairer growth. Old and facile ideas about development funds, with the measure being simply the amount of cash being handed out, are, in my view, now hopelessly out of date and misleading.
The nations of Latin America are experiencing varying fortunes, with once-rich Venezuela the outstanding problem area, obviously in the grip of a very regrettable pattern of tyrannical government, and bogged down in an outdated economic doctrine that is causing huge suffering and the exile of large numbers of the population. For most other parts of the Latin American continent, despite the political ructions and the comings and goings and changes at the top, there is plenty of promise in the new era ahead. These nations see themselves no longer as America’s backyard or in the so-called American pond. The pond—if one can call it that—to which British attention, commercial thrust and our substantial soft-power influence should be turned, and where major issues affecting our security and prosperity now lie, is the Pacific Ocean. That means having a Pacific mindset and engaging energetically with all groupings heading in the same direction, as the Pacific Alliance is clearly now doing. The hope must be that this short report gives a small further push towards that important goal. I beg to move.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this debate and thank the Minister for his comments and reassurances, as well as for all the kind words about the work of the International Relations Committee. I always feel that these debates are a bit like opening the door to a treasure trove of vast experience and wisdom about all parts of the world, including the one that we are discussing. In a way, your Lordships’ House has become the last bastion of collective memory about how things have developed and what has gone on in the past—one of the threads binding our society together, which we break at our peril.
Here we have been talking about “partnerships for the future”, in the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. I hope that with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, my brilliant successor in the committee, these messages get through to the integrated review, which I gather is brewing up for publication in March. I shall recognise it when I see it, but I hope that those messages get through.
The main focus has been on the application to join the CPTPP. That is obviously the excitement of the moment, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, wisely reminded us, all trade agreements place restrictions and restraints on how we proceed and what we can do domestically and internationally. No responsible great trading nation like ours can do exactly what it wants; the world is not like that in an interdependent age.
Having put those remarks at the end of our excellent debate, it remains for me simply to move the Motion on the Order Paper.