Climate Change in Developing Countries

Lord Oates Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, both for initiating this debate and for his excellent speech. I also thank noble Lords on all sides for their excellent contributions. I declare my interest as the chief executive of United Against Malnutrition and Hunger.

There are three principal arguments that I want to make today. The first is that, although the UK—under Governments of all colours—has been in the vanguard of climate leadership, there is still a huge gap between where we are and where we need to be. The fact that the gap is even greater for some other industrial nations is no excuse for us.

Secondly, the people who are on the front line of the world’s failure to act are those who have contributed least to climate change and are most vulnerable to its effects. Unless the UK and the rest of the industrialised world radically adjust our economic approach, we are going to bring further misery upon those countries and their people and, ultimately, ourselves.

Thirdly, there is a real danger that “green” is becoming a dirty word in many front-line climate states, where there is growing anger at the rich world’s failure to act, our tendency to lecture and our refusal to take responsibility for the damage that has already been and continues to be done.

The facts, as we have heard, are stark. According to the World Meteorological Organization’s report, Provisional State of the Global Climate 2022, the rate of sea level rise has doubled since 1993 and the 10-year average warming for the period 2013 to 2022 is now estimated to be 1.14 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial baseline, compared with 1.09 degrees Celsius between 2011 and 2020. Further, ocean heat was at record levels in 2021—the latest year that it was assessed—and the upper 2,000-metre depth of the ocean continues to warm, a change that is irreversible on centennial to millennial timescales. The World Bank estimates that climate change could push an additional 100 million people below the poverty line by 2030. The Pentagon describes climate change as a “threat multiplier” and a “key driver of fragility”. Stanford University research estimates that climate change has increased economic inequality between developed and developing economies by 25% since 1960.

Meanwhile, millions of people in Africa, Asia and Latin America are being pushed into food crises by extreme climate events, the frequency of which has doubled since 1990. Indeed, in the short time that we are taking for this debate alone, 354 children will have died of malnutrition. This crisis is being exacerbated by climate change; and of course, as the most reverend Primate highlighted, the climate is having an impact on migration and conflict.

Yet no country is acting with anything like the urgency that the situation demands. Today, we have had an announcement from the Government that has, I am afraid, only underscored the chasm that exists between rhetoric and reality. As I say, in the front-line climate states, there is a growing sense of anger and cynicism as a result. I was recently in South Africa as part of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation, and I was struck by how insulated we are from that sense of anger and injustice, which is felt not just in South Africa but across the continent.

Countries are tired of being told to keep their carbon wealth in the ground by people who got rich off the back of burning theirs and continue to do so, and who refuse to compensate developing economies for keeping theirs in the ground or to help finance the transition to new energy sources. These countries want climate justice, which for them means recognition of loss and damage, and compensation, not just concessionary finance or no finance at all. As Oxfam’s briefing pointed out, while COP 27 achieved a historic breakthrough in establishing a fund for loss and damage, how this is operationalised will be critical.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, mentioned our membership of the Transitional Committee and how important it is that we play a progressive role in that. However, as a country, we have yet to make a financial commitment for loss and damage, and our climate finance, which was meant to be additional to overseas development assistance, has come entirely from our depleted ODA funding. The UK International Climate Finance Strategy, published today, seems to continue to take this position. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether the £11.6 billion mentioned in the statement is new money or money coming from existing resources?

We need to get real. We need to think much more profoundly about what things such as the Just Energy Transition Partnership with South Africa mean, and what climate justice means. Certainly, many in South Africa feel that “justice” and “partnership” are far more evident in rhetoric than in reality. For a long time, we have talked as if climate change were something that might happen if we did not sort things out soon. But it is not; it is something that is happening now. The water is literally heating up around us, and the tragedy is that the first victims are those least responsible and most vulnerable. That surely is a morally unsustainable position. As the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, concluded, it is time to stop talking and start acting with the urgency required. Otherwise, humanity faces its greatest calamity.

Commonwealth: Zimbabwe

Lord Oates Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Lord Oates]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to work with other Commonwealth nations to block Zimbabwe’s readmission into the Commonwealth until it is compliant with the principles of the Commonwealth’s 1991 Harare Declaration.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I have initiated this debate to emphasise the severe damage that I believe would be done to the reputation of the Commonwealth, to the Zimbabwe people’s struggle for democratic and human rights and to the upholding of such rights throughout the Commonwealth, if Zimbabwe were to be readmitted while its Government remain in flagrant violation of the Commonwealth charter and of the Commonwealth’s 1991 Harare Declaration. Yet this is what we are told may happen following the visit of a Commonwealth delegation to Zimbabwe in November—possibly even ahead of Zimbabwe’s elections due later this year.

Members of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Zimbabwe, on which I declare an interest as co-chair, have all written to the Secretary-General on this matter and I thank them for that. We understand that the UK Government are not minded to oppose readmission, because they do not want to be seen as isolated on the issue. I understand the Government’s sensitivity given the UK’s deeply troubled history in Zimbabwe. However, ignoring the oppression faced by the people of Zimbabwe today does not atone for past oppression inflicted under colonial rule. On the contrary, it compounds it. I hope that, rather than bowing to the pressure of others, our Government will work with fellow member states to ensure that the core principles of the Commonwealth are not fundamentally undermined by Zimbabwe’s readmission, while being clear that, if necessary, the UK will stand in defence of those principles, even if it has to do so alone.

At the conclusion of the Commonwealth visit, the secretariat issued the following statement:

“Zimbabwe has made significant progress in its journey to re-join the Commonwealth family … This mission by the Commonwealth forms part of the broader membership process and we look forward to advancing this further.”


It is not clear what progress the secretariat had in mind, as little further detail was provided to support this assertion, but all the evidence from independent observers points to the opposite conclusion.

The Commonwealth statement was particularly puzzling as the Harare Declaration is unambiguous in asserting the Commonwealth’s belief in

“the liberty of the individual under the law, in equal rights for all citizens regardless of gender, race, colour, creed or political belief, and in the individual’s inalienable right to participate by means of free and democratic political processes in framing the society in which he or she lives”.

Zimbabwe’s paramilitary regime believes in none of those things, and is currently in breach of every single one of the principles of the Commonwealth charter that relate to them. Far from making progress towards these principles, levels of repression are ramping up as elections approach.

Just 13 days after the conclusion of the Commonwealth visit, a joint meeting of the APPG on Zimbabwe and the All-Party Parliamentary Human Rights Group heard in-person testimony from a young Zimbabwean activist, Netsai Marova, who was arrested in May 2020 for taking part in a protest, along with fellow opposition activist Cecilia Chimbiri and opposition Member of Parliament Joana Mamombe. They were taken to Harare Central police station, from which they were abducted and subjected to torture and sexual assault—an ordeal that lasted over 36 hours. I defy anyone to hear Netsai Marova’s harrowing testimony and to continue to argue for Zimbabwe’s return to the Commonwealth while such abuses take place.

While recovering in hospital, Netsai and her colleagues were charged with taking part in an illegal protest and later with faking their own abduction and making false allegations of sexual assault and torture. On 10 June 2020, five special procedures experts of the UN Human Rights Council issued a statement calling on the Zimbabwe authorities to

“urgently prosecute and punish the perpetrators of this outrageous crime, and to immediately enforce a policy of ‘zero tolerance’ for abductions and torture throughout the country”

to ensure the effective protection of women against sexual violence and to bring those responsible to account. They also expressed grave alarm over concerns that this was not an isolated instance, reporting that, in 2019 alone, 49 cases of abductions and torture were reported in Zimbabwe, without investigations that would lead to the perpetrators being held to account.

Two years on, Joana Mamombe and Cecilia Chimbiri continue to be harassed through the courts on these charges, despite their evident lack of merit. Netsai Marova managed to escape from Zimbabwe and was granted a scholarship by the Norwegian Government under their students at risk programme. Her life and those of her colleagues have been upended by the actions of the Zimbabwe state and they remain severely traumatised.

On 1 December last year, another youth activist and former leader of the Zimbabwe National Students Union, Makomborero Haruzivishe, spoke at an event at South Africa House hosted by Action for Southern Africa, formerly the Anti-Apartheid Movement. He laid out the gross abuse of human and political rights being perpetrated by the Zimbabwe regime and the need for the world to speak out against it. Mr Haruzivishe, who I hope will be with us later—unfortunately, his train has been delayed—has been arrested 37 times over the past decade and was detained without trial for nearly 11 months in Chikurubi maximum security prison.

In March last year, parliamentary by-elections saw widespread violence unleashed against opposition campaigners across Zimbabwe. Open incitement to violence in a speech by Vice-President Chiwenga at a rally in Kwekwe led to an attack the next day by ZANU-PF thugs on an opposition rally in the same city, leaving one opposition supporter dead and many more injured.

Every day, democratic space is closed down further. On 23 December, the regime gazetted the so-called Patriotic Bill, which grants extraordinarily repressive powers under the guise of “defence of sovereignty” and imposes sentences of 10 years on those who expose the nature of the regime to international audiences, while stripping them of their rights to vote or stand for election. The same month, the draconian Private Voluntary Organisations Amendment Bill, representing an all-out assault on civil society in direct contravention of Article 16 of the Commonwealth charter, passed in the lower House of Parliament. The new law allows the regime to designate NGOs as high risk, thereby allowing them to revoke their registration and remove or replace their leadership.

Meanwhile, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission continues to be packed with ZANU-PF supporters, including—extraordinarily—the daughter of former Vice-President Kembo Mohadi. The ZEC continues to refuse to provide access to the full voters’ roll, while opposition rallies are regularly banned and political repression increases. Only this weekend, footage emerged of the brutal beating of elderly people in villages for having attended opposition meetings.

As we participate in this debate, the opposition’s deputy chairperson, Job Sikhala MP, languishes in Chikurubi maximum security prison, where he has been held without trial since his arrest in June. At the time, Mr Sikhala was acting as the lawyer for the family of a murdered opposition activist, Moreblessing Ali. Her brother, Washington, to whom we offer our sincere condolences, will also join us here later. In response to Mr Sikhala’s detention, the Inter-Parliamentary Union stated on 22 October last year that it

“fails to understand how his detention in a maximum security prison could possibly be justified and is alarmed by allegations that Mr Sikhala is being held in inhumane conditions”.

It also said that it

“fails to understand the factual basis for the arrest of Mr. Sikhala”.

It is now clear beyond doubt that the Zimbabwe Government are intent on using violence, intimidation and the full power of the state to crush all opposition ahead of this year’s scheduled general elections. I therefore urge our Government and all Commonwealth member states to make it clear that Zimbabwe will be readmitted to the Commonwealth only when all political prisoners are released; when prosecutorial harassment of the opposition ceases; and when the rule of law, the constitution of Zimbabwe and the principles of the Commonwealth charter and the Harare Declaration are upheld.

In a powerful letter written to his fellow Zimbabweans from prison this month, Mr Sikhala said this:

“I understand you might be outside, and I am inside, but our suffering and pain is the same. We are all under attack … If I am killed … I am prepared to meet the fate in defense of values and principles I hold dearly; values of a free and open democratic society, exuding happiness, free of impunity and fear.”


He also said:

“What I know is that the world will not allow you to perish on your own dearest Zimbabweans … all outposts of democracy shall speak out in defense of our people under siege.”


That is Mr Sikhala’s hope and his faith. It remains to be seen whether our Government and those of other Commonwealth member states will live up to it. If we do not, a clear signal will be sent to the vicious Zimbabwe regime that it can continue to violate the democratic and human rights of their citizens with impunity. In such circumstances, the responsibility for subsequent events will lie heavily upon our shoulders and those of every member state that chose to stand aside, rather than stand up for the principles of the Commonwealth and the rights of its citizens.

Zimbabwe

Lord Oates Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Oates]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the Government of Zimbabwe about the continued detention of opposition Members of the Zimbabwean Parliament Job Sikhala and Godfrey Sithole, and other opposition activists.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)]

My Lords, the UK is concerned by the trend of lengthy pre-trial detention of government critics in Zimbabwe. We are monitoring the ongoing detention of the MPs Job Sikhala and Godfrey Sithole. As the ambassador publicly stated on 2 October, the UK is committed to the fundamental right to peaceful assembly and association, as enshrined in Zimbabwe’s constitution. The former Minister for Africa also raised the issue with the Foreign Minister of Zimbabwe on 30 June.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that opposition MPs Job Sikhala and Godfrey Sithole have now been detained without bail for 142 days in Chikurubi maximum security prison and paraded before court in leg irons; that only a week ago, the Bulawayo MP Jasmine Toffa was violently assaulted as part of an attack on CCC activists; and that across Zimbabwe political violence is raging in the lead-up to the 2023 general elections. Will he join me in calling on the Zimbabwe Government to end this political violence now? Will he join me also in making clear to ZANU-PF officials and Ministers, members of the Zimbabwe Republic Police and Zimbabwe prison officers that the world is watching and holds them accountable for the safety and security of all Zimbabwe’s citizens?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for raising this enormously important issue. He is right: the world is watching and of course the UK is deeply concerned by the challenging human rights situation in Zimbabwe. Political parties, journalists and opponents should be able to operate without any form of harassment. We regularly call for the rights of freedom of assembly and association, as well as the rule of law and due process, to be respected in line with Zimbabwe’s own constitution. We monitor all individual cases, including those that he mentioned, such as that of Jasmine Toffa MP. All political violence is concerning and violence against women in politics is of particular concern, particularly in Zimbabwe.

South Africa: Just Energy Transition Partnership

Lord Oates Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Oates]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made to advance the Just Energy Transition Partnership with South Africa, agreed at COP26.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and, in doing so, declare my interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for South Africa.

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

My Lords, South Africa and the International Partners Group—the IPG—chaired by the United Kingdom, have focused on establishing new structures to underpin the long-term partnership. These are now in place, as set out in the recent update to leaders, and work is under way to develop a South Africa-led investment plan ahead of COP 27. The COP president, my right honourable friend Alok Sharma MP, visited South Africa earlier this month to meet Ministers, the head of the Presidential Finance Task Team, the Presidential Climate Commission, Eskom and the groups from the mining community to underline our commitment to delivering this ground-breaking partnership.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that the partnership is not only critical for South Africa’s energy transition but, if successful, it would have huge significance as a model throughout the world—provided, of course, that it provides finance to emerging economies such as South Africa on sufficiently advantageous terms? Does he also agree that UK and South African parliamentarians could play a constructive role in supporting the transition and ensuring that the necessary measures are implemented expeditiously? Would he therefore be willing to meet members of the South Africa APPG to discuss how to take this forward?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I say to the noble Lord: yes, yes and yes.

International Development Strategy

Lord Oates Excerpts

Monday 6th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

The Foreign Secretary confirmed recently that the FCDO will spend £745 million on bilateral women and girls programmes this financial year. This will restore bilateral spending to 2020-21 levels. As I said earlier, the new approach will be set out in full in the UK’s 2022 women and girls strategy.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will recognise that climate change poses a major threat to progress on international development. Does he also agree that private capital alongside development aid will be critical in tackling it? To that end, will the Government encourage the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero to put far more emphasis on engaging African financial institutions in its work and to focus on delivering real benefits to the 2.5 billion people who will live in Africa by 2050?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

The noble Lord is right that the UK is currently doing all it can to encourage donor countries to increase the finance they make available for climate change and nature, with some success. However, even if we are very successful —more so than we expect—it will not be anything more than a drop in the ocean compared with what is needed, so mobilising private finance is key. We have persuaded the multilateral development banks, including the World Bank, to align their funding not just with Paris goals but with nature. At the G7, the UK was solely responsible, I think, for persuading other G7 members to align all their aid with nature and the Paris goals—something that we did not expect to get over the line but did, thanks to our brilliant negotiators. We are working hard to mobilise private finance from all sources; I would be happy to talk in more detail with the noble Lord in due course.

Working Practices (International Agreements Committee Report)

Lord Oates Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, and, like previous speakers from the International Agreements Committee, I pay tribute to our excellent chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and to her predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith.

As previous speakers noted, the report that we are debating today follows on from a previous report on working practices published in July 2020, and the reports on the scrutiny of international agreements published in 2019 by the Constitution Committee and the European Union Committee. These reports had a variety of recommendations, but the central conclusion of all of them was that current arrangements are poorly designed to facilitate parliamentary scrutiny of international agreements, and that conclusion remains as valid as ever today.

Our committee has been fortunate to have met often with the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, on trade issues and, as many noble Lords have mentioned, he has engaged extremely positively. By contrast with his constructive approach, we could look at the Government’s responses to the recommendations contained in the report, which are depressingly consistent. In many cases, our concerns are airily dismissed, and, even where the Government do move towards them in terms of making commitments, the commitments are heavily caveated. Indeed, in their response to the committee report, the Government would not even commit to notifying the committee of significant non-trade agreements before they were laid. Despite recognising the value of notification of forthcoming treaties, their response went on to underscore that this is not a government commitment.

Although I join my colleagues in welcoming the fact that the Government have put some of their previous commitments in writing—I am not sure if I am a half-full or half-empty person, but I do not want to be accused of being a pessimist, so perhaps I am a quarter-full person—the problem with this exchange of letters, although it is positive in as far as it goes, is that the commitments contained in it can only be regarded as the absolute bare minimum of what a Parliament might require. As has been noted already, they apply to trade agreements only, rather than to all international agreements.

Overall, it seems to me, from the Government’s response to our report, that they seem determined at all costs to resist a rules-based response to scrutiny, preferring to keep at their discretion what they choose to share with Parliament and what they do not. I think it is vital in the long-term to look again at the overall role of Parliament in scrutinising treaties and agreements, and I strongly support the recommendations that Parliament’s consent should be required before the ratification of all trade agreements. This is in part because I think that that would make the Government more responsive in providing information at an earlier stage, in the same way as happened, as my noble friend Lady Ludford explained, as a consequence of the European Parliament’s rejection of one treaty.

I want to touch on the issue of non-treaty agreements, which other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, the noble Baronesses, Lady Donaghy, Lady Hayter and Lady Liddell, have referenced. They spoke specifically about the memorandum of understanding with Rwanda, but there was also an agreement last year with the Government of Zimbabwe on the resumption of deportations of foreign national offenders. To my knowledge, that has never been published. There was a reason why those deportations were suspended, which was the gross abuses of human rights in Zimbabwe. The Government have never come forward and explained why the criteria changed.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Donaghy and Lady Liddell, raised the issue of the security guarantees offered to Finland and Sweden. This was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, in our committee this morning. What status do those agreements, or declarations, or statements, have? I hope the Minister will be able to tell us in his reply. Will they subject to parliamentary scrutiny? As has been said, there could scarcely be a bigger commitment than that we would be a security guarantor and would go to war on behalf of another country. If that is the case, we should have the chance to debate and scrutinise that commitment.

Finally, I want to refer to recommendation 27(a) of our report, which is that

“Parliament should be given a formal role in influencing the objectives”

of trade agreements

“when mandates are being set”.

This is perhaps the most important area for parliamentary scrutiny, because it is the point when we can actually influence the process and the outcome. One area particularly close to my heart—and, indeed, the Minister’s—where we might want to influence mandates is on climate and nature objectives in FTAs. The striking contrast between the Australia FTA and the New Zealand FTA in this regard only underlines to me the importance of this issue.

The House will not be surprised to know that the Government rejected this recommendation on the grounds that it was

“not suited to the UK’s … settlement”,

which regrettably seems to mean that the Executive alone will determine what Parliament gets to scrutinise and what it does not. In as much as this view of our constitutional settlement provides for any accountability, it is, as a June 2019 report of the European Union Committee noted, “accountability after the fact”. In reality, that is no accountability at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[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, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for tabling this debate and for the parliamentary report. I am grateful to the members of the International Agreements Committee and all noble Lords for their insightful contributions. I note that kind offer by the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, which I will pass on to the relevant Minister immediately after this debate.

Having left the EU, the UK is now free, for the first time in half a century, to negotiate treaties in a number of policy areas previously reserved to the EU, so it is right and absolutely positive that Parliament is now taking a heightened interest in how the Government conduct their negotiations on treaties.

The Government consider Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—CRaG—which has been referred throughout this debate, to be fit for purpose. It respects the balance between the need for parliamentary scrutiny and the fundamental right of the Executive to negotiate for the United Kingdom internationally, exercising their powers under the royal prerogative, as noted by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. Our constitutional set-up allows the British Government to speak clearly, with a single voice, on behalf of the UK as a sovereign state under international law.

As noble Lords will understand, negotiating is usually an art. At some stage, compromises must be offered. Acknowledging my noble friend Lord Lansley’s interest in the India free trade negotiations, as he knows and as the Government have been clear, these are a priority for the Government. We agreed, during the PM’s recent visit, to conclude those negotiations by Diwali in October. However, announcing your negotiating positions and possible compromises in advance risks giving your negotiating partner, or partners, an unnecessary advantage. Confidentiality is therefore not always but often key. If we are too prescriptive in the commitments that we make to Parliament, we risk tying our negotiators’ hands and weakening the UK’s approach. However, we fully recognise that for negotiators to represent the national interest to best effect, it is important to understand Parliament’s views and interests.

Any Minister negotiating a treaty should be and is mindful of Parliament’s important role. They know that Parliament can resolve against ratification, and that it may need to pass subsequent implementing legislation. These are ongoing considerations during negotiations and in engaging Parliament. I acknowledge comments by a number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, and the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, and assure them that the Government do not take a high-handed approach to this. We take Parliament’s role and responsibilities seriously and we make no assumptions about views that may be expressed during scrutiny.

What has changed since CRaG was adopted is the level of public interest now that the UK has full control of its treaty policy. The Government acknowledge that increased interest. We accept that this requires full and proper engagement with Parliament and information-sharing within the CRaG framework. We also recognise that the length, breadth, scope and complexity, as well as the impact of free trade agreements, warrants a bespoke approach. We have therefore agreed a number of additional commitments. We accept that engagement and information-sharing will vary according to individual negotiations, and that this could include engagement during the negotiation process before an agreement is formally laid before Parliament under the Act. Equally, we acknowledge that parliamentary scrutiny does not necessarily end with ratification, a point made by my noble friend Lord Lansley.

I am grateful that the committee’s officials are investing their time in discussions with officials at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Department for International Trade. Together, they are exploring how to make these processes more predictable and how to meet the committee’s expectations. However, with the best will in the world, the International Agreements Committee may struggle to apply equal levels of scrutiny to all the agreements that the Government hope to conclude in any one year.

One area where there has been significant recent interest is trade policy. I am pleased to note the positive response to the bespoke approach taken by my colleagues in the Department for International Trade. Their regime of engagement and transparency allows effective scrutiny of trade agreements. My noble friend Lord Lansley referred to the outline approach publications in respect of new free trade agreements. We saw this in the comprehensive outline approach publications before negotiations with Japan, Australia and New Zealand, and more recently with India and Canada. The Department for International Trade will continue to keep Parliament informed of progress through regular updates.

The Government will endeavour to allow sufficient time between finalising a new free trade agreement and laying it before Parliament under CRaG, in order for relevant Select Committees to produce independent reports. Noble Lords will note that the UK-Australia free trade agreement was published before Parliament over five months ago, and the UK-New Zealand free trade agreement more than 10 weeks ago. Neither has yet been laid under CRaG. This open and detailed process will help Parliament and the public more easily to understand agreements and their implications, including on issues around climate change and the environment, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, highlighted.

It is worth pointing out that, while I certainly do not dispute the points that the noble Lord made about the risks around climate change and the environment from poorly constructed deals, equally, there are huge opportunities, as we have seen from our discussions with New Zealand. It is a reflection of the Government’s commitment to transparency. On the comments by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and a number of other speakers, I welcome their having highlighted the trade advisory groups in particular and the important role they play in promoting, among other things and other sectors, the increasingly important agriculture sector.

I would like to address some specific issues that were raised in the committee’s report and highlighted by a number of noble Lords in this debate. The Government are committed to an exchange of letters regarding current commitments on the scrutiny of free trade agreements and, as has been noted, that took place this morning. I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, considered this exchange a significant step forward; that is good to hear, and I hope it also reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and a number of other speakers who raised the issue. We will continue to review our practices as we and indeed Parliament learn valuable lessons from the passage of new free trade agreements, and our processes will undoubtedly continue to evolve accordingly. Going beyond the exchange of letters at this stage would remove this flexibility to implement lessons learned.

The Review of Intergovernmental Relations, published in January 2022, revised the structures and ways of working between the UK Government and each of the devolved Administrations, including structures of engagement on international policy areas. We will continue to apply and practise many of the agreed principles and engagement approaches originally set out in the concordat on international relations, one of the supplementary agreements supporting the 2013 memorandum of understanding between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. I hope that that reassures my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris. These cover areas such as public diplomacy, the organisation of supported visits and representation overseas, and are based on the principles of good communication, consultation and co-operation.

On Explanatory Memoranda, an issue raised by a number of noble Lords, we welcome the committee’s acknowledgement that the Government’s updates to the Explanatory Memorandum template and guidance have improved matters. We are open to further improvements, and I welcome the collaboration between our officials in supporting this process. Minister Amanda Milling will shortly write to Whitehall colleagues asking them to pay close attention to the FCDO’s Treaties and MOUs: Guidance on Practice and Procedures, and to use the Explanatory Memorandum template contained within them, all of which is published on GOV.UK.

On treaty amendments, the Government have previously indicated their intention that the majority of important amendments should be subject to ratification and submitted to Parliament for scrutiny. However, the terms of the treaty, including those on ratification, are subject to negotiation on a case-by-case basis with treaty partners. It is therefore not possible for the UK to take a unilateral position on this issue by way of domestic guidance. The Government do not agree with the committee’s assessment that they have failed in their commitment to publish treaty amendments, including those made by joint committees. We provide a complete, up-to-date and easily accessible record of the treaties to which the UK is a party.

All amendments to the EU-UK withdrawal agreement and to our new free trade agreements are published in the treaty series. In addition, we publish all joint committee decisions on the same GOV.UK page as the relevant parent treaty. Our monthly treaty action bulletins, also published online, provide a summary of the UK treaty actions and command papers, as well as information on treaties for which the UK is the depository. Treaties are distinct from instruments, as has been pointed out, and arrangements that are not intended to be binding under international law, such as those containing political commitments or administrative arrangements.

In response to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Oates, the recent declarations with Finland and Sweden fall within the category of non-legally binding political commitments. Although the committee refers to those non-binding arrangements as agreements in its report, that terminology is more appropriate to describe a legally binding instrument such as a treaty. Considerable care is taken to make sure that non-legally binding arrangements are drafted appropriately, and guidance on this is set out in the FCDO’s Treaties and MOUs: Guidance on Practice and Procedures, as I mentioned before.

As reiterated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, there has never been a convention in the UK whereby non-legally binding arrangements—I am going to put a helmet on for this moment—are routinely submitted to parliamentary scrutiny. In fact, regarding the so called third limb of Ponsonby, referred to today by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and a number of other speakers, the Government do not dispute the statement made by Lord Ponsonby in 1924. However, the Government do not accept that it formed part of the Ponsonby rule as it existed and was practised prior to CRaG.

I recognise that the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was delivered almost on the basis that he has read much of the speech that has been carefully handed to me. Nevertheless, this is the position of the Government. While non-legally binding arrangements are themselves not routinely published, when they raise issues of public importance it may be appropriate to draw Parliament’s attention to them, for example through a Written Ministerial Statement.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

The Minister stated that the agreements or declarations made with Finland and Sweden are not legally binding. First, does he think that the Finnish and Swedish Governments are aware of that? Secondly, does he think that they are of sufficient public significance that they will be scrutinised by this Parliament?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I would be amazed if they were not aware of the non-legally binding nature of those agreements or declarations. My view is that Parliament has a hugely important role to play in scrutinising these arrangements. I cannot provide that answer with any certainty because it is not in the remit of my department or portfolio, but I imagine that that scrutiny will be applied. I am afraid I cannot go into any more detail than that.

Zimbabwe: Elections

Lord Oates Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Lord Oates]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports of (1) state sanctioned political violence, (2) voter roll irregularities, and (3) the intimidation of voters, ahead of the 26 March parliamentary and local by-elections in Zimbabwe.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I initiate this debate on the recent by-elections acutely aware that Britain’s history in Zimbabwe, from the first days of Cecil Rhodes’ chartered company to the last days of Ian Smith’s white supremacist regime, is a deeply troubled one. Throughout that time, political dissent was violently supressed, political leaders were imprisoned, tortured and murdered and elections of any sort, let alone free and fair elections, were denied to the majority of the people of Zimbabwe.

Given that history, for most of the years since I taught in a secondary school in rural Zimbabwe in 1988 I have been reticent about public criticism of the Zimbabwe Government. I saw in the early years of Zimbabwe’s independence how apartheid South Africa sought to destabilise and undermine it. I witnessed the heroic efforts by the people and Government of Zimbabwe to build a better future for the country, opening schools and clinics and seeking reconciliation with their previous oppressors, and I experienced amazing kindness and friendship from the rural community in which I lived and worked in eastern Zimbabwe which, just a few years previously, had had to bear the vicious onslaught of the Rhodesian security forces.

I come to this debate bearing all those things in mind and recognising fully that it is for Zimbabweans to decide how they wish to constitute their democracy and who they wish to govern them. That is not the business of anyone else, least of all the former colonial power. Nevertheless, we can and should support Zimbabweans in the choice they collectively made in March 2013 when, following an outreach programme across Zimbabwe, a new constitution was drafted by the then Government of National Unity and put to the people in a nationwide referendum. Over 94% of voters backed the constitution, providing absolute clarity about how the Zimbabwean people wish to be governed and how they expect elections to be conducted. Sadly, since its adoption, that constitution has mostly been honoured in the breach.

A military coup in 2017 was followed by flawed elections in 2018 and subsequently a wholesale attempt to destroy the main opposition party, which ultimately culminated in the parliamentary and local by-elections which took place across Zimbabwe on 26 March this year. In those elections, the main opposition party was denied the right even to use its own name in these elections or to access the public funds it was entitled to. In response its leader, advocate Nelson Chamisa, announced the formation of a new political movement called the Citizens Coalition for Change, or CCC. That party won 19 of the 28 parliamentary seats up for election and hundreds of councillors, despite its formation just two months before the polls, its lack of funds, and widespread intimidation and obstruction of its campaign by the state. By contrast, ZANU-PF’s puppet opposition faction, which had been gifted approximately $1.5 million in campaign funds by the state, won precisely none.

Nevertheless, despite the relative success of the Opposition, the provisions of the 2013 constitution were serially violated throughout the elections, raising grave concerns about the conduct of next year’s general election. State media outlets were brazenly used to denigrate opposition candidates in contravention of Section 61 of the Zimbabwe constitution requiring such outlets to “be impartial” and to

“afford fair opportunity for the presentation of divergent views and dissenting opinions.”

The Zimbabwe Electoral Commission failed in its duty to provide for the

“proper custody and maintenance of voters’ rolls”

or to ensure that elections were conducted

“efficiently, freely, fairly and transparently and in accordance with the law”,

as required by Section 239 of the constitution.

Multiple irregularities in the voters’ rolls were documented by civil society organisations, including: changes to addresses and voters deleted from the rolls without ZEC giving notice of such changes, in contravention of the Electoral Act; changes made to 156 polling stations, without informing voters; and voters transferred to other wards or constituencies despite their addresses remaining the same, implying that boundaries had been altered without due process and contrary to law.

The security situation was extremely troubled throughout the campaign. Throughout the election, the Zimbabwe Republic Police did ZANU-PF’s bidding and in doing so violated multiple clauses of the 2013 constitution, including Section 50 on the rights of arrested and detained persons, Section 53 on freedom from torture or degrading treatment or punishment and Section 58 on freedom of assembly and association. Police repeatedly obstructed the opposition leader’s rallies. On 20 February, they mounted roadblocks to harass and intimidate supporters attempting to reach the CCC’s rally in Harare. On 12 March they banned the CCC’s rally in Marondera and deployed riot police and water cannons to prevent the event taking place. On 24 March, they banned a final campaign rally at Epworth citing lack of manpower. Needless to say, no ZANU-PF rallies were banned. On the contrary, public resources were frequently misused to support ZANU-PF. In contravention of the constitution, public and school buses were regularly commandeered to transport party supporters, and schoolchildren were forced to attend rallies during school time.

Widespread violence and intimidation against opposition campaigners was perpetrated by ZANU-PF supporters across the country, violating Section 67 of the constitution guaranteeing the right to campaign freely and peacefully for a political party or cause. For example: on 2 March a CCC member was severely assaulted in Marondera after putting up opposition campaign posters; on 3 March the home of former MDC Finance Minister, Tendai Biti was attacked by men armed with machetes and his security guard was seriously injured; on 5 March the house of an opposition council candidate was set on fire in Bindura after he had hosted an opposition meeting at the house earlier that day; and on 8 March, Maxwell Dutuma, an opposition council candidate, and a party colleague were attacked by ZANU-PF supporters in Highfields. Both were injured, his colleague very seriously. When Maxwell Dutuma reported the assault to police he was arrested. Most egregiously, on Saturday 26 February, Vice-President Chiwenga openly incited violence against the opposition at a rally in Kwekwe saying:

“You see how we crush lice with a stone. You put it on a flat stone and then flatten it to the extent that even flies will not make a meal out of it. That is what we are going to do to CCC.”


ZANU-PF thugs understood that message only too well and the following day attacked an opposition rally in the same city with iron bars and machetes. An opposition supporter was killed, and many others were seriously injured.

These are just a few examples of the numerous incidences of intimidation, violence, voter roll irregularities and serial violations of the law and the constitution that took place during the election campaign. I put them on the record here so that there is an understanding of the level and extent to which the constitutional rights of Zimbabweans were violated by their own Government and in the hope that, ahead of the 2023 general elections, the international community and, most particularly, countries in the region will engage with Zimbabwe’s Government to persuade them to uphold the constitution and the right of the people to freely choose their leaders.

However, the UK’s strategy in the region must be about much more than criticism of a particular Government or their actions. It must be born of a real desire to engage positively with people—particularly young people—business and SADC Governments on a shared approach to tackling the challenges they face and supporting economic development in a way that lifts the poor rather than simply further enriches the wealthy. That means a real commitment from our Government to meaningfully engage and a real understanding of how our disengagement to date has left a gap which is rapidly being filled by both China and Russia.

Finally, we must have some self-awareness about the ramifications of actions at home on our ability to argue for values abroad. Last night, for example, we in the House of Lords debated the Government’s attempts to strip our own Electoral Commission of its independence by giving Ministers the right to issue it directions. What signal do we think that sends to would-be autocrats around the world seeking to suborn their own electoral commissions? What signal do we think it sent to people in the Southern African Development Community region when, immediately following free elections in Zambia and a peaceful transfer of power, we slashed our development assistance to that country by over 50%? What lessons do we think SADC Governments took from our hoarding of vaccines as China supplied theirs, or from our continued blocking of the TRIPS waiver? Words matter, but actions matter even more.

I finish where I started: with an acknowledgement of Britain’s deeply troubled legacy in Zimbabwe and a reflection on the tragedy that today ZANU-PF is using the same tactics and institutions, and in some cases the very same laws, that were employed by Ian Smith’s regime. It is doing so to serve the very same purpose—to oppress and silence the people so that, unhindered, it can use the wealth of the country for itself. Zimbabwe is fortunate, however, that its people have never been prepared to bow down to oppression and that—although bruised and battered by misuse—its hard-won democracy, underpinned by the courage and sacrifice of its democratic activists, still offers the best opportunity for change and renewal and a better life for all. I beg to move.

International Development

Lord Oates Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, do the Government agree that a key part of our international development strategy should be the promotion of democracy and good governance? What signal does the Minister think is sent when, following the elections and peaceful transfer of power in Zambia, we have cut its aid budget by 50%?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

The reduction from 0.7% to 0.5% was always going to result in difficult decisions. It is not a decision the Government took lightly or that anyone in government welcomes. We will return to 0.7% as soon as the tests laid out by the Chancellor are met. As I have said, our focus on and recognition of the importance of the continent of Africa will be reflected in the changes going forward.

International Development Strategy

Lord Oates Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, on securing this important debate. In common with other noble Lords, I await the Government’s strategy with interest, although on my part, I am afraid, with little expectation. I will focus my remarks on three particular areas that, among others, need to be central to any development assistance strategy: first, strengthening health services; secondly, combating climate change; and, thirdly, underpinning democracy and the rule of law.

Strengthening health services must be a key focus of our strategy. The Government’s decision to slash the aid budget—and here I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for her commitment and integrity on this issue—was not only morally wrong but has proved detrimental to the health and well-being of our own citizens. Omicron is teaching us a hard lesson, but it is one that should have been obvious from the start: it is no good pulling up the drawbridges and putting the national interest before the interest of others because, in a global pandemic, the global interest is the national interest. The rich world cannot discharge its duty to protect its own citizens until it also discharges its duty to protect all the world. It is a parable for our times.

On Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, told the House that

“we are only as safe as everyone else is.”—[Official Report, 14/12/21; col. 135.]

So why are the Government making us all less safe by the savage cuts we are inflicting on aid budgets and the huge economic damage we are doing, and have done, to developing economies by the travel bans, now, happily, abandoned? It is no good the Government saying one thing while they do the exact opposite.

As the Government develop their aid strategy, they must learn from this pandemic, because it is unlikely to be the last. They must work with G7 partners and other allies to help strengthen health services in low-income countries. The cuts are catastrophic to that process—over 50% in the case in many countries across Africa.

But it is not just on this perhaps self-interested aspect of health that the cuts are impacting. Funding to the UN family planning agency, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, has been cut by 85%. The ACCESS programme and the women’s integrated sexual health programme have been cancelled, with projected cuts to family planning in 2021-22 estimated at over £132 million. The Foreign Secretary says that the Government are committed to prioritising women and girls, but once again their actions indicate the contrary. Cuts to sexual and reproductive health programmes not only undermine the health of women and girls but lead to unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, driving population growth, putting further pressure on resources and accelerating climate and ecological damage.

That brings me to the second plank in any strategy, which must be how we address climate change. Low-income countries are on the front line against climate change, despite being the least responsible for it. We have a solemn duty to use our aid budget to help those countries decarbonise their economies so that they can develop and grow without inflicting further climate and ecological damage to themselves and other countries. It is no good the Government telling us that they are increasing climate finance while slashing the overall aid budget. Low-income countries are not stupid: a cut in funding is a cut in funding, however it is distributed across different pots of money.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, underpinning democracy and the rule of law must be at the heart of our aid strategy, because without good governance there is little prospect of aid achieving its long-term success, and without the rule of law individuals cannot live in the security and freedom that they have a right to deserve, and economies cannot prosper. Again, however, the Government say one thing and do another.

Yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said in his response to a question about supporting Zambia’s democracy:

“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.”—[Official Report, 15/12/21; col. 300.]


Yet the aid budget sends the opposite signal. Zambia, a country that in August saw free elections that resulted in an orderly transfer of power, will see its aid budget slashed by 58.6%—more than any other country in the southern Africa region. Malawi, whose judges acted without fear or favour to uphold the rule of law and defend democracy in 2020, receives the second-largest cut, at 51.5%. Meanwhile, Zimbabwe, a country I care about deeply but whose autocratic, quasi-military Government have looted the country, oppressed its people and ruined its economy, receives the smallest aid cut, and continues to receive more in aid than Zambia and Malawi combined. Can the Minister tell us what signal he thinks that sends to democrats on one hand and to dictators on the other?

Let me be clear: I do not want vital humanitarian aid to be cut to anyone, and I am appalled that mine clearance work in Zimbabwe has been halted, particularly given that those mines were planted by the former racist Rhodesian forces. But I want us to signal clearly that we will stand with democracies by providing enhanced and practical support to those countries that uphold democratic norms and the rule of law. We are doing the opposite.

International Day of Democracy

Lord Oates Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, it is fitting that we should discuss the International Day of Democracy as we remember the legacy of Nelson Mandela, who was laid to rest eight years ago today. Does the Minister agree that we could best honour his memory by supporting democratic Governments in southern Africa and standing with those in the region and across the world who strive for democracy against repressive regimes? Will he urge the Prime Minister to send a clear and unmistakable signal of that solidarity by visiting Zambia at the earliest opportunity to meet its recently elected President and visibly demonstrate our support for the people of Zambia and its democracy?

[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.