Freedom of Religion and Belief

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)]

My Lords, freedom of religion or belief and the right to hold no belief is a key human right. It is under attack in almost every corner of the globe. We see Muslims sentenced to death for blasphemy; Christians burned in brick ovens or forced to give birth in chains; Yazidis trapped on mountains, their women abused as sex slaves; innocents attacked in their churches, synagogues and mosques, the very places they should feel most safe; and sledgehammers taken to religious and cultural artefacts in an attempt to obliterate centuries of faith and civilisation. The ongoing assault on freedom of religion or belief is absolutely unacceptable, and noble Lords have made that clear in their views today.

I would like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this very important debate, and to everyone who has made such valuable contributions today. If I may, I particularly add my support to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, in his tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester—it was well said by the noble Lord.

The debate has made very clear the scope and scale of the challenge. I would like to touch on some of the major challenges to freedom of religion or belief, explain why this Government have indeed made it a priority and inform the House of the work that we are doing to protect and promote freedom of religion or belief, and the right to hold no belief, around the world.

The noble Lord, Lord Harrison, referred to the blasphemy laws in Malta. We oppose blasphemy laws wherever they still exist.

This Government understand the scope and scale of the challenge—we, too, are horrified. The brutal terrorist group known as ISIL, or Daesh, is making the headlines every day with images of Christians executed on beaches or civilians being thrown off buildings for refusing to abandon their beliefs. I know that it is not just a matter of the cases that make the headlines. It is the steady and systematic bias against people on the basis of their faith, denying them a fair trial, proper investigation of complaints to the police and even adequate education for their children, all of which is potentially more far-reaching. Where there is a culture of impunity, which we condemn, people are taught to believe that followers of other religions are fair game, and then mob violence can so easily follow—and does. Where children are taught to hate those with different beliefs, this provides fertile soil for extremism to take root.

Freedom of religion or belief is not just an optional extra, or nice to have; it is the key human right. It allows each citizen to follow their conscience in the way they see fit. As this Government made clear in our manifesto:

“We will stand up for the freedom of people of all religions—and non-religious people—to practise their beliefs in peace and safety”.

We are committed to defending the full right exactly as set out in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—that is,

“the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.

Quite apart from any legal or moral obligation, we promote religious freedom as essential to our social, cultural and economic development. That is why this Government have made freedom of religion and belief a priority, not just in the FCO but across government. It is enshrined in international law, it makes social sense and it is morally right.

So what are we doing? We have been working on this issue through a comprehensive multilateral, bilateral and projects-based approach. The UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 of March 2011 calls on all UN member states to take action against intolerance on the basis of religion or belief, and to promote the free and equal participation in society of all—both the religious and the non-religious. It has given us that important starting point. I vividly remember a meeting in Morocco earlier this year, in the immediate aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, during which ambassadors from all points of the religious compass spoke to me of this resolution as something to hold onto in a time of crisis. We will continue to use our influence and diplomatic networks as effectively as possible. We are playing an active part in a new international contact group on FoRB, convened by Canada. Last month, I met the US Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, David Saperstein, and we discussed areas where the international community might work more closely together. We will continue to encourage the EU to ensure that its guidelines on FoRB are put into practice in individual countries.

The noble Lord, Lord Bach, asked whether we would reconsider having a global ambassador. We have our global ambassadors. They have their reach in every country on the globe and know how important it is that they promote freedom of religion and belief. It is not contradictory to say that we can trade with certain countries, provided that they do not contravene international humanitarian law. Our trade with them does not undermine our right to stand up for not only freedom of religion and belief but other human rights; we make that clear.

We are just as active on bilateral channels. Every Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office acts as an ambassador for this fundamental right. Each one of us, as a Minister, raises and promotes these issues in the countries or organisations for which we have responsibility. My noble friend Lady Berridge and others referred to Burma. We have raised our concern about the situation of the Rohingya community in all our recent ministerial contacts with the Burmese Government. Most recently, my honourable friend Mr Swire called the Burmese ambassador to the FCO on 18 May to express our concern about the Rohingya situation and the related migrant crisis in the Bay of Bengal. We urged Burma to act swiftly to deal with the humanitarian implications, but also to address the underlying causes.

We also seek to protect religious freedom through our project work. We support projects to tackle discriminatory legislation and attitudes, and we are working with human rights and faith-based organisations across the world to promote dialogue, build capacity, foster links and strengthen understanding. I had hoped to give a few examples but I will have to leave that for another occasion or I will not be able to allow the noble Lord, Lord Alton, a moment or two to respond; I know that we are pressing up against the deadline.

We are already addressing the question of how to make sure that freedom of religion and belief is addressed throughout the world. We use our full range of diplomatic response. However, I recognise—and I agree with noble Lords—that there remains so much more to do. I want to see us step up our engagement with individual Governments. Countries around the world need to know that Britain will stand up for this fundamental right. We must not be shy about coming forward.

In reply to the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others, I can say that we are deeply concerned at the imposition of the death penalty for blasphemy in the case of Asia Bibi and we hope that the verdict will be overturned on appeal.

The Prime Minister has raised our concern about the blasphemy law with Nawaz Sharif, and the UK supports the EU-led action to continue to raise this case with the Pakistan authorities.

Turning to the case of the Sudanese pastors, which was raised by the noble Lord, our ambassador has raised it at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Khartoum and with representatives of the ruling National Congress Party. As recently as 9 July, the UK special representative to Sudan and South Sudan raised our concerns about these specific cases with the Sudanese ambassador. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, also referred to charges against Christian students. We will continue to call on the Government of Sudan to bring all their legislation in line with their constitutional and international human rights commitments. Noble Lords can be assured that these matters are part of the everyday work of our ambassadors around the world where FoRB is under threat.

I also want us as a Government to focus even more strongly on making freedom of religion or belief part of the answer to extremism. Where freedom of religion is protected, extremist ideologies are much less likely to take root. I want us to continue our focus on supporting the right of persecuted Christians, as well as those of all religions and none, to be able to stay in the Middle East, the region of their birth. We are already playing a leading role on this issue. At a UN Security Council debate on religious minorities in March, Tobias Ellwood, Minister for the Middle East, called for bold leadership from Governments and communities in the region to work for tolerance and reconciliation.

Over the coming months, we will continue to deepen our already strong engagement with academics, think tanks, NGOs, faith representatives and parliamentarians on how we may best develop our policies to support religious minorities in the Middle East. I was delighted to meet members of the APPG on International Religious Freedom or Belief recently, and I look forward to continuing to work closely with them as we further develop our policies.

We work with regional allies, helping them to ensure that the right legal frameworks are in place and supporting training initiatives to ensure that state and religious bodies understand the rights held by people from minorities. We are also considering further programmes to address the climate of impunity and legal discrimination, through training for security and police forces and sharing of UK best practice on reporting and prosecution of crimes. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about how important it is that we are able to provide support and training to the Iraqi Government to ensure people are protected, particularly in the north, to which he referred.

In parallel, I strongly believe that equipping our diplomats with a greater understanding of the key role faith plays in global politics helps us collectively to make better policy judgments and to understand when and where we can work with the grain of religious beliefs to further our human rights and other objectives. Therefore, we are increasing religious literacy training among FCO staff and across the whole of Whitehall. We are running regular training courses on religion and foreign policy, with a lively series of lunchtime seminars, and our new diplomatic academy contains an online foundation level module on religious literacy. FoRB is embedded in the work of all parts of the FCO both at home and abroad.

Just last month, I was pleased to host the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Grand Imam of al-Azhar in conversation about religion and foreign policy. It was a marvellous experience to see the place crowded with more than 200 diplomats and people from across all departments in Whitehall, with people around the world listening to that very important conversation. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, urged the Government that there should be cross-departmental thoughtfulness about investment in these matters. I agree with him, and we are addressing that.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised particular questions about China. I will be brief and say that we are saddened by reports that Tenzin Delek Rinpoche has died in detention in China. We have raised his case with the Chinese authorities on a number of occasions, including during the UK-China human rights dialogue in April this year. We support and encourage the EU statement of 15 July which said that the EU expected the Chinese authorities to investigate and make public the circumstances surrounding Tenzin’s death.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, also asked about the Chinese Christian lawyers who were arrested this week as part of a major crackdown. He asked what will happen with the Chinese state visit later this year and whether Article 18 will be on the agenda for discussions with China’s President when he visits the UK. The full programme for the visit is not yet fully fleshed out—and one would not expect it to be at this stage. However, we pay very close attention to the human rights situation in China. We are deeply concerned by reports of the number of human rights lawyers and activists who have been detained since 9 July and we fully support the EU statement of 15 July, which states that the detentions raise serious questions about China’s commitment to strengthening the rule of law, and called for the release of those detained for seeking to protect rights provided by the Chinese constitution.

We have regular discussions with the Chinese authorities, including on human rights and rule-of-law issues. They will hear what I have said in public today—my colleagues have also said it in private—and I am sure they will be aware that these matters will be raised, not only by politicians but by the public, when the Chinese state visit takes place. I am sure that discussions about that visit will be wide ranging and naturally the Chinese Government will have an input. But as a country we believe firmly in making clear our commitment to human rights and we have an expectation that the Chinese Government will listen to that. They will take their own view naturally, as they always do.

The noble Lord, Lord Singh, raised the question of the mistreatment of Sikhs in India. Our High Commission in India regularly discusses minority issues, including Sikh prisoners, with the Indian Government and state authorities. We will continue to monitor the situation and maintain our dialogue with Indian officials.

Around the House there has been, over many years, a determination that we should keep a regular dialogue on matters of human rights. The discussion on freedom of religion or belief has perhaps received a better and more considered approach in this Chamber than almost any other, around not only Westminster but the devolved communities. It is important that we are able to maintain that discussion.

Perhaps there was just one Peer who raised the question of why we still have, in this House, the presence of those who have a right, because of their place in the Church of England, to be here. I strongly support their position because I find that their presence is always challenging—refreshing, but most decidedly challenging. But it is important that we welcome on the Cross Benches representatives of other faiths. I think that that enriches the debate here.

This morning, we were able to read an article by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, in the Times. He made me reflect on the fact that Governments need to find ways to ensure that the transformational power of religious belief is able to play out in our societies. We must have countries where everyone is free to follow their own belief, to change their religion, or to choose to follow no religion at all. In those societies we find that life is fairer and more prosperous. His Grace made the point:

“Curtailing religious freedom in the name of other freedoms runs the risk of discarding one of the most important and creative forces in human beings”.

What he says, I could never improve upon.

Iran: Nuclear Deal

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made earlier in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the outcome of the nuclear negotiations with Iran.

In recent days, the world has held its breath as talks between world powers and Iran edged towards a conclusion. The negotiations were hard. All sides faced tough decisions. In the early hours of yesterday morning, a process that began over a decade ago came to a conclusion.

The result is a historic deal, a landmark moment in efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and a victory for diplomacy. The UK with its partners in the E3+3—China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States, with the EU High Representative as our co-ordinator—have at last reached a comprehensive agreement with Iran on its nuclear programme. With the conclusion of these negotiations, the world can be reassured that all Iranian routes to a nuclear bomb have been closed off and can have confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of the Iranian nuclear programme going forward.

The origin of these negotiations lies in the revelation some 12 years ago that Iran was concealing nuclear activities, in violation of its international obligations. At that time, Iran, under a different Government, was not willing to meet the requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The international community responded with multiple UN Security Council resolutions. The agreement that we have reached does not absolve Iran of blame for its previous activities, nor does it wipe the slate clean. Instead, it offers Iran the opportunity to draw a line under its past behaviour and, gradually, to build the world’s trust in its declarations that it is not pursuing the development of a nuclear weapon. This will not be a quick process but, with the implementation of this deal, it should be possible.

The Government’s purpose in seeking an agreement has always been clear: to secure assurance that Iran will not be able to develop a nuclear weapon. To that end, this agreement imposes strict limits on Iran’s nuclear programme that are comprehensive and long-lasting. For 10 years, Iran’s enrichment capacity will be reduced by over two-thirds from current levels. It will enrich uranium only to a level of 3.67%—well below the 90% level of enrichment considered necessary for a nuclear weapon. Its stockpile of low-enriched uranium will be limited to 300 kilograms, down from more than seven tonnes, with the balance exported to Russia. Its research and development activities will be constrained so that it will not be able to enrich with advanced centrifuges for at least 10 years. Additionally, no uranium enrichment, enrichment R&D or nuclear material will be permitted at Iran’s underground Fordo nuclear site. The agreement also cuts off the plutonium route to developing a nuclear bomb. Iran’s heavy water research reactor at Arak will be redesigned and rebuilt so that it will no longer have the capability to produce weapons-grade plutonium.

Given the historic levels of mistrust that have built up between Iran and the international community, a strong inspection regime and a framework for addressing concerns about past military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme are vital for building trust and providing us with the confidence that Iran is meeting its commitments. Some of the crucial monitoring and transparency measures of this deal will last indefinitely, such as the implementation of the additional protocol to the comprehensive safeguards agreement. The additional protocol for every country allows access to sites about which the IAEA has concerns that cannot be addressed in any other way. Iran is no exception. Iran’s NPT obligations—including the obligation never to acquire or develop nuclear weapons—will apply during and after the period of the deal. We will not hesitate to take action, including through the reimposition of sanctions, if Iran violates its NPT obligations at any time. Our concerns about the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear programme will be addressed. The IAEA and Iran have agreed a road map of actions to clarify the issues.

Taken together, these measures mean that, if Iran were to renege on its promises and try to “break out” for a bomb, it would take at least 12 months even to acquire the necessary fissile material for a single device. The robust transparency measures that we have agreed mean that we, the international community, would know almost immediately and we would have time to respond. In return for implementing these commitments, and as our confidence in Iran’s programme develops over time, Iran will receive phased and proportionate sanctions relief. Initially, there will be relief of EU, US and UN nuclear-related economic and financial sanctions but, to be clear, this sanctions relief will be triggered only once the IAEA verifies that Iran has taken the agreed steps to limit its nuclear programme.

Other core provisions in the existing UN Security Council resolutions will be re-established by a new resolution. Important restrictions on import and export of conventional arms and development of ballistic missiles will be reimposed through an annexe to the resolution and lifted only later in the agreement.

These relaxations are backed by a robust enforcement mechanism: if there is a significant violation of the nuclear provisions of the agreement, all previous UN sanctions can be reimposed through a snap-back mechanism, which any party to this agreement can invoke. The EU and the US could also reimpose their own sanctions in such a scenario. Clearly, having made this agreement, it will be strongly in Iran’s interest to comply with the provisions of it to avoid a return to the sanctions regime that has crippled its economy for so long.

We now need to look ahead to the implementation of the agreement. After such a tough negotiation there will inevitably be bumps along the road. We entered into this agreement in good faith, and all sides must try to resolve together any problems in implementing this deal. But the deal includes robust enforcement provisions, and we will not hesitate to use them if Iran goes back on its word.

Although this agreement is focused solely on Iran’s nuclear programme, its conclusion could have wider, positive consequences. By providing the means—through sanctions relief—for Iran’s economic re-engagement with the world, it will allow the Iranian people to feel the tangible benefits of international co-operation. As that economic re-engagement materialises, we will, of course, seek to assist UK businesses to take advantage of opportunities that arise. That assistance would, of course, be enhanced through having a functioning British embassy in Tehran. We remain committed to reopening our embassies in each others’ countries and will do so once we have resolved some outstanding issues.

The deal also has the potential to build a different kind of relationship between Iran and the West, and change in a positive way the dynamics in the region and beyond. In an atmosphere of developing confidence and trust, there will be an opportunity for Iran to realign its approach in support of the international community’s efforts, in particular in confronting the challenge of ISIL and the resolution of regional crises, such as those in Yemen and Syria.

But this will be a process. It will take time. In the mean time, we remain realistic about the nature of the Iranian regime and its wider ambitions. We will continue to speak out against Iran’s poor human rights record. And we will continue to work closely with our friends, allies and partners in the region who live with Iranian interference in their neighbourhood. Iran will not get a free pass to meddle beyond its borders.

An Iranian bomb would be a major threat to global stability. That threat is now removed. We and Iran now have a common responsibility to ensure that the wider potential benefits, for the region, and for the international community as a whole, are delivered. The UK is fully committed to playing its part and I commend this Statement to the House”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome this Statement and welcome enormously the successful conclusion of the negotiations, although we have some reservations about aspects of the Statement and its tone. Within the coalition Government, the Liberal Democrats pressed from the outset for an active exploration of a changed relationship with Iran. It has a very complex political system in which there are some very nasty and hardline elements, but also some elements of civil society and a desperate desire, particularly among the urban population, for a reopening of its relationship with the rest of the world.

We should pay tribute in particular to the Americans who led this negotiation and to the enormous efforts which Wendy Sherman, the American negotiator, put in. We should also recognise the enormous efforts which Cathy Ashton made as the EU negotiator. I would welcome the Minister marking the fact that this has been a triumph for European co-operation in foreign policy rather than simply a British effort. I noted in the last Statement made on the European Council that the Prime Minister said that we wanted to return the European Union to its original fundamentals as a customs union. The EU, in its original fundamentals, was never just a customs union; it was always about foreign policy, co-operation and security. The Government need to make that clear as they negotiate for EU reform.

We have some reservations about the suggestion that the origins of these negotiations lie in the revelation in 2003 that Iran was considering nuclear activities. In 2003, the year of the invasion of Iraq, the Iranians offered to reopen negotiations with the United States and the European countries on a closer relationship, which the Americans blocked off. The then Labour Government, to their shame, simply followed the American lead, as so often they did in that period of an American Republican Administration, and we missed what seemed to many of us to be an opportunity for an earlier transformation of the relationship.

It being a principle in good international relations, we have to recognise that you need to understand how your opponent sees the world. At that point, the Iranians had seen, first, American and European support for Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war, which was a very bloody war, and, secondly, the western invasion and occupation of Iraq just next door to them. Not surprisingly, the Iranian regime—nasty though it was in many ways—felt threatened. Therefore, after 10 years of very difficult negotiations, we come to a position where we have not entirely secured the abolition of a nuclear weapons programme in Iran.

We recognise that this is a compromise on which there are things still to be done. However, there is now the opportunity for a gradual change in the climate. We should like to hear from the Minister how far the Government recognise that this offers the opportunity for a transformation of our relationship with the complexities of the various Middle East conflicts and the Iranian role in them.

I thought that it was extremely unwise of the Israeli Prime Minister to suggest that this was a disaster and that Iran represented an existential threat. The other week I heard an Israeli Minister refer to Saudi Arabia as a moderate state and the Iranians as evil. That seems enormously mistaken. Clearly, Iran does meddle well beyond its borders, but there are many other states in the Middle East which also meddle beyond their borders, supporting other terrorist, Sunni organisations. We need to be concerned about that as well.

As Liberal Democrats within the coalition, one of our concerns was that the Government risked being caught on the hardline Sunni side of a developing Sunni/Shia conflict. I hope the Minister will reassure us that the Government are determined not to be caught there and that our interests are in promoting an easier relationship between Iran and the Sunni autocracies to which we are so close. We still sell too many weapons to those heavily armed states. I hope she will say that we will now be pushing for a transformation as we deal with the multiple threats from ISIS and from other terrorist groups across the Middle East.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I thank both Her Majesty’s Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, with whom I was very privileged to work in coalition—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. I thank them for their support throughout this process. It has been an extremely long process and it has been difficult for political parties to remain united over that period. The seriousness with which all parties and their leaders have continued their commitment to it shows the major role that the UK plays, not only in the world but in trying to ensure that the world remains at peace without nuclear intervention.

It is with great pleasure that I recognise the remarkable role and patience of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, as high representative of the External Action Service of the European Union. One watched her attend meetings month after month, year after year and through the night. She always looked commendably and diplomatically in charge of events. We have much to thank her for.

I turn to specific questions from noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, asked whether I was concerned about the role of the United States Congress. Clearly, there is now a period in which Congress has to consider the matter, at the end of which it can express its view. It is a matter for the United States Congress. I would not interfere in its events, just as I would not wish it to interfere here. We await the outcome with interest. All these matters can proceed only once a United Nations resolution has been achieved.

I was also asked whether I agreed that what had been achieved were thorough, independent inspections and verifications, and that those were at the core of everything. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness. She also had a degree of realism—it may be painful, but we have to keep our eyes wide open for at least 10 years. This agreement has been won after such a hard struggle; we must not let any of it slip.

With regard to snap-back, am I assured that it is tough enough to block the way to obtaining nuclear weapons? Yes, I am. The process of snap-back is robust because it is structured in such a way that it reserves the powers of all the P5 of the UNSC to snap back to the original sanctions in the event of any violation by Iran. Of course, in any event, if either the EU or the US thought that there had been a violation, they could impose their own sanctions as well.

Iran’s wider ambitions were referred to by both the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. It is crucial that we consider the wider interests of the region. Throughout this process, I have always said that it is important that we are able to welcome Iran back into the international community, but that welcome has to be tempered by a realism that Iran has ambitions. I agree with the implication behind the question of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that it is important that all parts of the international community work with Iran so that we can work towards an easier relationship between Sunni and Shia, as I believe he put it. That is what we should all aim to achieve.

I am already reassured to some extent by the measured tone that we have heard from Saudi Arabia in its reactions to the signing of this agreement. That is, indeed, promising. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that we hope this may lead to our undertaking further work with Iran in encouraging it to act responsibly as part of the work that the coalition does, not necessarily as part of the coalition but working towards the same end, in dealing with the threat of ISIL—or, as some prefer to call it, Daesh.

Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked me whether this agreement makes it easier for us to have relationships with Iran. I very much hope that it does, but again with our eyes wide open. As I mentioned in the Statement, this will not stop us speaking out against human rights abuses in Iran, but our current work and the fact that we will have a base eventually, when the embassy reopens, give us a much better opportunity to interact with the people in Iran and to make sure that information is more readily available. With regard to the opening of the embassy, there are still technical problems with regard not to re-equipping but actually to equipping the embassy after it was emptied. However, we are hoping that will be achieved by the end of this year.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked me whether the UK had an interest in not only promoting the easier relationship between Sunni and Shia, but also ensuring that we are able to work with countries in the wider community in the region in order to allay their concerns. I hear the concerns that President Netanyahu of Israel has already expressed and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary will travel there tomorrow to discuss the implications with him.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, teased me a little about the position of the Conservative Party vis-à-vis the European Union. I have always made it very clear that I find it very helpful to work through the European Union both with regard to negotiations such as these and certainly with regard to work in the United Nations. The E3—the UK, France and Germany—have been at the heart of these negotiations since the Foreign Ministers visited Tehran in October 2003, launching the process that culminated in yesterday’s agreement. That says it all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I will deal with the latter point first. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, quoted the Foreign Minister with regard to the fact that the attitude in Iran is that this is the starting point, not the ceiling. This is not where we finish but where we start—and there is a great deal to do, to put it mildly. In response to my noble friend, it would be improper for me to give details about where the negotiations are and identify past activities, but those discussions continue. What I can certainly say is that with regard to implementation of the terms of the agreement, Iran will provide access to the IAEA in accordance with the provisions of the Additional Protocol to the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement and the transparency provisions of the deal. So access has to happen. If anybody feels that there is any collusion or obstruction, there are ways in which that can be resolved by the joint commission—and, if necessary, we can go back to sanctions.

With regard to access to the wider investment in Iran, the fact is that all the preparations for developing nuclear capability went on while there were sanctions, but look what it did to the rest of the country. This agreement will allow the rest of the country to begin to thrive again.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, I hesitate to dampen the euphoria expressed in London and Washington in relation to this agreement, but are there not certain harsh realities of which we should remind ourselves? The first is that Iran is still solemnly and totally committed to the destruction of the State of Israel—a factor that may not be irrelevant to the condemnatory words of Benjamin Netanyahu. Secondly, despite all the restrictions, Iran—which is a theocratic state—is within a short step of becoming a lethal nuclear power, should it so wish.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, there is no short step to becoming a lethal nuclear power. This is a robust, durable, verifiable agreement and any breakout would certainly take at least a year to achieve. It would be noticed very quickly and sanctions would come back. That is why this deal is so effective. I would say that there is no euphoria but a recognition that this is a tremendous success after so much work. There is also a realisation that Iran has much to do to become accepted as a viable international state.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

My Lords, in the Statement which the noble Baroness repeated, she said that the IAEA and Iran had agreed what I believe she called a road map of actions to implement the agreement. Can she tell us whether this road map is in the public domain and, if so, whether she will ensure that it goes into the Library of the House? Secondly, I declare an interest as chair of the Saudi-British Joint Business Council. In the repeated Statement, the noble Baroness also referred to “developing confidence and trust” in the region. She said that the Foreign Secretary will be going to Israel to discuss matters already raised on the Floor of the House. Can she tell us about the other state that has expressed a good deal of difficulty over this agreement? Notwithstanding what she said a moment or two ago about Saudi Arabia, there are enormous concerns there about this agreement. What steps are the Government taking to assure Saudi Arabia that we are aware of its difficulties with this and that we are prepared to work with it on those points?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, through diplomatic channels we are having discussions with a range of states, and clearly Saudi Arabia is an important player in that area with which we have close and enduring relationships and for which we have respect. We may disagree on many of its policies but we certainly agree that it has concerns and that it needs to maintain its national defence. Certainly, those discussions proceed, and that goes more widely.

The noble Baroness asked whether I would put into the public domain details about how the road map might be developed. The steps for Iran to take in the PMD road map are not public but I can say that there will be an increasing opportunity as we have these questions and debates to put on the record further details about the way in which there are robust controls over what happens if Iran were to break its word. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary began to do that yesterday in discussions with the press, and that will continue in the way in which Ministers seek to keep both Houses informed.

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

My Lords, will the noble Baroness be kind enough to tell us a little more about the timing of the implementation over the next year or so of this deal? In particular, can she tell us about the effect that would be applied to the deal if the United States Congress were to fail to endorse it? As she said quite rightly, that is a matter for Congress—but would it be the case that if it failed to endorse it, that would bring the whole thing to a grinding halt and we would be back to square one? It would come as no surprise to any of us who observed the hysterical and overexcited way in which Congress greeted Mr Netanyahu when he was there—he is of course strongly opposed to this deal—if Congress decided not to endorse the deal.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, there are indeed many steps in the process by which we can reach the stage when we get to the transition period. There is a whole series of days: finalisation, adoption, implementation and transition days, and UNSCR termination day, which is 10 years after the anniversary of implementation day. This is to ensure that the terms of the agreement are kept to by Iran and that we do not allow the sanctions to be lifted too soon. Some of the sanctions, such as those with regard to arms and ballistic missiles, will take some years to lift.

My noble friend asked me specifically about the United States. My understanding is that Congress has up to 60 days to review the deal. As for Congress not approving the deal, it is not for me to advise the United States how their President might act but I rather suspect that this is such an important deal that the United States will find a way of agreeing with the other signatories, and that the agreement will take effect.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)]

My Lords, despite the necessary uncertainties about long-term destinations from what happened yesterday, is not one thing certain? We now have an opportunity to build a more stable Middle East that did not exist two days ago, for which much thanks. Is it not good also to recognise that that has been achieved through long-term, patient diplomacy, which stands in stark contrast to a Middle East policy that is otherwise fixated on the instant gratification of high explosives, and that this departure is also much to be pursued?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I am always pleased to be able to celebrate the importance and effect of diplomacy. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord said about the opportunity for a more stable Middle East.

I am reminded by those who advise me that when, in response to my noble friend Lord Jopling, I was reading out the number of days—the finalisation, adoption, implementation, transition and UNSCR termination days—I should have said for clarity that UNSCR termination comes 10 years after adoption day, not implementation day.

[Baroness Afshar (CB)]

My Lords, as an Iranian-born Member of this House I welcome this decision, in particular in the name of the people of Iran if the sanctions are removed on medication and food, because the poor in Tehran and the rest of Iran are starving. However, I am very grateful that the Government are remaining vigilant on human rights issues and I urge them to continue, because Iranian human rights measures are absolutely deplorable.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

I can assure the noble Baroness that we will continue our pressure on the human rights record in Iran, which really bears no scrutiny because it is so poor. With regard to the suffering of the Iranian people, she is right to draw attention to the fact that sanctions have not affected medicines over this period.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, this is historic but risky because of the history of deception by Iran and the linkages between the Revolutionary Guards and arch-proliferators such as North Korea. Do we expect that this agreement will lead to any spillover, for example into Yemen where Iran has had a very malign influence? What reassurances have we given the Gulf states, including more military assistance, to help them over the interim period? The Minister mentioned the embassy. If our businessmen are to take full advantage of the new openings, surely an embassy would help immeasurably?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, as I mentioned earlier, there are still obstacles in the way of reopening the embassy but we are working very hard on them in discussions with Iran and we hope to reopen it by the end of the year. The noble Lord is right that that will help businesses from around the world, particularly the UK, to operate there. However, businesses are right to be circumspect about how soon they go in and the circumstances under which they can operate. I am sure there will be lot of caution. I think I have already made it clear that we are talking to countries in the area through our posts and also sometimes through ministerial contacts with regard to the implications of this agreement. Clearly, our diplomatic work since last summer with regard to Yemen has been trying to ensure that there is no spillover into what appears at times to be a proxy war.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, while we have no illusions about the continuous malign influence of certain Iranian groups in the Middle East, should we not recognise that if things were to go the other way or this deal were to be blocked, that would probably trigger the opening of a major nuclear arms race in the region? As it is, if this deal holds, can we not look in the other direction and begin to think about a Middle East nuclear weapons-free zone, which has long been the ambition of many? I urge my noble friend to encourage her colleagues to make that a priority for the future despite the obvious difficulties.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

As always, I listen very carefully to my noble friend. He has great wisdom in this area. I agree with him with regard to the importance of ensuring that an arms race is not started and that blocking this deal could have achieved exactly that. With regard to the Middle East weapons-free zone, I had discussions about this when I was at RevCon in New York a couple of months ago—and I am grateful again to the Opposition for ensuring that I was able to go with their support during that period of purdah. I am afraid that progress was rather disrupted because of Egypt seeking to make it impossible for Israel to take part in those discussions—at least it appeared to try to make that impossible—by saying that if Israel did not turn up on specified dates the whole thing would go ahead without it. There is a lot of difficulty internationally in taking forward the idea of a Middle East weapons-free zone but I agree with my noble friend that we should try to do so.

[Lord Cunningham of Felling (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness and Her Majesty’s Government deserve our congratulations and so do our partners in this project, which we hope will lead to an enduring settlement. The Minister said on more than one occasion that if things did not turn out right it would take Iran at least 12 months to secure a weapon. Does history not show us that the ability to procure such a weapon is based on gross national product and nuclear engineering and the associated science and technology? Is the implication of what she is saying that we recognise Iran already has those assets?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I certainly appreciate that the noble Lord has experience and is right to be cynical. However, the agreement takes into account several factors relating to how Iran could re-equip and get fissile material, and what we can do to stop that. For example, with regard to Iraq, the international joint venture will assist Iran in redesigning and rebuilding a modernised heavy-water research reactor in Iraq which will not produce weapons-grade plutonium, thus removing it from the picture. Fuel will be exported and Iran will not undertake reprocessing. Fordow will be converted into a nuclear physics and technology centre, and the IAEA will have daily access to it—not just every now and then, but daily access. We will be watching.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

What confidence can the Minister give the House that verification will work, given that 24 days’ notice has to be given to Iran of an inspection, which even then may be refused by a commission? Surely, of course, only a very short-notice inspection would be worth it, given Iran’s history of secret nuclear development. Why does she think that Iran has insisted on retaining and working on many thousands of centrifuges? What on earth can its motive be, if that state wishes to keep those thousands of centrifuges?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, as I think I explained in the Statement, the number of centrifuges is dramatically reduced, as is fissile material. What we have aimed at in this agreement is that Iran should still be able to have a civil need for use of reactors but not a military one. That is what we believe has been achieved. As for whether Iran can break out quickly, and the time between it being noticed and reported that something is going wrong and action being taken—how long it would take between a request from the IAEA to get access and being able to insist on access—it would typically take about 21 days between demand and access. There is, then, a very clear process that has to be followed, which I am happy to discuss with the noble Baroness in detail outside the Chamber, given the time available. Of course, the breakout period cannot be achieved except in a period of over a year. We have time to prevent breakout into a future with Iran having a nuclear weapon. It will not happen.

[Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the agreement, which is obviously the fruit of a great deal of extremely hard work and hard negotiation. I think that most noble Lords will agree with me that the proof of its adequacy will be in implementation. This is one of those agreements where the words are fine but it is the actions that follow that will really matter. I hope that all parties to it, particularly the European parties, will be robust in checking any backsliding. One worry of those who would like to see this agreement succeed is that somehow Iran will be allowed to get away with things along the line and the robust reaction will not take place because it is all too difficult and unpalatable. I seek some reassurance on robustness.

My other point, alluded to by the noble Baroness who spoke previously, is on verification. Surely, this agreement depends crucially on adequate verification, and I worry that there seems to be an ability on Iran’s part not only to challenge but to block verification proceedings. There seems to be a road through which they will be able to prevent the IAEA providing us with the necessary reassurances. How can we ensure that this joint commission, to which I gather such issues will be referred, can cut through something like that? How can we get round Iran blocking something by language and words, and get it to fall into line?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

We get round language and words by having the ability to have a snap-back on sanctions within the United Nations at any time, and the EU and the United States can do so themselves with their sanctions. My noble friend is right, however, to ask about the process. The joint commission makes its decision by consensus. Obviously, it can do it by majority. What I can say, of course, is that it is important that Iran is on that joint commission so that it can engage with and respond to any suspected issues of non-performance. It can represent its interests in the same way as all other members of the joint commission. But the fact is that if there is a disagreement over whether something is a serious breach, or if Iran were unwise enough to block the IAEA access to which my noble friend refers, it is still possible for the sanctions to be snapped back. That is the prize that Iran has sought: that there should be an end to sanctions. The prize that we have sought has been to make sure that this world does not face a nuclear weapon-holding state in Iran. I think that the prize for Iran and the prize for the rest of the world has been achieved.

European Union Committee on 2014–15 (EUC Report)

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)]

My Lords, first, I add my tribute to the distinguished contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho. It is difficult for me to say “the noble Lord” as, although he is a Cross-Bencher, he has had a long and distinguished career as my noble friend in both this House and another place over a range of policy areas. Colleagues around the House have referred to the expertise of the members of the committee. The noble Lord personifies that expertise. In particular, I know that my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe, David Lidington, have found the analyses of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, as chairman of the European Union Committee, insightful.

I also thank other noble Lords for their contributions today. I put on record my appreciation of the work of all those who serve or have served on the European Union Committee. Reference has been made to the way in which there has been rotation—it sounds like a guillotine—and also that we have a rather different way of appointment than the other place. I was part of the usual channels until last summer and had the duty of appointing people to European committees. Although the usual channels never blab, I can say that I always had a waiting list of people wishing to serve and work hard on the committees. They do not see it as a sinecure and a soft option for going on visits. These people work very hard and I value that.

The European Union Committee is rightly well renowned throughout Europe for its expertise and insight. It draws on some of the foremost experts on European issues, including former MPs, MEPs and Commissioners, as well as evidence from the private, public and voluntary sectors. Others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, referred to José Manuel Barroso’s comment last year when he said:

“The House of Lords is one of the best in Europe in terms of analysis. Very, very competent analysis of the legislation”.

We all benefit from that. It is clear that the committee is not only competent but, as we have heard today, it is enormously productive in the number of reports that come out, all of which are relevant and current.

During this Session the committee has scrutinised 150 EU legislative proposals and significant documents and has published 12 reports covering a range of important EU issues. It has attended 19 interparliamentary conferences and has been mentioned in almost 400 broadcast features and print articles. The numbers speak for themselves. This annual report reflects the breadth and depth of the committee’s work, demonstrating the impact and importance of cumulative work on issues over multiple Sessions. Its wide-ranging dialogue with MEPs and Commissioners has strengthened its recommendations. Similarly, the committee’s engagement with social media—I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, that I did spot the committee’s Twitter feed; I got to it through a page on the intranet—has helped to ensure a well-informed public debate on the EU.

The committee’s contribution to the balance of competences review was welcomed and valued, and it is leading the way with its work on the green card system to help national parliaments play a positive and constructive role in setting priorities for EU action. That work demonstrated in particular that national parliaments can have a tangible and constructive impact on policy-making in the EU. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, among others, referred particularly to the report on the balance of competences, and perhaps it is right that I should say a word or two on that. The noble Earl wondered when we might respond to it. I am able to say that we expect to be able to respond before the Summer Recess, which is not far away. So I hear what I say—the trouble is, so do noble Lords. On the question of how the balance of competences review is being used, I can say that the Government consider that it has already had an impact on the debate, as evidence on engagement both in the UK and overseas testifies.

The review delivered 32 reports which examine almost every aspect of EU activity and how it affects the UK’s national interest. As such, it has provided a comprehensive baseline, establishing how the current arrangements are working and future challenges, providing a valuable contribution to our wider debate on the EU. Bringing all this evidence together in one place for the first time enables people to judge for themselves what works well and where there is room for improvement. I understand that for the 32 reports from October 2012 to the end of 2014, some 2,300 pieces of evidence were submitted, departments held more than 250 events, and meetings were attended by approximately 2,100 stakeholders. I can say that all the reports and their evidence are published online alongside press releases and Statements by the Foreign Secretary. However, I take the caution expressed by noble Lords today that perhaps both the Government and the committee need to look again at our strategy on putting out information. I know that sometimes it can be drowned out by the cacophony of sound across the media. We need to keep plugging away at this to make sure that in a democratic country this information reaches those who need to be able to see it.

I now return to the committee’s annual report. It shows the breadth and depth of the committee’s work. Throughout all this the committee has said that if the Government value the committee’s work, why do we have scrutiny override? That has been the other side of the question. I reassert that the Government are committed to a strong scrutiny system. We want Parliament to be able to hold us to account for decisions in Brussels. We want our national Parliament to have a strong role in decision-making in the EU. However, we have taken on board the points made by noble Lords today. We are continuing to raise awareness and improve scrutiny standards; we drove overrides down by almost 40% from 2013 to 2014, but as the committee has pointed out, there have been some slips. The committee’s report reflects that these were promptly addressed, but we need to avoid repeats and learn lessons.

The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, made it clear that we are referring here to avoidable overrides and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, asked that we keep such overrides to a minimum. I can say that we are taking steps to do exactly that by, for example, establishing best practice across Government and working with the EU institutions to ensure a smooth process between London and Brussels. FCO officials visited UKRep and the EU institutions in February to deliver scrutiny workshops to raise awareness of how it is done and of the need to be timely. We have launched new training and support, including the FCO’s Diplomatic Academy foundation level course, and from April, materials on scrutiny have been made available across Government.

It goes further than that. The Minister for Europe wrote to ministerial colleagues about scrutiny in the run-up to Dissolution at the end of the last Parliament. He chaired a meeting of Ministers at which scrutiny issues were discussed. In that period the Cabinet Office also chaired a meeting of senior officials to discuss scrutiny performance issues—departments are encouraged to draw on a range of best practice ideas which they can adopt. The Minister for the Cabinet Office also wrote to both committees earlier this year about scrutiny failings in his department and set out a range of actions taken within Government to raise standards. I hope that noble Lords can see that we have taken the criticism and accepted that it needs to inform improvement in the way we operate. There are difficulties across government, as there always are, in providing timely responses, but our job is to put in place the training and awareness which means that we can respond in a timely way. That is what we will continue to try to do.

As ever, we remain keen to work with the EU Committee to strengthen the whole scrutiny system, both in respect of the avoidable and the unavoidable. We want to look at all aspects of why the unavoidable happened too, in line with the Government’s response to the Commons European Scrutiny Committee report. We will continue to strengthen the process and our approach, maintaining high standards across the board; Parliament deserves nothing less.

There was a question from the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, about the ability of the committee to question Ministers before European Councils. Clearly, I cannot make any commitment on behalf of my right honourable friend David Lidington, the Minister for Europe, but I have heard Mr Lidington say time and again in front of his colleagues in the House of Commons that if they want a model of what works well in European scrutiny, they should look to the House of Lords and the system here rather than to his own House. I know that he values the opportunity to appear before committees of this House. He puts a high priority on his relations with these committees and I know that he has appeared twice ahead of European Councils recently. I am sure that he will do his best, although other things may intervene. However, noble Lords can be assured of his respect for the committee.

I turn to one or two other points raised during the debate outwith the exact remit of the annual report. Here, I ought perhaps to refer to the comments of my noble friend Lord Bowness concerning the EU energy union plan. I was interested that he raised that. Last week, on Thursday and Friday, I attended the Croatia Forum, when I discussed this exact issue with colleagues from across Europe and Foreign Ministers from countries as far afield as Turkey and Georgia. Of course, representatives from countries in south-eastern Europe such as Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo were there, as well as the United Nations. We also had other members, including the Italian Foreign Minister.

Energy security is very much a matter of concern across all countries—not just in Europe, with regard to the EU plan, but elsewhere. The energy union was endorsed by leaders, who adopted the conclusions on the Commission’s communication at the European Council in March. The Commission will now start to bring forward the individual legislative proposals and other measures outlined in the communication. The first significant step towards implementation will be a package of measures to be launched today, comprising legislative proposals on the energy labelling directive and phase 4 of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, together with a consultation on energy market design and a communication on barriers to investment.

The Government remain supportive of an energy union that has a fully functional internal energy market at its heart, and that is the message that I took to the Croatia Forum last week. I also made it clear that the UK has played a key role in securing an ambitious climate and energy framework through to 2030, including a target to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% by 2030. I have recently been involved in launching climate risk reports looking at these various issues—one produced as recently as Monday morning at the Stock Exchange.

I turn to the body of the report and to the wider horizons that have been referred to. As noble Lords have pointed out, Europe has never been higher on the agenda. We face challenges and we all have great concerns about the proceedings in Greece. As my noble friends have made clear here and as my right honourable friends have made clear in another place, the fact is that the future of the Greek economy has an impact on the rest of us, even those of us who are not in the eurozone. All countries need to work together to ensure that there is stability for the security of all our nations across the continent of Europe.

We are also seeking to tackle migration across the Mediterranean, as well as managing our own renegotiation, to which noble Lords have referred. Renegotiation brings us further opportunities. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he wants to reform our relationship with the European Union to make it a better and more easily functioning place for all to do business so that it is a reform that is of benefit not just to the UK but to all other member states. That was a message that I also took to the Croatia Forum: reform for all and competitiveness. Completing the digital single market, in particular, would be good. That is something which the euro accession states are very aware of and they are keen that it should happen. We should ensure that we tackle migration and make sure that our welfare systems do not act as incentives. Migration happens and is valuable but it is a case of migrating for work. We should remain out of closer union with Europe. It may be good for other countries but it is not good for us.

The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Foreign Office Europe Minister David Lidington and, above all, I value the committee’s work when tackling all the complex questions that face us. The committee has set out an ambitious agenda for the next Session and has welcomed a swathe of new members, as we have been reminded today, with expertise from across the European spectrum. I look forward to seeing the fruits of the committee’s future labours and to engaging with the committee on its continuing work.

European Union: Reform

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dykes]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they expect to announce the results of their discussions about the European Union reform agenda with other member states.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns)]

My Lords, at the June European Council, agreement was reached to launch the renegotiation process and revert to the issue at the December European Council. The next stage will involve technical discussion in Brussels. How long the overall process takes will depend upon progress over the substance. The Government have committed to holding a referendum on EU membership before the end of 2017.

[Lord Dykes (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. I hope I will not embarrass her if I express great commiseration and sympathy for the task ahead for her and fellow Ministers with this portfolio. As Kenneth Clarke said very recently of Eurosceptic Tory MPs:

“They want us to leave, they don’t want reform … They are all right-wing nationalists”.

What on earth will the Government do to get out of the wholly sinister trap that the Government have created?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, there is no trap. The trap is wide open and we are out of it as you are when you are in a race. However, this is the festina lente race, where the people with the ideas and the determination first work through the process, which has now been launched with regard to the European Council, and technicians look at the process of how change can be achieved. We also know that the Prime Minister has launched the political discussion on the substance. So we are out of the trap and negotiating for the good of Britain and the rest of Europe.

[Lord Tomlinson (Lab)]

Could the noble Baroness give the House some clue, so that we can judge whether these negotiations are successful, as to what the main planks of the negotiating mandate are? All our partners in the European Union have shared in it, but the British people, who ultimately will have to make a judgment, have been given no idea what the demands are and therefore will not be able to judge success or failure.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

It is the nature of parliamentary democracy that the Government outline their plans to Parliament first, and we did, not only as a result of speeches in another place but thereafter, further setting out the details. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it clear, as indeed have those negotiating with him—the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary—that the four planks of our negotiation are: fairness for those both within and outside the eurozone; changes with regard to immigration so that welfare benefits do not act as an overlarge pull factor and movement is for work not for benefits; sovereignty is an issue. so we must tackle the problem of ever closer union, which may be all right for others but not for us; and competitiveness. We have led the way. We have already achieved advances on this, but for hard-working people in this country we need to improve competitiveness across Europe, including the digital single market. That is it.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

Are reports correct that officials have been working on possible fast-track treaty changes in case Greece leaves the euro but stays in the European Union? If so, would these be under the passerelle procedure set out in the 2011 Bill on the European Union? Would they be wrapped up with the general strategy for European reform, which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has indeed outlined in very clear direction and which provides a useful basis for major reform in the future, which will involve treaty change?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, with regard to the timing of changes, we have clearly said that the only date that is certain is that by the end of 2017 we will have put to this country a referendum on the deal that has been achieved. With regard to treaty change, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that there are some circumstances in which treaty change would need to be obtained, but he has also made it clear that in advance of any referendum what is needed is a binding, irreversible agreement with all the other states that a treaty change would take place. On that basis, there would need to be an acceleration of treaty change.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, in the light of the Greek referendum result, do the Government intend to follow the advice of the Member for Uxbridge and try to secure a no vote in a referendum as apparent leverage for further negotiations?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I was brought up in a family who said yes because you tended to get the right answer more frequently. I can see that I have caused amusement on the Privy Council Bench of the Conservative Party, but clearly their minds are far superior to mine. With regard to the impact of the negotiations, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has my confidence and the confidence of the Government that he will deliver a deal that is right for this country, and we will be able to support him when it comes to putting it to the population.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)]

My Lords, the Business Secretary recently berated the CBI for being too pro-EU on the grounds that this weakened the Prime Minister’s negotiating position. Does the Minister believe that that was a sensible position for her colleague to take, given the vocal pro-EU position of the CBI on EU membership and the catastrophic impact that leaving the EU would have on business in the UK?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the CBI has made it clear that it is in favour of reform of the European Union that delivers more competitiveness. We have the support of the majority of its members in the way we are proceeding. There will always be differences of views; that is part of the nature of a democracy.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

Does my noble friend recall that the Duke of Wellington used to state that he thought the English constitution was “incapable of improvement”? Is it not the case that the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, thinks exactly the same thing about the European Union? Does my noble friend recall how the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, always used to advocate joining the euro and went on singing the same tune after it was in deep, deep trouble? If so, will she take his advice with a very large pinch of salt?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

I might need more than salt.

[Lord Kinnock (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that, like charity, competitiveness begins at home? Will she therefore counsel her colleagues in the Government against continuing the large cuts in net public sector investment, the 40% cuts in further education for over-19s, and other measures that are fundamentally undermining the competitiveness of our economy, as is shown by the record balance of payments deficit?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, this Government and the previous coalition Government made great headway in overturning some of the most dire economic situations the country had to face in 2010. It was a difficult task. We wish to continue to do that. This Wednesday, the noble Lord will have the opportunity to see the next stage in plans to resuscitate our competitiveness and the economy.

Gaza

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, for tabling today’s wide-ranging debate. It was important for us to hear from her the graphic description of the appalling humanitarian conditions within Gaza. It was also very helpful to hear the insights of the Front-Bench spokespeople—both the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats—in putting everything into context, as they did.

It is clear that the current situation in Gaza is unacceptable. It is true that the ceasefire agreement reached in August 2014 is still largely holding, but there has not been progress towards a durable solution that addresses the underlying causes of the conflict. Hamas remains in charge in Gaza—and the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord Turnberg, reminded us that under Hamas life is far from easy. This is not a straightforward matter of who is good and who is bad. We have assessed that Hamas is seeking to rebuild militant infrastructure, including the tunnel network, in Gaza, and we are deeply concerned at reports of militant groups rearming.

Noble Lords referred to the issue of Daesh/ISIL perhaps being in Gaza. We are indeed concerned about the recent rise in the number of small Salafist groups in Gaza that have self-identified with ISIL/Daesh, and we are monitoring the situation closely. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority has not taken the steps needed to make progress on reconciliation and to restore control in Gaza. Of course, while Israel has indeed lifted some movement and access restrictions, including doubling the water supply to Gaza and permitting more exports of produce from Gaza, as noble Lords have pointed out, Israeli restrictions are still extensive. We work consistently to persuade the Israelis that they should ease those restrictions further; we should not underestimate the changes that have taken place, particularly with regard to access to water. But so much more needs to be done, and there needs to be certainty rather than having moment-to-moment access to the necessaries of life.

Egypt, wary of extremists in the Sinai, has been reluctant to reopen the Rafah crossing, opening it only sporadically. Again, clearly it is important that we continue working with Egypt to be able to have that crossing opened more regularly.

Without significant change, at best, it could take many years to rebuild Gaza. At worst, we risk a return to conflict and, if the underlying causes are not addressed, Gaza risks becoming an incubator for extremism around the region. So, as noble Lords have said, there is an urgent need to address the terrible situation in Gaza once and for all. Bold political steps are necessary—first, to bring about a durable end to the cycle of violence and, secondly, to address the underlying causes. I can say directly that, with regard to the recognition of Palestine, our position remains that it is important that to achieve any resolution we will recognise the state of Palestine, where Palestinians currently live, only if and when Hamas get to the position whereby it can recognise the right of Israel to exist, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, mentioned. The moment when we are able to decide to recognise the state of Palestine is the one that best brings about hope of peace. We will make that step only when we judge that it best brings about peace, and it would be a matter of recognising the state on 1967 borders. That also means that we continue to work with regard to discussing with Israel very strongly about the illegal extension of settlements in the Occupied Territories. Israel knows our view on that very well.

I was also asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, whether we would consider an arms embargo on Israel. The UK continues to be of the belief that imposing a blanket arms embargo on Israel would not promote progress on the Middle East peace process at the moment. All countries, including Israel, have a legitimate right to self-defence; our Government operate some of the most robust export controls in the world. We approve equipment only when we are satisfied that it would be consistent with the EU and consolidated arms export criteria. We are most cautious.

I was asked about the talks between Hamas and Israel—the hudna talks—that are rumoured to be taking place. What I can say, very carefully, is that we are aware of the rumours of those talks; the immediate priority for us remains that all parties should prioritise making progress on reaching a durable agreement that addresses the underlying causes of conflict.

Our policy on Hamas remains clear: it must renounce violence, recognise Israel and accept previously signed agreements. Hamas must make credible movement towards these conditions, which still remain the benchmark against which its intentions should be judged. We call on those in the region who have an influence over Hamas to encourage Hamas to take those steps. It is important that all parties take credible steps to end this cycle of violence. Many noble Lords have referred to how long this violence has endured. Working with others, such as the United States, we want to make progress with the Middle East process talks. Clearly, it is a matter that the talks have not progressed over the last year as we hoped they might; we continue to press that those talks should resume and resume soon.

Many noble Lords referred to accountability in some detail, and it is right that that should be raised at this point because of the United Nations report, the commission of inquiry report that was before the Human Rights Council so recently, in this last month. I attended the Human Rights Council and was there shortly before the report was issued, and of course I have followed each and every word of the debate that ensued on that matter. Our negotiators in Geneva were very careful and firm in the views that they took as a result of guidance from Ministers, and I am very grateful to them for their work.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, said, the UK along with our EU partners voted in favour of the resolution on the UN commission of inquiry report on the 2014 conflict in Gaza just last week. We would have preferred to see a text that gave more weight to Israel’s legitimate right of self-defence and the threat that she faces from militant groups operating inside Gaza, including Hamas. However, despite those concerns, we supported the text of the resolution. The noble Baroness will know from her experience that every word counts in those resolutions.

The UK is deeply concerned by the terrible human cost to both sides of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as underlined by the findings of the report. We strongly condemn the indiscriminate firing of rockets into Israel by Hamas and other militant groups in the Gaza Strip. Such actions are serious violations of international humanitarian law. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and others that it is for all states and non-state parties to have a careful mind about what constitutes international law and international humanitarian law, including those who seek to deliver aid from whichever avenue they seek to do it. It is for all of us to obey the law. We do not pick and choose. We have throughout urged both sides to the conflict to act in a manner that is proportionate and to take all measures to prevent the loss of human and civilian life and to comply with the law.

We note that the UN commission of inquiry report highlights,

“substantial information pointing to serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law by Israel and by Palestinian armed groups. In some cases these violations may amount to war crimes”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and others asked what happens next, after this stage. The allegations in the COI report must be fully investigated by Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the authorities in Gaza. We therefore welcome the fact that Israel is conducting its own internal investigations into specific incidents. Where there is evidence of wrongdoing those responsible must be held accountable. I will pursue that too. I have had my own conversations with those involved in investigations in Israel and I shall continue to hold them to account. It is first for both parties to demonstrate robust and credible internal investigations to this end, in line with international standards. I believe that we and the United Nations will continue to monitor that carefully.

Many noble Lords mentioned the matter of international aid. The United Kingdom has been one of the largest donors to Gaza since last summer, providing more than £17 million in emergency assistance. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, that none of our aid goes to Hamas. It goes via the United Nations relief agency and the Gaza Reconstruction Mechanism. This has helped to provide vital supplies of food, clean water, shelter and medical assistance to those most in need. The UK pledged an additional £20 million at the October 2014 Gaza reconstruction conference in Cairo to help kick-start the recovery and get the Gazan people back on their feet. We have now delivered 80% of that pledge, with more to come shortly. Others need to deliver on their pledges too. All aid should be delivered in accordance with international humanitarian law.

As we have heard in detail today, the challenges in Gaza are clear. We must act urgently to help its people get back on their feet and begin the hard work of reconstruction, which indeed will take a very long time. For its part, the United Kingdom will continue to push for progress towards peace, and lead the way in supporting Palestinian state-building and measures to address Israel’s valid security concerns, working with the parties every step of the way. The security of the Palestinian people, of Israel and the region demands no less.

Syria

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, for tabling this debate. I thank all other noble Lords for their contributions. I take this opportunity to say how much I appreciate the way in which the noble Baroness contributes to our debates. Her work is invaluable and she gives us an effective and knowledgeable voice.

In responding to the debate, I will seek to address what I think are her underlying questions, as echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, a moment ago. Is there a strategy to assist the international community in its search for a political resolution in Syria and, if so, what is it?

First, with regard to the Syrian context, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and others that the Syrian situation is clearly within the context of the wider region. Today, the Question is about Syria and I will focus on that but I am sure that we will, quite rightly, return in other debates to the wider context. The noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, referred to that, too.

As we have heard in detail today the conflict in Syria, now in its fifth year, continues to worsen. Indeed, it is arguably one of the most difficult and tragic of our generation. Just miles from his palace in Damascus, President Assad uses barrel bombs, chemical weapons and siege and starvation tactics against his own people. The latest harrowing estimates are of more than 230,000 people dead, 12.2 million people in dire need of humanitarian aid within Syria itself, and 3.9 million refugees in the wider region. That is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has repeatedly underlined the urgency of a political solution in Syria, including recently at the G7. Doing nothing is not an option for any of us. Our national security interests are affected by Syria and regional stability is threatened. We simply cannot turn our attention from one of the most awful humanitarian situations in the world. We need to focus on it.

I am appalled by the systematic use of sexual violence by Assad’s forces and their militia. I appreciate that it is not limited to them and that some of the opposition forces engage in it, but the majority of it takes place within Assad’s own forces. Unspeakably brutal acts have been extensively reported by the commission of inquiry. To help mitigate and prevent further irreparable devastation, the UK already provides £800 million in humanitarian aid to support the region, as noble Lords have referred to tonight. We support the UN Population Fund, which provides services in Syria for survivors of sexual and gender-based violence. This includes providing safe spaces and psychosocial care for more than 27,000 women. Through NGOs, we are supporting holistic case management services for more than 800 survivors of gender-based violence among Syrian refugees in Jordan, and cash assistance to vulnerable refugee women in Lebanon.

We also fund two projects in Syria to improve the capacity to document crimes of sexual violence to hold perpetrators to account in the future. In my capacity as the Prime Minister’s special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict, I will be unrelenting in pursuing this and pushing for even more support for survivors of sexual violence and the need for accountability. There can be no impunity; we must hunt these people down, and Syria should be referred to the International Criminal Court.

In answer to one or two noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Naseby, Assad cannot be a credible partner for us. Why? Because he cannot unite Syrians, cannot win broad international backing and cannot defeat ISIL. He is responsible for ISIL’s rise and his presence is fuelling its growth now, as well as providing the operating space for other extremist groups, including al-Qaeda affiliates such as the al-Nusra Front. He is the cause; he is not the cure. Combating ISIL, as noble Lords have said, requires a multi-faceted approach: one that combines a tough military response with an intelligent and nuanced political strategy, degrading ISIL’s access to funds, fighters and resources in both Syria and Iraq, to refer back to the regional perspective. That is why in Iraq, we are building international support for Prime Minister al-Abadi’s Government, which is committed to political reform and to representing all Iraq’s communities, and why we are contributing to US-led efforts to train and equip the moderate opposition fighting ISIL in Syria.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, that there is still no military action by the United Kingdom in Syria because a sovereign Parliament took a sovereign decision in a vote two years ago. We said then that we would not commit troops to the ground to fight, unless there was a severe humanitarian catastrophe which could be solved only by military action or unless our own security interests were so threatened that we had to take immediate action. We would then return immediately to Parliament for consideration and assent.

Quite rightly, noble Lords concentrated on political settlements. Political transition in Syria is fundamental. It would, we hope, allow us a partner in Syria with whom we could work against extremists. Like noble Lords, we are under no illusion that a political transition will be easy or come in the near future, nor that Assad—despite the regime’s territorial losses and the destruction he has brought upon his people—is ready to negotiate. I listened and agreed entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Wright, said with regard to that. Assad is not going any time soon, if he has anything to do with it. There is widespread consensus that Syria’s conflict cannot be resolved militarily. Equally, a collapse of all its state institutions is not in Syria’s interests. That is why we seek an urgent, inclusive, Syrian-led political transition away from Assad’s rule to a transitional Government agreed by mutual consent of the Syrian parties, as called for in the Geneva communiqué—the only document so far agreed by the P5 UNSC members, as well as the key regional partners.

The noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Alton, referred to the Kurds, as did the noble Lord, Lord Wright, and to the work of Staffan de Mistura. We recognise the difficult circumstances that the Syrian Kurds face in the midst of the continuing civil war. We do not, however, support the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party’s formation of a temporary Administration in the Kurdish areas of Syria. This move was not conducted in consultation with the wider Syrian population or the international community. We believe that it will be for all Syrians to decide the exact nature of the political settlement in Syria as part of a transition process, including whether an autonomous region will be created for the Kurds in Syria.

We fully support the work of Staffan de Mistura, the UN special envoy, in his efforts to kick-start a political dialogue. I was pleased last week to be able to meet his deputy to discuss matters while Mr de Mistura was in Syria having discussions. I know that he is a very realistic and determined person. Last week, we discussed with his deputy how the UK can support Staffan de Mistura’s efforts and we are engaging intensively with his team.

We are also working with international partners, which several noble Lords asked about, and the moderate opposition. We do not rule out working with anyone, including Iran and Russia. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Soley, Russia continues to supply arms and intelligence. It continues to support the Assad regime but it could have a vital role to play in ensuring that Assad eventually makes the right decision: to allow a transition.

Key to all our efforts will be the Syrian national coalition, which represents moderate and inclusive values and remains at the heart of the Syrian opposition. It is closely engaging with Staffan de Mistura as he seeks to initiate that whole political process. The national coalition has said that it does not regard itself as a Government in waiting. Once a transition is achieved, it has made it clear that it will disband itself in favour of free and fair elections. That is the path and the strategy that we need. But if we are to undermine extremists, the UK must support the moderates on the ground in Syria who are trying to provide services to their communities and deny opportunities for the extremists, but not with active military assistance. What we have already done is to commit more than £50 million to support governance this year, along with education, health, and sanitation in areas under opposition control. We have helped the Free Syrian Police to establish more than 70 police stations to provide communities with basic security and we are supporting volunteers in 96 civil defence teams to carry out operations in search and rescue, fire-fighting and first aid. That is where our assistance is best placed, not in lethal assistance.

Finally, I turn to humanitarian aid, asylum and migration, matters which were raised by several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Morris and the noble Lords, Lord Alton, Lord Hylton and Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, asked about relics, which I will mention if I have time.

I agree with my noble friend Lady Morris and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that this is the most profound humanitarian catastrophe of our time, which is why we have focused so much financial aid on Syria. I regularly discuss the funding of the United Nations and its allied organisations such as UNRWA not only with fellow Ministers but with the United Nations and its agencies, as I was doing last week in Geneva. I consistently press not only that they should be efficient but that donors should make sure their contributions are made on time.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about refugees. I pay tribute to the work of Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey and recognise their assistance in providing a safe haven for those who flee Syria. I would also say to the noble Lord that aid is entering Syria: the Turks do not routinely close their borders to aid convoys, although they sometimes have to close them for security reasons or simply because of the sheer volume of migrants going across, for their own safety. Only last week I discussed the matter of humanitarian aid going to Syria with the ICRC. I pay tribute to the bravery of its people.

Since 2011, when the crisis began, we have granted asylum or other forms of leave to remain here to more than 4,200 Syrians under our normal asylum rules. In addition, we operate the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme, and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister last week announced some addition to that.

I see that my time is up. It is essential that there is a life in the future in Syria. That includes maintaining the existence of monuments, which are a testament to the past. We have, in Syria, people who deserve a future. We can act to ensure that they have that.

Burma: Ethnic Minorities

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the Government of Burma concerning the persecution and trafficking of the Rohingya Muslims and ethnic minorities in Burma.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)]

My Lords, the United Kingdom raises the problems in Rakhine with the Government of Burma at every opportunity. The Minister of State for Asia Pacific called the Burmese ambassador to the FCO on 18 May to express concern, calling for an urgent humanitarian response and regional co-ordination. In parallel, our ambassador in Rangoon delivered the same message, with the EU and US, in a démarche to Burmese Ministers and again bilaterally on 4 June.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. Approximately 90,000 Rohingya Muslims have been trafficked this year alone. Laws are now proposed to restrict religious conversion and to make it punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment should a Buddhist marry a non-Buddhist, and Rohingya Muslims have been stripped of their right to vote. The root cause of this is militant Buddhist nationalism, which seeks to link Myanmar’s identity to that of being a Buddhist. What representations have Her Majesty’s Government made about the recent case of Htin Lin Oo, a Buddhist, who was sentenced to two years in prison earlier this month after being charged under the penal code with insulting Buddhism simply because he tried to argue that the conduct of extremist Buddhist nationalists, who were preaching hatred and inciting violence, was contrary to the teaching of Buddhism?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, first, I recognise the work that my noble friend does so well for all of us as co-chair of the All-Party Group on International Freedom of Religion or Belief. We are extremely concerned about the approach of the Burmese Government to those who wish to express their own religious identity. We are one of the most outspoken countries in the world about not only freedom of religion and belief but freedoms generally. The Burmese Government are left in no doubt. As to those who are prisoners of the regime, we make it clear that there should be proper treatment of prisoners and proper judicial process. It is wrong around the world if people are inhibited from practising their own belief.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

To be credible we have to be consistent, as the noble Baroness and her committee have always been. The US Commission on International Religious Freedom puts Burma in the worst category and states that its Government are wholly unwilling to investigate and prosecute those who are guilty of abuses against Muslims. The US puts Burma in its “country of particular concern” category. I am pleased that the Government and the EU are making representations with the US, but is it normal to make this joint démarche when, to be powerful and credible, we always ensure that we work with the EU and the US?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

Indeed, yes. We work with both the EU and the US on these matters. With UK support, the issue of Rakhine was discussed at a briefing of the UN Security Council on 28 May, where I raised the matter of Burma with Prince Zeid, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, in Geneva on Monday. I will continue to do so. Later this morning, I meet the US Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom and I will discuss the matter with him personally.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, as one in five Rohingya has now fled since 2011, does the Minister agree that hate speech is a key issue here and that many admirable Buddhist monks and civil society actors are speaking out against this? Can we not do more to help them in what they are doing? Will she also say a word about Kachin state, which is covered by this Question on ethnic minorities, where some 100,000 people have been displaced and more than 200 villages have now been burned to the ground?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, with regard to freedoms—or lack of freedoms—in Burma, we have made it clear that it is essential for Burma to address the dire situation not only of the Rohingya community, but of other persecuted communities, regardless of the region. We want to see improved humanitarian access, greater security and accountability and a sustainable solution on citizenship applying country-wide.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, can the noble Baroness say something about the critical engagement we have with the current Burmese Government? For example, I understand that we are training Burmese military. How much leverage does the closeness of our relationship with the Burmese Government give us to make constructive criticism of this sort?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right in his assumption that this relationship gives us more leverage. It is not merely a matter of providing technical training to the military so that they know the proper way to behave within the confines of reacting to what they may consider to be public disorder. We are also providing technical support in advance of the November elections so that they may be carried out in a proper manner.

[Baroness Warsi (Con)]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the allegations of sexual violence perpetrated by the Burmese army against a number of ethnic minorities during this conflict? I congratulate her on her new role as the Prime Minister’s special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict. What specific work do she and the Foreign Office intend to do in this area?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

I am grateful to my noble friend. It was an honour to be appointed last week by the Prime Minister as his special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict. When I had meetings in Geneva, it became clear that colleagues—not only in the United Nations but in countries and NGOs around the world—are ready and willing to work with the UK on these matters. As to what happens next in practical terms, I assure my noble friend that I have already identified countries where specific action can be taken by me and those around the world with whom I am working. Burma is clearly at the top of the list, as are Syria and Iraq.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister is clearly aware that the new protection of race and religion laws in Burma will make life much harder for Burmese minorities to marry, start a family or change religion. Do the Government agree with Burma’s Cardinal Charles Bo that these laws represent an unacceptable and regrettable erosion of religious freedom?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

I absolutely agree.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the recent disenfranchisement of the Rohingya by the withdrawal of their ID cards is a further, outrageous attack on an already severely persecuted group? Does she accept that the forthcoming elections in Burma cannot possibly be free and fair when hundreds of thousands of people are being denied the right to vote and while the military maintains its 27% stake in the Burmese Parliament?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that the withdrawal of what are known as the white cards from the Rohingya was an improper act. This is the politest phrase I can think of in the circumstances. It severely imperils the appropriateness of the election results. However, we must recognise that Burma is on the cusp of having the opportunity to elect a civilian Government for the first time. This does not prevent our remaining outspoken about the fact that the Rohingya should not have had their ability to vote withdrawn.

Burundi

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they are responding to recent developments in Burundi.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)]

My Lords, my honourable friend the Minister for Africa has called on all parties to end the violence and respect the principles of the Arusha agreement, urging the Burundian Government to delay the elections to ensure that they are credible and inclusive. A political solution must be found. We are working closely with the African Union, the region and the United Nations to achieve this.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, the decision of the President of Burundi to seek a third term—against the constitution of the country—and the violence that subsequently took place have pushed more than 90,000 refugees into Tanzania and other neighbouring countries. We know that violence in Burundi can spill over into Congo, Rwanda, Tanzania and elsewhere, with grave consequences for the whole region. Will the Government support a strong and unanimous perspective from the international organisations—the United Nations, the African Union, the European Union—which have a role here, and will they push those organisations to be as strong as possible on the constitution and the disarmament of those armed groups linked to the political parties?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

I agree entirely with the view put forward by the noble Lord. We are galvanising support across all the nations that should have an interest in the stability of east Africa, but more broadly, as the noble Lord said, multilaterally with the United Nations and all like-minded countries.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, there is a much wider problem, as we all know, across Africa, of heads of state or government refusing to go when their term is up. I thought this morning of my son who, 15 years ago, was in Uganda when Museveni was yet again standing for re-election. Is there any way we can promote the sort of thing that Mo Ibrahim used to do, along with the African Union and the United Nations: offer prizes for relinquishing office to persuade some of these people in Congo, Rwanda, Gambia and elsewhere to leave when their time is up?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very serious point in a memorable way. I cannot think that we will have a competition to decide what should be offered, but it is a very serious point. Third terms are not conducive to a stable method of handing on power to another group.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

I have been waiting to say that for quite a long time. We saw recently the refreshing effect that elections can have.

In the case of Burundi, it is clear that the first term of President Nkurunziza was by appointment, not by election. It is therefore time for him to step aside, and to have open and fair elections.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Does my noble friend accept that many sub-Saharan African leaders find it so profitable to be in power that the sums that will have to be paid to get them to go will have to be very substantial?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, that is certainly an interesting point of view.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab)]

My Lords, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has said that increased government militia violence could push Burundi over the edge. Does the Minister agree that, since we are seeing the deepest conflict and violence for a decade in Burundi, there is a chance of old ethnic battles between Hutus and Tutsis reopening?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

The noble Baroness paints the picture about which we are all concerned—that this should not be an event that leads to Burundi returning to violence. The Arusha agreement of 2000 took them out of that, and they have a Government who reflect both Tutsis and Hutus. It is that kind of inclusive government that we will seek to continue. It is not a happy picture of the future if that were to break down.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, there is speculation in the media this morning about the future of the UN special envoy for the Great Lakes. Could the Minister update the House on the current situation? It is vital that his role continue, and that he continue in it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

Indeed, the noble Lord raises an important point. We have always expressed our clear support for the United Nations special envoy, Said Djinnit, as a mediator in the political dialogue. I know that there have been some rumours at the African Union summit, which is currently under way, that he may be considering resigning from that position. Our most recent information from conversations with him within the last 24 hours is that he has the will and determination to continue, but clearly it is a matter for other countries to determine whether they are prepared properly to undertake work with him. I hope that he is able to continue; I understand that he and others will be watching the discussions at the African Union summit to see where we can go from there. Our support is fully behind Djinnit, and we feel that he has the opportunity to find a resolution eventually.

Saudi Arabia: Raif Badawi

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Avebury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have made to the government of Saudi Arabia about the confirmation of a sentence of 1,000 lashes and 10 years in prison against Raif Badawi.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)]

My Lords, we are extremely concerned about Raif Badawi’s case and have discussed it at the most senior levels in the Government of Saudi Arabia, most recently on 9 June. The Foreign Secretary discussed this case in February and March with the Saudi Minister of the Interior, His Royal Highness Mohammad bin Naif, now Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. The case is under active consideration and we will continue to watch it closely.

[Lord Avebury (LD)]

My Lords, when the first 50 lashes were administered to Mr Badawi, he needed medical attention. If the Saudi Supreme Court’s decision that he should undergo a further 19 sessions of 50 lashes each is carried into effect, it will amount to torture followed by death. Does my noble friend consider it appropriate for a state such as Saudi Arabia, which has barbarous and inhumane punishments on its statute book for trivial offences, to continue to be a member of the Human Rights Council, and will the UK take steps to have the country removed from that position?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I shall be attending the Human Rights Council early next week. I know that a wide range of issues will be raised but I have not yet seen any matter referring to the membership of any individual country. However, it is the view of the United Kingdom that the treatment of people in detention must be in line with the protocol on torture, to which, of course, Saudi Arabia is a signatory.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about the role of the United Nations Human Rights Council is fundamental? As recently as last week, the conference held by the OIC took place in Jeddah of all places—in a country which ranks sixth on the World Watch List for countries that violate freedom of religion and belief. Will she say whether the United Kingdom raised Raif Badawi’s case during that conference?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I repeat that I have raised this case on several occasions over a period. We remain deeply concerned and will continue to do our duty in that regard. On Tuesday in another place, the Foreign Secretary made it clear that we are urgently seeking to make contact with interlocutors and continue to do so. He said:

“It will be my intention certainly to ensure that nothing happens on Friday”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/15; col. 1042.],

and he hopes that nothing of that nature happens at all.

[Lord Tugendhat (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tugendhat]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is important that the Government maintain the position that she has just outlined? The way in which we react to what happens in Saudi Arabia is often taken by places such as Russia and China as an example of whether we are willing to be firm with countries with which we are on very good terms as a means of putting pressure on countries with which we are on less good terms.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I agree that we have a consistent stance with regard to human rights. With regard to the death penalty and torture, we say that they are wrong in principle and in practice. We make those views strongly heard both in international fora and in Saudi Arabia itself. The Saudi Arabians are under no illusions about our views on what is proper treatment and what is a proper penal code.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, quite apart from the barbaric nature of this sentence, does the noble Baroness not agree that there is a strategic dimension to this situation? Can we not get our Saudi Arabian friends to understand that we are involved in a vital battle for hearts and minds in the world, and that action such as this, which is symbolic of many other attitudes and actions in Saudi Arabia, is not helping to win that battle?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the area is unstable, which is an understatement. We all appreciate the seriousness of events in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. We should appreciate that Saudi Arabia itself feels the threats around it and yet also assists very strongly with regard to our efforts against ISIL. Saudi Arabia is under no illusions about the importance of its actions on security in the region.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, your Lordships’ House will not be unaware of the discrepancy between the attitude to human rights displayed in Saudi Arabia’s public condemnation of the Charlie Hebdo atrocities and this case, where somebody is being punished on the basis of religion. Does the Minister agree that there is a considerable dissonance between the public image that Saudi Arabia is seeking to present and the country’s internal affairs?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I think we have to recognise that the actions of the Saudi Government in these respects have the support of the vast majority of the Saudi population. Against that background, we maintain our view that freedom of religion and belief and freedom of expression are core rights that lead to long-term stability and good governance.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords—

United Nations: Secretary-General

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the candidates and process for appointing the next Secretary-General of the United Nations.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)]

My Lords, while the United Kingdom is aware of prospective candidates, we have a policy of not revealing voting intentions in the Secretary-General selection process. We believe that the process would benefit from greater structure and transparency. The UK is therefore supporting moves to set clear deadlines for candidates to declare themselves and for the selection to take place, to encourage greater public scrutiny of candidates and to promote more applications from women.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the UK Government on having moved somewhat in a progressive direction, certainly more than France has, in terms of Matthew Rycroft’s moves in this regard. However, does she agree that a selection process needs to be set up, that we need to do away with regional assignments for the role of Secretary-General and, most importantly, that more than one candidate should go forward to the General Assembly for selection? Does she also agree that after 70 years of male domination, it is time for a female candidate to be put to the General Assembly because international peace and security is far too important to be left to only half the human race?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I agree with that last statement. Certainly, if a job represents the interests of the world, people cannot exclude half the population. It is high time for a woman to lead the United Nations but of course we need credible candidates and it has to be an appointment on merit as well. With regard to having more than one candidate, a General Assembly resolution in 1946 established that it would be desirable for the Security Council to nominate only one candidate. We are at the start of a process where we look for allies around the United Nations to ensure that the next process is transparent and fair.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister, whom we welcome back, has set out an admirable list of objectives. We hope that perhaps FIFA, when it comes to its choice, will have a similar list of objectives. Can she tell us whether the other countries are ready to support those objectives, or will they continue in the old mode of regional rotation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

I did not take up the noble Baroness’s reference to regional rotation because of the requirement to give just two answers but we are not in support of regional rotation as a matter of course. It may be that a region has been underrepresented for some time and therefore it is appropriate to look at the candidate for that region but the appointment must be on merit. With regard to the next process, we are already seeking to win over support and it is clear that there should be the opportunity for civil society and NGOs to take part in some of the early process.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the position as described by the Minister this afternoon, which would represent an enormous way forward from the present system. Would she apply that principle to other senior posts at the United Nations, not just to the Secretary-General?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, good practice is good practice and one should seek to spread it wherever one can. There is certainly a way in which one should subject other senior appointments to scrutiny as well. We are undertaking work—I am being very careful in how I phrase this—on United Nations reform, on which I am having a meeting later this afternoon. I know that I have a tough road ahead but I have certainly got the right boots on and I am going to walk it.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the United Kingdom has access to two very useful networks at the United Nations: the European Union and the Commonwealth. Can we be assured that it is working very closely with its partners in both those networks, to make sure that there are concerted views, and that the need for effective diplomatic leadership from the new candidate is one of the clear criteria which we push?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I can give that assurance.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)]

My Lords, have the Government given any thought to the possibility of introducing a longer single term for the next Secretary-General of the United Nations, to relieve the new incumbent from the pressure of re-election?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, it is always difficult for an unelected House to talk about trying to extend the elected terms of others, so at the moment we want to concentrate on providing a process that is transparent and fair while encouraging women to feel that they should come forward. However, I should say that our process of policy-making on this was given a very good helping hand by the views put forward in this House earlier this year, and we should take credit for that.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, since there is still a second, can I press the Minister to say whether she believes that the inclusion of Australia and New Zealand in the western European bloc—in other words in the category of western Europe—is appropriate, given that apparently one of the strong female contenders is from New Zealand?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the United Nations has its own way of defining regions but I come back to my earlier point that regional rotation is not of itself the first port of call. Naturally, I would never seek to comment on particular candidates.