Myanmar (Sanctions) Regulations 2021
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I welcome this debate and, like others, fear that for many in Myanmar this comes too late; they have been slaughtered by the junta. Along with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, I welcome the clear speech from the Minister.
I recall hearing Aung San Suu Kyi when she spoke to both our Houses here in Westminster Hall on 21 June 2012, as the first citizen of Asia with a long history of courage and resistance to a regime. Not one of us would have believed we would now be seeing the way that events have unfolded. We heard then of the history of unimaginable brutality in that country and of fear running through the veins of every citizen in Myanmar. We had cautious optimism then that under her leadership the people of Burma would be released from its history of violence.
Alas, that was not to be. Despite a landslide victory in the general election on 8 November 2020, the military-backed Union Solidarity and Development Party rejected the results and, as has been said, on 1 February this year the coup happened with an imposed state of emergency. Since then, the brutality of the Tatmadaw has known no bounds. To do nothing and say nothing would be to endorse its actions.
The Minister has outlined much of what we know and described the need for sanctions targeted on the military regime. I suggest that these regulations need strengthening and that the complex politics of the region—it has close links with its neighbouring countries—needs clarification to best target the sanctions against Myanmar and particularly the military regime.
Anyone protesting, calling for the democracy that had begun to emerge a few years earlier, is a target for the regime. Medical professionals have been systematically targeted. Unable to treat patients in hospitals, they are trying to provide care in makeshift clinics, despite the threat to their own lives in trying to help others. Healthcare workers have been killed, and the regime is in breach of the First Geneva Convention relating to medical neutrality in conflict. In Yangon province alone, at least 100 medical students have been arbitrarily arrested. This is also a gross violation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which was ratified by Myanmar in 2017.
Despite the internet being closed down, reports have come out from Myanmar of people who are listed on the television then being taken from their homes at night, and the following morning their mutilated bodies are returned to their families. They have undergone torture. Some have been split open and their bodies roughly sewn closed, and the family is instructed to cremate them immediately. The poet Khet Thi and his wife were both arrested. When she was told to go to the hospital the following day, she found that his body had been split open and his internal organs were missing. There are reports of young protesters in the streets being shot in the head and then, groaning and wounded, thrown into the back of army trucks, never to be seen alive again. Small children have been shot, some in their own homes.
According to witnesses to the Foreign Affairs Committee’s Myanmar crisis inquiry, 52% of the military hardware is supplied to the military regime by China, and the remainder mostly by India and Russia. As Britain holds the presidencies of both the G7 and the United Nations Security Council, as well as having a close relationship with Association of Southeast Asian Nations member states and others in the region, I ask the Government how we are using the leverage of these important positions to cut off the financial incentives to the junta’s regime of intimidation and terror.
Integrated Review: Development Aid
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Excerpts(3 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble and learned friend, but we must again be strict with the time limit.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Desai. Lord Desai?
For a third time, I will try to call the noble Lord, Lord Desai. Perhaps the noble Lord needs to unmute? If he is not here, I will move on to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl) [V]
I am trying to unmute. Someone has to unmute me, I am sorry.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
We can hear you, please speak now for your two minutes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, we will resume. Would the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, continue her speech from where she was interrupted?
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
As I was saying, the total ODA budget, dependent as it is on GNI, will be substantially lower anyway. The added cuts will affect those programmes that can least withstand budget cuts. This includes the support of women and girls in those countries most severely threatened.
Despite the astonishing gains made by women in Afghanistan over the last 20 years or so, the Taliban has made it clear that there is little change in its worldview, belief systems and patterns of ruling. What is at stake is not only a return to violence, terror and, above all, savage repression of women but the potential for ethnic division. In the current context in Afghanistan that will mean a war against all non-Pashto-speaking or non-supportive groups by the Taliban. A civil war on this level would be devastating and set Afghanistan back several decades—a religious war engulfing south Asia and probably well beyond.
The UK, which, in supplying some of the more hard-line mujaheddin groups with arms in the 1980s, contributed to the formation of the Taliban, surely would not wish this kind of legacy. While the UK, even working with its allies, will not eradicate the Taliban, its consistent commitment to building the institutions of democracy has definitely had an impact. It would be heartbreaking and irresponsible to see these gains lost in a matter of months.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, we will now resume and continue with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the second major part of this debate refers to the Government’s assertion that we will return to this duty, which they are reneging on, when the fiscal situation allows. This is what the Minister told the House on 16 March. I have asked the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, three times in the Chamber what those fiscal criteria are and I have not received an answer. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, specifically asked the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, the same question today and I hope that there will be a reply. As I said in our debate on the integrated review, the Government either know what the criteria are, and are actively and deliberately withholding them from Parliament, or they are simply using disingenuous language. The Minister must tell us which it is today; he has 20 minutes and there is no reason not to spell this out in his response to the debate, because he has been asked that specific question.
There are, then, two areas of unlawfulness. One is the setting of the new 0.5% target that the Minister has referred to. Can he also state where in legislation it allows the Government to set a target at 0.5%?
One of the themes of this debate, which has been heartbreaking, is that the Government have not carried out humanitarian impact assessments for the extent of the cuts that they are making. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, also refused to answer a question from me about whether the cuts for Yemen came after an impact assessment. Chris Bold, the development director for Yemen, admitted to a House of Commons committee:
“We have not done an impact assessment.”
If the Government believe that the cuts are popular—though not based on evidence and without having carried out an impact assessment—why are they not simply being honest and straightforward in telling us what the criteria are, and what the impact is likely to be?
I said at the outset that I would not cite the broken Conservative manifesto commitments, but I will cite another manifesto, if the Committee will allow me:
“we wish to see the breaking down of barriers to international trade. Greater freedom in international trade will assist the underdeveloped countries who need markets for their products. We support the principle that in accordance with the Pearson Report Britain and other countries should contribute 1 per cent of Gross National Product of official aid to developing countries as soon as possible. We are totally opposed to all forms of racial and religious discrimination.”
That was the Liberal manifesto for the June 1970 election, which predates the UN resolution of October 1970. I cite it not because I am proud that my party has stood the test of time with this commitment but because it was a global consensus on which, after many years, there was a political consensus in the UK between the parties and beyond parties, with Gordon Brown as Chancellor and Tony Blair as Prime Minister, and later under David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Theresa May, which has now been dashed by this Government.
A journalist reported in 2019:
“Penny Mordaunt gave a presentation on foreign aid in which she said 0.7% in the current form is ‘unsustainable’.”
On 29 January 2019, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, replied:
“I hope this is incorrect. The 0.7 per cent commitment isn’t simply about charity. Spent properly, foreign aid makes the world safer, more sustainable and more stable. It benefits us all.”
Our contribution to making the world safer, more sustainable and more stable is being reduced, by an unlawful cut, by one-third this year and next, and there is no transparent commitment for the year after. As was said recently in a meeting chaired by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, which I attended, we are not cutting aid, we are cutting co-operation. We are not a lesser donor, we are a more unreliable partner—but not in my name or that of my party.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, we will now resume. We will continue with the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
By bringing down the budget to 0.5%, the Government will be making it impossible to maintain the order of priorities to deliver the objectives of the integrated review. However, the reason these cuts are so dangerous is not just because of their size: it is also because of where they will fall and their speed.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, in his excellent introduction, mentioned the leaked memo. Other noble Lords have mentioned the cutting of funding for life-saving access to clean water by 80%. However, the Power of Nutrition, of which the FCDO is a founding partner, is set to have its funding slashed by more than 50%—I declare an interest as co-chair of the Nutrition for Growth APPG. Nutrition represents the biggest multiplier in development. We have been a leader around the globe on nutrition; it is appalling that these cuts are taking place. UNAIDS, which is at the forefront of tackling HIV globally, has had its funding cut by 85%. The Global Polio Eradication Initiative has been told that it will receive just £5 million from the FCDO this year, a cut of 95%. Save the Children estimates that last week’s announcement will result in 3 million fewer people receiving life-saving assistance. Is this really the kind of country that we want to be?
I hope that the Minister will be able to answer questions this afternoon. Can he assure the House that he will honour the financial commitments that his department has made to multilateral organisations, such as Gavi and the Global Fund? Will he, if he intends to give just £5 million to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative this year, make up for the shortfall in subsequent years? Will he commit today to honouring his Government’s commitment of £400 million by 2023? Can he tell us the budget allocated for nutrition programmes over the next year and, if he cannot today, when will he be able to tell us?
The speed of these cuts is also dangerous. It seems incredibly unlikely that the department would have had sufficient time to consider their impact and prioritise effectively. We have already received confirmation—my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws raised this—that no assessment had been made of the impact of aid cuts in Yemen. Without effective exit strategies, there is now a huge risk that the previous achievements will be thrown away. The speed of these cuts has meant that the Government have been unable to consult civil society and the aid sector properly. As a result, organisations have been unable to plan effectively to respond to the cuts. Can the Minister detail how the Government are engaging with the aid sector, and what representations have been recently received?
To think that our reputation will be intact after the Government ignore their own manifesto commitments and their own laws in breaking the 0.7% is absolutely ridiculous, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has said. Our closest allies—the US and the rest of Europe—all accept that a global crisis requires more support, not less. My noble friend Lord Khan has made this point. President Biden announced an increase of more than $5 billion for USAID. In the past year, France and Germany have increased development spending by 11% and 14% respectively. Japan, which the review refers to as
“one of our closest strategic partners”
is also spending more on aid than ever before. If the Government are serious about strengthening our alliances, then the answer is not to move carelessly out of step on development. The Government must offer a positive vision for international development.
The greatest framework for this is the UN sustainable development goals. I too pay tribute to David Cameron: his leadership on the SDGs was vital, building on the leadership of Gordon Brown on the millennium development goals. That leadership has, I am afraid, been abrogated. We must provide that positive agenda. The 2030 agenda, if achieved, will end extreme poverty, hunger and gender-based violence, and ensure that every individual has access to rights including safe drinking water, quality education and clean energy. But the Government have abandoned those previous efforts to lead on the SDGs; the drastic reduction in development aid is only further evidence of that.
The integrated review is welcome, and I hope the whole House would support the idea of the UK being a force for good. But the Government will not achieve this for the UK by withdrawing from the world, reducing UK development aid and making cuts in all the worst places. There is no question that by following this path, the Government will make the world a more dangerous and less predictable place, making the review’s emphasis on security and resilience completely meaningless. We all want Britain to succeed on the world stage but for the integrated review to be worth the paper it is written on, the Government need to end the contradictions and inconsistencies between their words and actions. That starts with supporting once again the principles of sustainable development.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, the Grand Committee stands adjourned until 5.35 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Global Population Growth
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, the education of women and girls is a personal priority of the Prime Minister. It is a top international priority in relation to our spending of overseas development assistance. I cannot give the noble Lord figures going forward, because these decisions are still being taken, but I can absolutely assure him that the education of women and girls will remain a top priority, alongside climate change and tackling nature destruction. We will continue under all and any circumstances to be among the world’s most generous supporters of the kind of initiatives that the noble Lord has just cited.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
Following the helpful proposal over the five priorities, how will the Government encourage others to increase aid for the education of women and girls in a sustainable way, including sustainable energy production and sustainable agriculture and public health measures, in order to create sustainable education programmes in the long term?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
The principal goal of COP 26—our job, in a sense—is to make real the commitments that were made in Paris under the Paris Agreement. We want countries cumulatively to bring emissions down in line with those commitments and that means all countries coming forward with realistic plans for 2030—improved nationally determined contributions and long-term strategies to reach net zero as soon as possible. Part of that involves increasing finance, so we are putting a lot of pressure on other donor countries to increase the finance that they make available for climate change and for nature-based solutions to climate change.
Covid-19: Repatriation of UK Nationals
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Excerpts(3 years, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for their questions. I start by thanking them for their kind remarks acknowledging the work that has been done. As a Minister responsible for a particular part of the world—south Asia—that has seen thousands and thousands of British travellers being impacted, I am acutely aware of the challenge that has been posed by the repatriation efforts. Again, I commend the efforts of our diplomats on the ground, and the consular efforts being made through countless numbers of emails and telephone calls. Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness mentioned the ramping up of consular support. We have certainly seen this in the inquiries made by parliamentary colleagues on behalf of their constituents and in response to direct cases. The current level is circa 3,000 calls—to put that in context, around 45% of those calls cover south Asia. A substantial number of calls are coming in for that part of the world.
I acknowledge the support of both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord on the issue of vaccines. This remains a key priority. We are all watching closely the recent developments in Oxford and we wish well everyone around the world who is seeking a solution. I am proud that, notwithstanding the domestic challenges posed by the Covid-19 crisis, the support that we are giving to Gavi and CEPI underlines the United Kingdom’s commitment to standing up with partners in the global fight against coronavirus, as well as against other viruses.
I took part in a multilateral conference organised by our German and French colleagues—the Foreign Ministers of both countries—which, again, underlines the level of co-operation. Picking up on a point made by the noble Baroness about working with our EU partners, the UK will be hosting a joint conference with the EU on our response to Covid-19. Whether on repatriation or our general response internationally, I assure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that we will continue to work with our EU partners as well as other international partners on this global crisis.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised the various communication challenges with various posts. He mentioned India specifically. I put on record my thanks to our acting high commissioner, who has taken to her task in an admirable fashion. I know the volume of British nationals that she has been challenged with repatriating. It is notable that with 52 charter flights from India we will have returned more than 10,000 British travellers to the United Kingdom. That is no small feat. It is down to our consular efforts in India and to the support that was subsequently given. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord mentioned that we started our charter flights later than other partners. As a former Aviation Minister of two years standing, I know all too well the challenges posed by securing charter permissions. I stand by our actions, as does the Foreign Secretary, when we sought to keep using commercial routes where they were viable. A good and notable example of that was Pakistan, from where we were able to return more than 7,500 people on commercial flights because the national carrier PIA continued to operate.
On pricing, which the noble Lord raised, as it relates to some commercial carriers, we have addressed this directly with the airlines. For example, PIA has restarted its flights and its current charging is reflective of the charter flights that we are deploying from Pakistan. We will continue to employ these flights. We have extended flights to other countries, including Bangladesh. Through charter flights, we have returned 800 people from Nepal and, on commercial flights, 600 people from the Maldives. That gives an example of how a combination of commercial operations and charter flights has resulted in the substantial success thus far of the policy.
However, I am not complacent. Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord raised the issue of British travellers who are still abroad. There are a large number, running into the thousands, in India alone, as well as in Pakistan. It is a patch I know well. I assure noble Lords that we are working around the clock to ensure that flights are laid on. Some people are undoubtedly making decisions to stay in-country. They are looking at the domestic profile of the coronavirus spread in the UK compared with in the country they may be visiting, or where they may be staying with friends or family. We are stressing to anyone who has booked a charter flight that, once they have booked it, they should get on that flight; otherwise, they will be denying an opportunity to someone else to return.
The noble Lord also raised the issue of the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee and issues of repatriation, communications and commercial routes, which I have already addressed.
The noble Baroness asked about partnership and working on the issue of PPE with all partners. I have referenced a couple of countries, including in my patch of south Asia, that we are sourcing PPE from. The Foreign Secretary has made this a priority. We are part of the EU scheme. I think that the misunderstandings that arose have been addressed directly by the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office in his response to the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
I also assure both noble Lords that we are dealing tomorrow with issues surrounding the development response. I will seek to update them regularly to ensure that all noble Lords, particularly those serving on our Front Benches, are fully versed in the numbers and challenges that we face. I have been a Foreign Office Minister for close to three years now, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, keeps reminding me, but I have never faced a challenge like this. There have been crises, but this is unprecedented. When we say that, it is probably an understatement. But I assure noble Lords that we are leaving no stone unturned and we are undoubtedly learning lessons from the challenges that are being posed.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked what more could be done, and we are learning lessons, such as on the vulnerability of individuals who are visiting countries. That is why, with the Foreign Secretary’s approval and at my direction, countries, certainly in the areas that I looked after, opened up registers before the charter flights started to ensure that we could identify the most vulnerable and those with underlying medical conditions so that they could be returned as soon as possible on the earlier charter flights. The charter flights continue, and we will continue to update the House regularly on this important issue, which I know is of concern to all noble Lords.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
We now come to the 30 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I thank the noble Lord and I am pleased that his friends were able to return. I appreciate the challenge faced by the most vulnerable in particular, and as he says, there are still many vulnerable people seeking to return. He raises, rightly, the challenge faced in some parts of the world. We have focused some of our work on the most vulnerable—vulnerable in terms of not just their health but the situations in which they find themselves within country. In certain parts of the world, that vulnerability is quite acute. The first and foremost message is: if they are concerned, they should immediately get in touch with our diplomats on the ground through the consulates, high commissions and embassies; they will seek to provide whatever support is needed. Whether it is immediate emotional support, pastoral support or financial support, our missions are very much ready to provide those people with whatever help they need. If they are concerned about their own security, again, where possible they should contact local law enforcement. However, please do get in touch with our embassies and consulates.
The Deputy Speaker
My Lords, that brings us to the end of the questions on the Statement and I thank all who have contributed. The system that we will use next week is different. This is the last broadcast with this system and we hope that everyone will have a better experience, including those who watch our proceedings. As for today, and this week, the virtual proceedings are now complete and are adjourned.