The Importance of the Relationship Between the United Kingdom and India

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Hannay of Chiswick

Thursday 19th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, at the beginning of this month, India took over the chair of the G20. In a few months’ time, it will overtake China as the world’s most populous nation—perhaps not an unmixed blessing but still one with geopolitical consequences. So what better moment to review our own country’s relationship with India? All credit and thanks are due to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for making that possible. The two excellent maiden speeches that we have had, as well as the unique valedictory speech, show the width of interest in our relationship with India.

The histories of Britain and India have been deeply intertwined for the past several hundred years, but as we look now to the future, we need to remember that the different views of our mutual experience are part of a complex picture, and not invariably a positive one. For many Indians, Britain stands for damage to their economy, for the use of force to overthrow their rulers, and for terrible human rights abuses—the Amritsar massacre prominent among them. For Britons, there may still be traces of imperial nostalgia, and there is justifiable pride at promoting a free press, freedom of speech, parliamentary democracy, the rule of law—my own grandfather was a High Court judge in Madras—and one of India’s accepted languages, our own tongue. These histories contain many contradictions which need to be borne in mind but not to be predominant.

Currently, one has to begin with trade relations, since negotiations for an India-UK free trade agreement are ongoing. That is a worthwhile objective. But we really should cease setting artificial deadlines for their completion—“all done and dusted by Diwali” last October was the most recent one—and we should remember that those who show excessive neediness for a deal are likely to pay a price for it. India has a history of trade protectionism—after all, it scuppered the Doha round of multilateral trade negotiations—so a free trade deal on the basis of effective reciprocity, a characteristic not always evident in some recent trade deals that the Government have struck, will be a challenge not best achieved by excessive haste.

The Indo-Pacific tilt proclaimed in the Johnson Government’s security review is currently the object of further reflection following Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine. That war has upended every previous analysis and cannot be ignored. Britain’s security requires not only continuing support for Ukraine but the strengthening of our contribution to NATO. That does not mean that we have lost an interest in seeing peaceful stability restored to India’s Himalayan border with China, in securing freedom of passage through the Indian Ocean, the South China Sea and the East China Sea, and in avoiding any attack on Taiwan. However, we cannot be everywhere and do everything, and we should not pretend that we can, if only because our claim would not be credible. I suggest that we need to look for ways of co-operating with India in sophisticated areas of military, technology and training to enhance the deterrence of an overassertive China.

We really must not neglect our soft power assets, which have a particular significance in our relationship with India, given our common use of the English language, the BBC’s overseas services, the British Council and our universities. But we are cutting back spending on the first two, and the Home Secretary seems to believe that making it easier for Indian students, particularly post-graduate students, to come to UK universities is something that should be discouraged, even when India clearly wants to make access easier. Does it make any sense to thus damage one of our most valuable invisible exports and, at the same time, to make conclusion of our trade negotiations more difficult?

I have said enough already to illustrate why the eminently desirable objective of strengthening Britain’s relations with India will not be entirely straightforward—and that is without even mentioning legitimate concerns about the effect of the Indian Government’s tendencies towards majoritarian treatment of their minorities and of their effect on their obligations under the UN and other international conventions. These cannot simply be overlooked, nor can the opportunistically limp Indian reaction to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord’s time is up.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

I am coming to a conclusion.

Let us hope that India’s chairing of the G20 will be marked, as it was in the case of Indonesia, by a better response to flagrant breaches of international law. I look forward to the Minister’s responses to some of these points when he replies to the debate.

Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Hannay of Chiswick

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, my honourable friend Tom Pursglove made clear in the other place that no unaccompanied asylum-seeking child will be sent to Rwanda, and I am sure I repeated it in this House.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister familiar with the statement by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Filippo Grandi—he is, after all, the guardian of the migration convention—that the action by the Government was not in conformity with international law? If that is the case, what right do the Government have to elevate their view of international law above that of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, whose job is to guard that convention?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, we had much discussion about the UNHCR’s view of the Nationality and Borders Act. We disagreed. He is perfectly within his rights to say what he did, but we respectfully disagree.

UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership Arrangement

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Hannay of Chiswick

Monday 25th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I think I have explained the provisions in the Bill. They are underpinned by legislation going back over 20 years but, as I explained to the House during the passage of the Bill, it is the certification process that is now in play in the Bill.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

If, as they say, the Government see the need for new and innovative means of dealing with the migration crisis now, did they have any contact with any of the other signatories to the refugee convention about these new and innovative methods before taking action on their own?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I think it is quite clear why we are taking action now.

Refugees and Asylum Seekers

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Hannay of Chiswick

Monday 28th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

As we speak, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is outlining some of the further things we will be doing to help our colleagues and friends in Ukraine, as has the Prime Minister over the last 24 hours. This Question is about the UNHCR in relation to the refugee convention, and we do not think that anything in what we do breaches the convention.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister not recognise that although it is very welcome that she says that the Government will be sticking by their obligations under the convention, it is not terribly convincing when they are simply marking their own homework? What does she have to say about the extremely detailed and well-argued views put forward by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees about the legislation we will be considering later today? Why should we accept her word rather than the UNHCR’s word? Surely, they know about their own convention?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

It is absolutely for the UNHCR to comment on our interpretation of the refugee convention, but it is for Parliament to determine our interpretation of it.

Immigration: Points-based System

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Hannay of Chiswick

Tuesday 25th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I totally concur with my noble friend. On 20 February—only a few days ago—we launched the new fast-track arrangements, managed by UK Research and Innovation, which enable UK-based research projects that have received recognised prestigious grants and awards to recruit that top global talent. However, as she also says, we want those experts to be able to come and furnish us with the benefit of their knowledge: I will most certainly take that back.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister answer a couple of questions about the impact of this points-based system on the higher education sector? First, she said in the Statement that there would be an English test: is that test to be carried out by the Home Office or by the higher education establishments, which are required to offer a place to a student before they can get a visa? Secondly, I think she said, but perhaps she can confirm this, that the points-based system will not apply to higher education. However, my reading of the Statement is that it will apply. What I cannot understand, for the life of me, is how on earth students coming to our universities can acquire the points that are required. They certainly cannot state that they are going to get a particular income. They are not getting an income at all: they are coming with a large amount of money in their hands to pay to us. Will she answer those two points about higher education, and also perhaps say how we are going to test whether they have enough funds to see them through a three- or four-year course?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

A student coming to this country will have to demonstrate that they have the funds to pay for the course and be sponsored by the relevant university or higher education establishment. I think that point has long been clear. As for a student coming to this country having the English language, I have a feeling it depends on the course, but I will check that for the noble Lord and return to him on that point. Of course, the student can now stay for an additional two years after they have qualified in order to find work, which obviously makes the system far more generous than it was before.

Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Hannay of Chiswick

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 2nd reading (Hansard)
Tuesday 4th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I said that it is not a replacement for the EAW, but of course the Government can make that request of Parliament. I was going to come to that point a bit later; in fact, no, I think I answered it. The Government can request Parliament, through the affirmative procedure, to add countries.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness but I simply do not understand why she spent a huge amount of time telling us that this has nothing whatever to do with the European arrest warrant—that it has no relevance and is not in the same context. She has told us that again and again. Why on earth did this point elude police officers who wrote about this measure? Why did it elude a large number of extremely well-informed—much better informed than me—people in this House who think it relevant? I simply do not understand why she is so determined to say so. All my questions, which she has not answered, were designed to get a positive answer, which would increase support for this measure—for example, if she said that it was a step that would enable us, in certain circumstances, where we have definitively lost the European arrest warrant, to do things that might then enable us to have reciprocal arrangements with other members of the European Union. She has not said a word about the security negotiations with the European Union.

Nobody asked that this measure should not be reciprocal; I did not and neither did any other noble Lord. We asked whether we will use this legislation—these powers—to persuade the other members of the European Union that we need a solid reciprocal arrangement if, by any chance, we get to the end of this year and such an arrangement has not been negotiated. Can the Minister explain why she is so keen not to refer to any of these issues?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I hope that I talked about the other EU instruments we are negotiating on; I think I did so at the beginning of my closing speech. I was asked about reciprocity twice, which is why I answered. I also stated quite clearly that it was our intention to do this with or without our membership of the European Union, which is why the Bill was put forward. I am not trying to deny anything about the European arrest warrant; all I am saying is that we are doing this with or without our European Union membership because it is a gap in our capabilities regarding category 2 countries.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Hannay of Chiswick

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard continued) & Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 15th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

No, I was not making that inference. I was trying to point out both consistency and inconsistency within some of the debates we have been having today, as noble Lords seem to have contradicted themselves depending on what the issue is. On the division of competences between Parliament and Government, noble Lords will have seen, and will continue to see, changes being made across the Bill. It does not undermine our policy intent and rightly ensures that Parliament is informed of our policy intentions in respect of our future arrangements. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that we have already written to the Commission, and that is correct. It shows our intent and commitment in the coming year.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, spoke of Clause 37 killing Section 17. It does not; it amends it, as he went on to outline.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Could she be clearer about this correspondence with the Commission? The Minister said in the meeting we had yesterday, and again just now, that a letter went to the Commission in October, to which there has been no reply. It is perhaps not surprising, since the Commission does not have a mandate to negotiate until after we have left the European Union. Perhaps that is a perfectly innocent explanation, but surely the amendment being moved will actually strengthen the Government’s hand when they come to negotiate in March or April, by demonstrating the high priority which Parliament gives to it?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The reason we have not had a reply is probably, as the noble Lord pointed out, to do with the fact that we have a new Commissioner. I do not agree with the noble Lord’s point—this amendment ties the Government’s hands in negotiation, and we do not wish to see that. We want to articulate our commitment through the manifesto and in Clause 37.