Israel: Arms Sales

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellingham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what representations they have received following their announcement to restrict certain arms sales to Israel.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, as was expected and as is understandable, the range of reactions to our suspension of some export licences to Israel illustrates the depth of feeling about the conflict. Our licensing criteria state that the Government will not issue export licences if there is a clear risk that they might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law. We have concluded that there is a clear risk. Our priority remains achieving a ceasefire in Gaza with hostages released, civilians protected and aid flooding in.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but will she reflect on the fact that this announcement coincided with the cold-blooded and barbaric murder of six Israeli hostages by Hamas? What sort of message does this send to Hamas and its backers in Iran? Also, what does it say to Israel, a democratic ally, which is basically being accused by us of being a rogue state when it is defending itself against terror?

May I ask the Minister a question about licences? Out of 350, only 30 have been suspended, on the grounds of humanitarian problems and the treatment of detainees, but surely if there was a serious legal problem, they would have all been suspended. Can the Minister confirm to the House that this decision was based specifically on legal advice and not on internal Labour politics?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

If the noble Lord wants to talk about internal Labour Party politics, he has come to the right place. I have spent a lot of time on this topic, and I can assure him at this Box—and he must hold me to this—that this decision had nothing to do with internal Labour Party politics, and neither should it.

On the 30 licences, as the noble Lord is probably aware, there are a number of licences. Not all the items the licences are subject to could be used either in Gaza or for actions that might compromise international humanitarian law, such as food-testing kits. That is the reason why 30 specific licences have been dealt with as they have.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, had all the licences been suspended, the accusation from the Benches opposite would have been valid. It is because those 320 licences have not been suspended that we are assured that we are prepared and willing to help Israel defend itself against Iran or Hezbollah, or whatever external forces may be intent on destroying the State of Israel. Does my noble friend not agree that that confirms that this process has been entirely proper?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

This decision came at the conclusion of a process which the Foreign Secretary initiated upon his appointment, where a review was commenced. The earliest opportunity to make both Houses aware of the conclusion of that review was on the first day we returned, earlier this week, and that is the reason for the timing of the announcement.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, yesterday the House debated a new Holocaust learning centre in Westminster and much was made of the vacuous statement “never again”. Today we hear of support for arms for Ukraine. We supply them to Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other countries that kill their opponents. Why do the Government undermine protection for a state that needs them for self-defence to combat murderous terrorists whose avowed aim is to kill Jews? Has she read the American book? Everyone loves dead Jews; the living, not so much.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, the UK remains and will always be committed to supporting Israel’s security and wider regional stability. The Foreign Secretary reaffirmed this with his Israeli counterparts on a recent visit to Tel Aviv on 19 August with the French Foreign Minister, and our position has not changed in this respect. We continue to support Israel’s right to defend itself and to take action against terrorism, provided it does so in accordance with international law.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. The Foreign Secretary in his Statement said that the commitment to comply with international humanitarian law is not the only criterion in making export licensing decisions, and he justified the decision to exempt the F35 equipment on other criteria. So does it not clearly follow from that the Government could, had they wished, have decided against a ban on the ground that Israel is acting in self-defence against an organisation committed to its destruction and recognised by our own Government as a terrorist organisation? In the light of that, will the Minister now accept that when she told your Lordships’ House on Tuesday that the Government were required to suspend certain export licences, what she said was both factually inaccurate and grossly misleading?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

No, I do not accept that. The legal test we have is that there is a clear risk, and the advice we received was that in the case of these 30 licences it could present a clear risk—not that it has done, not that there is a breach, but that there is a clear risk. This is not an embargo on sales of arms to Israel. I am fairly confident that the noble Lord will know that the case of the F35s is different. We supply components which are part of a global supply chain, and stopping those components being provided could cause very difficult disruption and there would be an impact on global security.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, we support the Government’s moves regarding the situation in Gaza, but I hope all parts of the House have been shocked by the extreme violence of the outpost settlers in the West Bank. The outpost settlers are acting contrary to international law but also to Israeli law. Shin Bet’s director said in August that the violence was being provided to support legitimacy and praise by extreme elements of the Israeli Government. Will the Government assure the House that they are looking at potential restrictions of licences and sanctions of those parts of the Israeli Government which are actively, under the decision by the internal security service of Israel, facilitating the outpost settler violence?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

All I am going to say on that for today is that we recognise Israel’s need to defend itself against security threats, but we are deeply worried about the methods that have been employed and by reports of civilian casualties and the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and by the ongoing military operation in the West Bank and the attacks there. It is in no one’s interest for further conflict and instability to spread in the West Bank. The risk of instability is serious; there is a need for de-escalation and that need is urgent.

[Lord Turnberg (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure that the decision to reduce arms supplies to Israel will offer great encouragement to Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran. In view of the importance of that decision, can we see the full details of the advice that the Government received which led them to this very unfortunate decision?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I encourage my noble friend to read and consider the summary published alongside the Statement on Monday. That will probably answer many of his concerns.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, further to my noble friend Lord Howard’s question, I recall, when I was a Minister in Defence, having to look at export licence applications and requests. You had to determine what was being supplied, make a linkage to where it was going and then make a reasoned assumption as to what it might be used for. To the best of our ability, we tried to apply these tests objectively. I do not recall any reference to other criteria entering that assessment process. When did this change?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The assessment process has not changed; this assessment was made on the basis of clear risk and our ability to have sight in theatre of what was being done, alongside reports about issues of aid and treatment of detainees. I believe this is consistent with the approach taken by the previous Government. We have not had sight, rightly, of the legal advice provided to them and their decisions are for them to comment on—we make no criticism of or comment on that. The decision we made was based on the advice we received.

Ukraine

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, Ukraine is defending itself against an illegal and unprovoked war launched by Russia, as per its right under the UN charter. UK support for Ukraine is ironclad. Ukraine was a key area of focus for the European Political Community summit at Blenheim, at which the Prime Minister brought leaders from across Europe together with President Zelensky. We are committed to working with our international partners to ensure that Ukraine gets the support that it needs to prevail.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, while I recognise the loyal support of Labour in opposition for the war but equally that it is for Members to question strategy where they disagree—in my case with regard to Ukraine in 21 debates over two and a half years in this House—is it not time for a strategy rethink, with new emphasis on conflict resolution, perhaps drawing on the developing relationship between China and Russia and the more opportunist relationship between China and America? With concerns in Europe over the war and the only talk of negotiation coming from a nightmare Trump, can we at least start to think out of the box? Ukraine’s policy of last man standing is unsustainable.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I completely accept my noble friend’s right to challenge, disagree and ask questions, both in this Chamber and outside it. I am very glad that we live in a country where that is encouraged and is possible with no consequences. It is for Ukraine to decide when it wishes to negotiate and on what terms.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister not find the wording of this Question rather odd, referring as it does to Ukraine and “its war with Russia”, as if there were some moral equivalence between the two? Further, in any discussions that the Government have with other European countries, will they please stress that, in combat, the only real alternative to dominant firepower is to throw more bodies into the battle? Restrictions for whatever reason on the nature and scale of weaponry supplied to Ukraine will not only imperil its tactical situation but will almost certainly ensure that even more of its citizens are killed in Russia’s war of aggression.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I share the noble and gallant Lord’s thoughts on the wording of the Question from my noble friend. I too noted the emphasis on Ukraine’s “war with Russia” and I disagree with that way of looking at this conflict. The UK has provided £7.6 billion-worth of support, including £3 billion for 2024-25, and we are proud to stand alongside Ukraine as it defends its territory.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, our support for Ukraine must be unwavering, unflinching and demonstrable. The Minister has just referred to the element of support under military assistance provided by the United Kingdom to Ukraine, but will she commit to this House that the support provided to Ukraine by the Government will, at the very least, be maintained at the same levels as that provided by the previous Government?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question but also for the work that she did in government on Ukraine. It is respected, and we wish to continue to support Ukraine both militarily and with non-military assistance. We have £242 million in bilateral, non-military assistance earmarked for 2024-25.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, in her initial Answer, the Minister mentioned the Blenheim discussions, which the Government hosted. That is a very welcome forum, but will His Majesty’s Government also move forward with closer co-operation with the European Union on security and defence? That would be another way for us to work effectively with our neighbours to support Ukraine, which Members around the House, with the exception of the noble Lord asking the Question, all support.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is correct to highlight the need for the United Kingdom to work closely with all our allies, and we do so particularly with our European neighbours and partners.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, a Ukrainian drone pilot told me recently that, when they shoot down a Russian drone, they take it to bits and analyse the components. They are finding components that are manufactured in countries allied to Ukraine, including this one. Is that something that the Minister feels we should investigate further?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are of course interested in all such reports, and they will be considered fully.

[Lord Skidelsky (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that, before permission is given for British-made missiles to strike targets deep in Russian territory, Parliament is given an opportunity to debate the future British policy towards Ukraine? That policy has profound implications for our national security and ought therefore to be the object of proper scrutiny and debate.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The United Kingdom Government have been steadfast in their support for Ukraine. We understand that, in order to defend itself, Ukraine has needed to strike inside Russian territory on occasions—we accept and support this. It is unrealistic to think that none of those weapons or their components could have originated here. The situation as regards the limitations placed on what weaponry is given to Ukraine and what it can do with that remains consistent with the position of the previous Government.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, further to the question from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, how can we expect the Ukrainians to fight with one hand tied behind their back? Will the Government allow them to use the weapons that we have supplied to the best of their ability to defeat this evil Putin regime?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We are completely committed to supporting Ukraine to defend itself. I just point to our commitment to provide £3 billion per year every year until 2030-31, or for as long as is necessary.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, we should give President Zelensky the long-range weapons that he needs, but surely we cannot give him a blank cheque politically. The war has entered a phase of attrition. Surely now we must ask ourselves: to what extent is it realistic to expect Russia to have a policy where it leaves entirely both Crimea and the rest of Ukraine? Otherwise, the war of attrition and stalemate will continue indefinitely.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My view, and that of the Government, is that that assessment is for President Zelensky and the Ukrainians to reach. It is their country that has been invaded and it is for them to say on what terms, if any, they wish to negotiate.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, there are signs that the most recent American sanctions are having an impact on the Russian dark fleet, which the Minister has previously mentioned in the House. Will the Government give an assurance that, when it come to the operation of the dark fleet or shadow fleet for oil or LNG, that there are no UK links with this, either through London, through insurance or brokering, or for landing licences or any flagging? This can have an impact on Russia and we need to make sure that no parts of the UK or overseas territories are associated with it.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord is correct to raise the issue of the shadow fleet. The UK has so far sanctioned 15 ships of the Russian shadow fleet, which is enabling Russia to evade international sanctions, as the noble Lord knows. In the margins of the European Political Community summit, 44 countries and the EU signed our call to action to tackle this specific issue.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, following the question of my noble friend Lord Forsyth, the Government have risked the wrath of the United States by restricting sales of arms to Israel; why do they not risk the wrath of the United States by allowing Storm Shadow to be used on Russian soil in the conflict with Russia?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am afraid the noble Lord is wrong about the wrath of the United States and the characterisation he has just relayed. In fairness, some of what I have seen reported in some elements of the media is not correct and that is not the nature of the discussions that the UK has had with the United States on this issue or the other issue he raised.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, with respect to my noble friends Lord Anderson and Lord Campbell-Savours, I reassure my noble friend on the Front Bench that it is my view that the vast majority of Labour Members in this House and in the other place strongly support the Government on their unqualified support for Ukraine against the aggressor, Russia. Ukraine is fighting not just for its own territorial integrity but for all of us in democracies.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for ending this Question and summing it up quite so well. I agree with every word.

Middle East Update

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

I thank both noble Lords for their contributions. This Government are completely committed to upholding international law. On day one in office, the Foreign Secretary commissioned a thorough review into Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law, given the grave concerns about the conduct and consequences of the war in Gaza for civilians. The UK’s robust export licensing criteria state that the Government will

“not issue export licences if there is a clear risk”—

not if this has happened, but if there is a risk—

“that the items might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law”.

On completion of that review, this Government concluded that a clear risk did exist. This means that, under the criteria, we are required to suspend certain export licences for items that could be used in the current conflict in Gaza.

This decision is none the less a matter of deep regret. Alongside our allies, we have repeatedly communicated to the Israeli Government our concerns regarding the humanitarian situation in Gaza, and that review found that those concerns had not been addressed. We are, remain, and will always be, fully committed to Israel’s security against threats from Iran and other regional actors. We demonstrated this in April, as the noble Lord said, when a British fighter jet intercepted an Iranian missile. But our priority remains, as the noble Lord from the Liberal Democrat Benches said, achieving a ceasefire in Gaza that will see those hostages released, civilians protected, and aid finally flood in.

[Lord Turnberg (Lab)]

My Lords, the distinction between offensive and defensive weapons is very difficult to discern if you are in a war zone and in a country facing thousands of rockets every day from Hezbollah, such that you have had to evacuate 60,000 of your citizens from the north and from around Gaza. You begin to wonder why Britain is stopping this rather small amount of arms being delivered, in what is a major propaganda coup for Israel’s enemies. Is it not perverse that, at a time when Britain says it will defend Israel against attack by Iran, it is also limiting Israel’s ability to defend itself? It is irrational—and is it not wrong?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, it is not irrational because it is about complying with international law and our own commitments. The UK remains fully committed to Israel’s security against threats. This Government supported that approach in opposition, and we have also taken action against threats from the Houthis. The suspension is targeted just at items for use in military operations in the current conflict in Gaza.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for holding together the trauma of the Israeli hostages and their families and communities, and that of the families and communities of Gaza.

I am very concerned that, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, we do not lose sight of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories of the West Bank. I had the painful privilege of visiting there very recently and I was deeply perturbed, not least by the growing settler activity and, as has been said, the illegal settler outposts, including the abhorrent attack and subsequent dispossession of the Kissieh family of Palestinian Christians near Bethlehem. Will the Government take action on this as well as on the issue of arms licences?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, the situation in Gaza is horrifying and we are all appalled by the scale of civilian casualties. From the Prime Minister down, we have repeatedly urged Israel to improve aid access, minimise civilian casualties and engage seriously with negotiations for that ceasefire deal. Our priority remains achieving a ceasefire in Gaza that will see the hostages released.

The UK is also deeply concerned by the ongoing IDF military operation in the occupied West Bank, while recognising Israel’s need to defend itself against security threats. We are deeply worried by the methods that have been deployed and by reports of casualties and the destruction of infrastructure.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister address one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in his compelling observations? If it is really necessary and appropriate to make a gesture of this sort—and it is no more than a gesture—is it not remarkably insensitive and, indeed, insulting to our democratic ally to do so on the very day when Israel is burying hostages who were detained for 11 months in appalling conditions and then brutally murdered in cold blood by Hamas?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right in what he says about the brutal murder in cold blood by Hamas, and we deplore it. The timing of this was purely a consequence of the legal process that the Foreign Secretary completed, yesterday being the first day that Parliament sat. He was obliged to report his decision to Parliament at the earliest opportunity.

[Lord Gold (Con)]

My Lords, why do His Majesty’s Government not understand that imposing an arms embargo on Israel plays into Hamas’s hands? Indeed, as has just been said, announcing this on the day when it was discovered that six Israeli hostages had been brutally murdered shows the Government’s total insensitivity and lack of care for the democratic state they claim to befriend. This follows the Government’s wholly wrong withdrawal of their challenge to the decision of the ICC to issue a warrant for the arrest of the Israeli Prime Minister and their restoration of funding to UNRWA even though UNRWA employees took part in the 7 October massacre. All this is a powerful message to Hamas that that its terrorism will be rewarded. This is not the way the UK should treat its friends and allies. Will the Minister let me know whether this is just poor judgment, ineptitude or something more sinister?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I should make it clear to the noble Lord that this is not, as he suggests, an embargo. It is a restriction on a very small number of pieces of equipment and it is in order for us to comply with international law. That is the extent of it. UK-Israel co-operation on defence and security remains vital. We will work together to deter malign threats from Iran, protect mutual security interests and develop capabilities, ensuring critical national infrastructure and mutual resilience in cyberspace. We will work together. Israel is our ally. We support its right to defend itself. This is not an embargo.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

I am sure that the Minister is aware that on 16 August an FCDO official, Mark Smith, resigned on the basis that:

“Ministers claim that the UK has one of the most ‘robust and transparent’ arms export licensing regimes in the world, however this is the opposite of the truth”.


He went on to say:

“To export arms to any nation, the UK must be satisfied that the recipient nation has in place robust procedures to avoid civilian casualties and to minimize harm to civilian life. It is impossible to argue that Israel is doing that”.


I am sure that the Minister will not comment on the case of Mr Smith, but can we be reassured that the Government will apply the rules without fear or favour as to the country in question?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is correct that I am unable to comment on the case of an individual, but she can be assured on her latter point. I invite her to read the summary that we published yesterday alongside the Statement.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

We are of course all totally appalled by the scale of civilian casualties. The question is, what is the real cause? Is it, as Israel says, Hamas having dug itself into civilian areas—schools, hospitals and so on—or is it the huge amount of weaponry Israel has used, such as 2,000 lb bombs with a killing range of 800 metres? It is very important for the truth to come out in the end. As soon as there is a permanent ceasefire, will the Minister consider encouraging the UN to set up a fact-finding mission in order that we get a more balanced view of what has been happening on the ground? In the long-term, the truth of what has been happening really matters.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The discovery of the truth in these situations can take many forms. The action the noble and right reverend Lord proposes relies on us achieving that ceasefire and that, at the moment, will remain the Government’s priority.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Will not the Minister accept that it is crucial for the future of Israel that international law be upheld? We stand by Israel because she is a country guaranteed by international law. That means that we in this country have to make sure that we uphold international law, which is why the Minister has put forward the case that she has. It is also important to remind Israel that international law defines the boundaries of Israel and that there are actions that undermine international law. In circumstances where there is very fierce argument on both sides, and where there is no acceptance of Hamas’s appalling behaviour, it is still important for the future of Israel that we stand by international law.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord is completely right in what he says about international law. We will continue to work closely with our allies to promote international law in every area of policy. We are working as hard as we possibly can, alongside many others, most notably Qatar, to try to achieve negotiation, which is the only way ultimately that we will get to the ceasefire that we all so want to see.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to develop that point. I think I speak for the whole House, and for anyone who has met with the hostage families, in recognising the nature of their pain and suffering, and likewise, as one of those who have visited the region, in recognising the suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza. Many innocent lives have been lost in this conflict, and the first casualty of war, as we know, is truth. In pursuit of peace, could the Minister update your Lordships’ House on the specifics of the negotiations that Qatar and Egypt have been conducting together with the United States? Ultimately, these are what are needed to deliver an end to this conflict. Also, for the medium and long-term security of Israel and the future state of Palestine, a solution must be worked in phases, starting with a ceasefire in Gaza.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The suggestion of an update on negotiations may well be helpful. It is not something that I am in a position to provide now; it is perhaps something worthy of a longer discussion when time allows. I will definitely convey that suggestion to my colleague, my noble friend Lord Collins, when he returns from his visit to Rwanda.

[Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)]

My Lords, I do not believe the action taken by this Government has anything to do with international law. We see Hamas carrying out war crimes on a daily basis. Does the Minister agree with me that trying to defend the indefensible will not wash with the majority of people in this country?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I will let the people of this country decide what will wash and what will not wash with them. This is not the indefensible. This is sticking to, adhering to, international law. It is as simple as that. We have been very clear about our continued desire to be a close ally of Israel and our firm commitment to supporting Israel in defending itself.

[Lord Shinkwin (Con)]

Can I ask the Minister to what degree she thinks this announcement will persuade Hamas to stop sacrificing its own people in its genocidal quest to eradicate Israel and, indeed, wipe it off the face of the earth?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We repeatedly, wholeheartedly and consistently condemn the actions of Hamas. Hamas is not the Palestinian people. It is an organisation that has taken children and murdered children. There is nothing more that we can say that we have not already said that can more strongly convey our view or condemn the actions of Hamas.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my registered interests. In his Statement, the Foreign Secretary—using interesting English—said:

“This Government are not an international court. We have not, and could not, arbitrate on whether or not Israel has breached international humanitarian law. This is a forward-looking evaluation”—


whatever that means—

“not a determination of innocence or guilt”.

I am not a lawyer—there are many eminent lawyers in this House—but, as a result of “Perhaps/maybe Israel is doing this”, the Government have made decisions on stopping these licences. Could the Minister explain how they can make that decision based on “perhaps/maybe”?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Perhaps, unfortunately, the law requires that that is what we do. The law does not require us to assess whether international humanitarian law has been broken; the test laid down in legislation in this country is about the risk that the equipment we are selling may be used to break it. That is the legal test, and this Government stick to the law.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, does the Minister understand that one of the concerns is that Israel is treated differently and held to a higher standard than any other country in the world? I am delighted to hear that international law is all-seeing and so on, but I have noted how many arms sales there have been to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. Is the Minister really telling me that, every time David Lammy and his lawyers have looked at it, they have said: “My goodness, Yemen is an absolute haven of peace, and no humanitarian law has been broken”? I am just suggesting that people are rather confused, and it feels disingenuous and as though Israel is being punished, pointed at, demonised and told that it is in breach of humanitarian law. It is not—no matter what you say—it is defending itself. It is being punished morally, even if the amount of arms does not really matter.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

This is not about punishing Israel. Israel is our ally, and we support it and support its right to defend itself. This decision is consistent with the law we are obliged to follow. I understand, of course, the point about Israel not wishing to be treated differently. That is why the tone of the Statement yesterday was as it was. That is why we are clear that this decision is limited; it is not an embargo and is made with regret.

Bangladesh: Aid and Development

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the statement of the Permanent Representative to the United Nations on 13 November 2023 during Bangladesh’s Universal Periodic Review at the Human Rights Council, how they plan to ensure that their aid and development funds are directed to marginal groups in that country, including Dalit women and children.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, the United Kingdom uses development funding in Bangladesh to provide targeted support for marginalised groups, including religious and ethnic minorities such as the Dalit community. Since 2017 we have supported 23,000 Dalit men and women with income opportunities and health and social protection services. We are currently working with communities and marginalised groups to raise awareness and provide leadership training as part of our peace facilitator group volunteer network through our Bangladesh-Collaborative, Accountable and Peaceful Politics programme.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

I thank the Minister for her reply. There are between 3.5 million and 6.5 million Dalits in Bangladesh. By every possible indicator, they are marginalised—in poverty, access to education, health and so on. Women are particularly vulnerable because they suffer three forms of discrimination: on grounds of caste, gender and economic status. One reason why it is difficult to get help to them at the moment is the lack of disaggregated data on the Dalit community. Will she encourage the Bangladesh community to collect and publish disaggregated data on the Dalit community? Only then will UK aid and other forms of help be able to get to the most marginalised.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his question, which raises a very interesting point. He will be aware that the Government in Bangladesh are going through significant upheaval at the moment, if I can put it that way, but we are supporting the interim Government and will engage with the new Government, as he suggests.

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

My Lords, I wrote to the Prime Minister after Sheikh Hasina fled the country, having been removed by the protests. I have not received a response from him on the plight of Hindu and minority communities whose businesses and homes are being burned down by extreme elements in Bangladesh. If we are to give aid to Bangladesh, it must be with the protection of all.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s question and will convey her desire for a response to the Prime Minister. The UK remains deeply concerned by the violence that we have seen in Bangladesh and by reports of attacks against religious minority groups. The Foreign Secretary made clear that all sides now need to work together to end this violence, restore calm, de-escalate the situation and prevent any further loss of life.

[Baroness Nye (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister will know that the Rohingya, one of the most marginalised groups in the world, received much-needed sanctuary from the Bangladeshi Government after the ethnic cleansing by the military in Burma. They are living in terrible conditions in Cox’s Bazar. In light of the continuing and escalating conflict in Myanmar, especially in Rakhine state, and the new influx of Rohingya refugees into Bangladesh, are the Government reviewing the cuts in British aid undertaken by the previous Government for the Rohingya and the surrounding Bangladeshi communities in Cox’s Bazar?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

We will continue to support Rohingya refugees in Cox’s Bazar and elsewhere in Bangladesh. The UK is a leading donor to the Rohingya response. Since 2017 we have provided more than £391 million for the Rohingya and host communities in Bangladesh, and nearly £30 million for the Rohingya and other Muslim minorities in Rakhine state. UK advocacy has helped to improve Rohingya lives in Bangladesh’s camps, including through the establishment of the Myanmar education curriculum for children and frameworks allowing skills training for adults. I assure the noble Baroness that we will continue to stress the importance of providing education and livelihood opportunities for the Rohingya refugees to their well-being. Education and skills training are fundamental to the refugees being able to lead safe, fulfilling and meaningful lives.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest in the register. Does the Minister agree that in the peaceful protests, young women in particular were at the forefront of asserting their democratic rights? The UK has a long-standing and good relationship with civil society in Bangladesh, and is now celebrating 50 years of Voluntary Service Overseas being present in Bangladesh. When the Minister and the Government make decisions imminently about the future of the global volunteering programme, will minority communities and the majority community of women—young women in particular—be at the forefront of UK support for civil society in Bangladesh?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. A few noble Lords have now mentioned women and girls, and it is absolutely right that we continue to keep women in Bangladesh at the front of our minds. Women and girls are an important part of our development agenda; Bangladesh signed the joint statement on sexual and reproductive health and rights to mark the 30th anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development. We will continue to support women and girls in Bangladesh, especially with their education.

[Baroness Sugg (Con)]

My Lords, I hope the Minister will agree that education is absolutely key to making the progress that we want to see in Bangladesh and around the world. I was appointed as the first Prime Minister’s Special Envoy for Girls’ Education and was ably succeeded by Helen Grant MP. When we were in post, we both visited Bangladesh to discuss how best to reach the most marginalised girls and girls’ education. Can the Minister confirm that this Government will continue to support girls’ education and say whether there are any plans to appoint a new Special Envoy for Girls’ Education?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness would wish me to, I can absolutely confirm that we will continue to support the work she describes. On the issue of the appointment of an envoy, I do not believe that a decision has been made but I note her strong support for that position. I also note the success and vigour with which she fulfilled that role herself.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that, notwithstanding the change in government in Dhaka and the protections that the laws and constitution of Bangladesh afford all its citizens, Bangladeshi women still face gender-based discrimination, and Dalit women and girls are particularly vulnerable to untouchability practices and violence. Will the Minister assure the House that UK aid in this area will now be shaped by consultations with representatives of Dalit women and girls, who rarely have access to decision-making in the society in which they live?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am very grateful for that question, which again highlights the priority that noble Lords wish to see given to women and girls. On the issue of aid, the UK aid programme in Bangladesh is largely focused on humanitarian support to the Rohingya refugees in Cox’s Bazar. It works predominantly through the UN agencies, and we have provided £391 million since the current crisis began in 2017.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, returning the Minister to the question about Rohingya refugees asked by her noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Nye, will the Minister confirm that there are now more than 1 million Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh and that Cox’s Bazar is the biggest and densest refugee camp in the world, adding to the 120 million other displaced people in the world? When did her department last carry out a joint analysis of conflict and stability—a JACS report—about the plight of the Rohingya? Will she ensure that if it has not done so, it will?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I will take that as a note of encouragement from the noble Lord. The long-term solution for these refugees is of course a voluntary, safe and dignified return to Rakhine state. With the recent upsurge in violence in Myanmar, it is clear that these conditions are not currently met, and we continue to keep a very close watch on the situation.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, while welcoming the Question from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, and my noble friend’s reassurances, I am conscious that since the statement to which the Question refers was made, Bangladesh has experienced almost complete political upheaval and devastating flooding. These floods have displaced communities, caused loss of life and destroyed critical national infrastructure. Given these challenges, what assessment have the Government made of the resilience of the in-country political and logistics structures upon which any delivery of aid will depend?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

That is a very good question. The furthest I can go at the moment is just to say that the UK and international partners welcome the appointment of the interim Government. We are engaging with them proactively, including to understand the extent of their remit and plans for the next, I believe, 18 months to two years. The priorities that the noble Lord outlined will be the topic of the conversations we have with the Government.

Ukraine

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Answer is as follows:

“I am grateful to the right honourable Member for asking his Urgent Question on a matter that is so critical. As the House is well aware, Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine poses a significant threat to Euro-Atlantic security and has struck at the heart of the international rules-based system on which our security and prosperity depend.

UK support for Ukraine in defending itself against Russian aggression is ironclad. Ukraine’s incursion into the Russian oblast of Kursk has proven once again what Ukraine is capable of, but its armed forces remain under considerable pressure on the front line, particularly in Donbass, and Russia continues to bombard Ukrainian cities and civilian infrastructure with missiles and drones. The UK will continue to do everything we can to step up and accelerate our support, to keep the pressure up on Putin’s war machine and to hold to account those responsible for Russia’s illegal actions.

On the day that the new Government were appointed, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary spoke to their Ukrainian counterparts to underline our support. Within 48 hours, the Defence Secretary travelled to Odesa, where he announced a new package of military equipment and pledged to accelerate the delivery of previously announced military aid.

During the NATO Washington summit, the Prime Minister committed to providing £3 billion a year of military support for Ukraine until 2030-31, or for as long as is needed. Allies also agreed a significant package of support and agreed that Ukraine’s pathway to NATO membership was irreversible.

On 18 July, the Prime Minister hosted President Zelensky and European political community leaders at Blenheim, where 44 European countries and the EU signed a call to action to tackle Russia’s shadow fleet, which is enabling Russia to evade international sanctions. The Prime Minister and President Zelensky also agreed a new defence industrial support treaty that enables Ukraine to draw on £3.5 billion of UK export finance. I am sure that the House will want to be aware that yesterday the UK-Ukraine digital trade agreement entered into force, making digital trade between our two countries cheaper and easier, boosting both economies.

In summary, Ukraine remains high on the agenda, including in our discussions with our international partners. The Prime Minister discussed Ukraine with Chancellor Scholz and President Macron last week, and the Defence Secretary will attend a meeting of the international Ukraine defence contact group on 5 September. We remain in close discussion with Ukraine on the support that it needs to prevail”.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I first thank the Minister very much indeed for the government response, which we on this side warmly welcome. We learned only hours ago of yet another appalling Russian missile attack, on innocent civilians in Poltava, Ukraine. The last time I looked, the news was that it had killed at least 40 people and injured almost 200. Sadly, we seem to hear about new, dreadful attacks almost daily and there seems to be no limit to the barbarity inflicted by Putin and the Russian war machine on the civilian population of Ukraine. Russia has also continued its missile and drone attacks against Ukrainian energy infrastructure in recent weeks in an attempt yet again to freeze the brave nation into submission this coming winter. I was delighted to see the new Defence Secretary visit Odesa within 48 hours of the new Government being formed, as the Minister said. That was a vital signal that UK support will continue to be steadfast, despite the change of Government.

Will the Minister provide the House with some further details to update us on how efforts to tackle Russia’s shadow fleet, which it uses to evade sanctions, are going? I know that a lot of international discussions are going on. Also, I hope that the Government are continuing discussions with our European and American allies on permitting Ukraine to use Storm Shadow missiles to hit targets inside Russia, although I understand that the Minister will probably be unable to comment on that.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I first welcome the noble Lord to his place. I have not had an opportunity to do so since the election. We had many exchanges in the last Parliament, all of which were very good-natured.

The noble Lord asked about sanctions. The UK has sanctioned over 2,000 individuals and entities, 1,700 of which have been sanctioned since Russia’s full-scale invasion—the most wide-ranging sanctions ever imposed on a major economy. UK, US and EU sanctions have deprived Russia of over $400 million since February 2022, equivalent to four more years of funding for the invasion. According to its own Ministry of Finance, Russian revenues from oil and gas dropped by 24% in 2023.

I also welcome the tone of the noble Lord’s contribution. It is vital that we maintain cross-party, steadfast support for Ukraine and that there is no change in that as we go forward. So I welcome his words and the tone in which he said them.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord to his new portfolio on the Opposition Front Bench. Can the Minister confirm that secondary sanctions are an option that can be considered with regard to those countries that are facilitating the shadow fleet?

My principal question relates to the irresponsible nature of the Russian regime on the nuclear installations in Ukraine. Is it the Government’s assessment that the attacks on 26 August constitute a nuclear terror incident? Are the Government now willing to work with the European Union Commission on the preparations of sanctions against the Russian state nuclear monopoly Rosatom? Are we able, with our partners, to offer Ukraine air surveillance support to ensure that there is potentially wider protection of these nuclear installations that are vulnerable?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that we cannot comment on operational matters, but I note his question and what lies behind it. He asked about the shadow fleet. The UK has so far sanctioned 15 ships of the Russian shadow fleet, which is enabling Russia to evade international sanctions. In the margins of the European Political Community summit, 44 countries and the EU signed our call to action to tackle this issue.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, whatever the outcome of the conflict in Ukraine, it is clear that, in the longer term, we will face a hostile and aggressive Russia with expansionist ambitions that go well beyond Ukraine, and which is clearly more than willing to use force in pursuit of its objectives. In light of this, is not the recent trailing of potential cuts to the UK’s defence capabilities because of budgetary pressures irresponsible, irrational and extraordinarily dangerous?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that we have made our commitment to 2.5%. A review of all departmental spending is happening and we all know the reasons for that, but our commitment to the support of Ukraine is steadfast and non-negotiable. We have committed £3 billion annually until 2030-31.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I first congratulate the noble Baroness and the Government on sustaining this strength. I also congratulate my noble friend on his portfolio. I assure the noble Baroness that this side of the House, together with all sides, as I found during my tenure, will stay strong and consistent and consolidated in our support for the Government’s position, which we welcome.

My focus is on two specific questions. One is on the progress made on preventing sexual violence in conflict, which we were working on with the first lady of Ukraine, Olena Zelenska. The other is on the worrying and continuing situation of close to 20,000 Ukrainian children who were abducted and taken to Russia. Qatar played an important role just before the summer break in returning some of them and I would welcome an update.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The issue of the Ukrainian children who were abducted is one of the most heart-rending situations imaginable and I thank the noble Lord for raising it. There will be further updates going forward but, for today, I will say that the UK has committed £357 million in humanitarian assistance to Ukraine and the region, as well as a further £242 million of bilateral funding for Ukraine announced at the G7 in June of this year to support immediate humanitarian energy and stabilisation needs and to lay the foundations for longer-term economic and social recovery and reconstruction.

I also thank the noble Lord for the work he did in government on this and many other issues. He is well respected across the House and is always very open and easy to deal with.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I completely support everything that the noble and gallant Lord said, but I want to ask a question about secondary sanctions. There is no doubt that, in economic terms, Russia can keep going the way it is because of support from China. Secondary sanctions can have a huge impact on China, which is in a very poor position in terms of the amount it produces relative to what it consumes. Are we looking closely at these secondary sanctions, as they apply to China, to try to have some effect on that financial flow?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

As the noble Lord can imagine, our sanctions team has never been busier. We have sanctioned over 2,000 individuals. For very good reason, we are determined to tackle illegal money laundering and kleptocracy across the world wherever we find it and we will take whatever action we need to within the UK’s legal framework.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that we should not accept the red lines laid down by the aggressor, Putin? His red line is apparently NATO weapons being used against Russia. Hold on; he is the aggressor. Should not we, the US and others say that Storm Shadow missiles would be of great value to the Ukrainians in fighting and winning this war? We should press the US to allow us to give them to them.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, we could not be clearer in our support for Ukraine. We provide a huge amount of support and weaponry to Ukraine, which is consistent with the approach of our key allies. That situation will not change.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, there are increasingly concerning reports of infections in wounded soldiers that are resistant to antibiotics. Could the Minister assure us that we are working closely with the Ukrainians to ensure that they get appropriate treatment early and that we protect Europe from the spread of such infections? We have no idea how many there are in Russia at the moment.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Baroness raises a very important point. Our humanitarian funding is contributing to work in that area and she is absolutely right to remind us just how the conflict in Ukraine can affect us, here in the United Kingdom, in so many different ways.

International Anti-Corruption Court

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hain]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to hold discussions with other governments on establishing a new International Anti-Corruption Court; and if so, when.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, this Government will drive a powerful agenda to tackle corruption and kleptocracy, working at home and with international partners. Addressing the issue of impunity for the most egregious acts of corruption is vital. International engagement will be crucial, including discussions around the proposed international anti-corruption court, which we will certainly engage with as they arise. We are also considering how to build on the world-leading capabilities in the National Crime Agency, among other areas.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her encouraging Answer and also applaud the Foreign Secretary for backing a new international anti-corruption court. It is vital to combat the transnational networks of corrupt politicians, officials, bribe payers and money launderers who act with impunity to enrich themselves, London and the UK overseas territories being havens for corrupt billions. A diverse group of eminent experts has just met in Hamburg to develop a draft treaty, so when do the Government intend to hold discussions with other interested Governments, especially the main victims in the global South, on the urgent necessity to establish the court?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for both his Question and his decades-long mission on this topic. He is absolutely right to want to hold our feet to the fire on this. Tackling illicit finance across the UK, its overseas territories and the Crown dependencies, as well as working with partners internationally, is a priority for the Government, and the Foreign Secretary recently stated in the other place that he intends to take up these issues “with full vigour”. The Government are certainly interested in the progress of discussions around the establishment of the court. We are mindful of the importance of the issues that the noble Lord raises and the need to work in tandem with our international partners to explore the proposals for the court and to tackle illicit financial flows more broadly.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, a number of us were able to hear Judge Mark Wolf outline his proposal for an international anti-corruption court. Is the noble Baroness aware that some 145 world leaders from 45 different countries have now signed the declaration? In welcoming what she has said, I draw her attention to the op-ed written by Gordon Brown which says that this is how Putin could be brought to justice. Will she agree to a round table, perhaps with Judge Mark Wolf and Gordon Brown present, to inform the debate further?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I was aware of the discussions in Hamburg, which are a very helpful next step. I have not read the op-ed by my friend Gordon Brown, but I commit to doing so promptly. I would be very interested and happy to join any discussions along the lines the noble Lord described.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I welcome the Minister to her portfolio and wish her well in that role. I also share her commendation of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for his consistency on this issue, including a Question asked last July in the House on which her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked the Government proactively to support the drafting of an international convention on this issue. Am I to assume that the Minister will take forward what the noble Lord asked for in opposition and proactively ask officials to be part of the drafting process?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Noble Lords will of course understand that we cannot make progress on this without a treaty on which to base it. We cannot produce that treaty ourselves; it must be done, by necessity, with international partners. We see this very much as complementing the work that has been done on international money laundering in the UK and with the British Virgin Islands and elsewhere. Should there be discussions along the lines which the noble Lord outlined, we would be happy to take part in them.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to the Front Bench. The United Kingdom’s international anti-corruption unit has been a world-leading capability since its establishment in 2017. As we heard last year, by 2023 it had

“disseminated 146 intelligence reports, identified £1.4 billion-worth of assets, and supported the freezing of £623 million-worth of assets”.—[Official Report, 6/7/23; col. 1301.]

Grand corruption is a grave issue. What further steps will the Government take to better recover stolen assets?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks. We share our ambition and determination to tackle this issue in as many different ways as are necessary. I highlight the International Anti-corruption Co-ordination Centre, which is part of our NCA. It has been incredibly successful and is unique internationally in its ability to share data and investigate and pursue money that has been raised illegally elsewhere in the world. We want to build on this success.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, on the question of corruption, one of the wonderful things in our manifesto was the proposal to appoint a Covid corruption commissioner. Will the Minister give a clear indication that that appointment will be made as quickly as possible so that the culprits can be brought to book—including a Member of this House?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am always trepidatious when my noble friend stands up. Probably the best thing I can do is commit to raising the issue of the Covid corruption commissioner with my relevant colleagues in the Department of Health.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

The noble Lord opposite made a very good point that there seems to have been an awful lot of corruption over the past 14 years, and presumably into the future. Perhaps the unit needs better funding.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I will take on board the comments of the noble Baroness.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, while the Minister is looking into various things, can I also invite her to look at the failure of the Criminal Finances Act 2017 to prosecute any corporation for tax evasion? The law was specifically introduced for that purpose, but nobody has been prosecuted.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord’s question highlights the diverse nature of the issues we face. We are looking at kleptocracy and, as he references, tax evasion; we are also looking at proceeds of crime and unexplained wealth. There are very many strands to this, and I welcome his invitation to consider them in a rather more holistic way. This is perhaps a good time to remind noble Lords about the vigour the Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary and Chancellor are determined to use to tackle these issues in a more rounded and holistic way.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister needs to bear in mind that the poor performance of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court means that many of us do not have great enthusiasm for the creation of another international court.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I take my noble friend’s point; I have heard him say such things in this Chamber on many occasions in the past. We need as many tools in our toolbox as we can assemble. However, unless we get the building blocks in place—in terms of international agreements and agreed principles and other nations’ domestic processes—then a court will be less likely to be successful than if we are to get those building blocks in place first.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, in the fight against corruption, transparency of ownership and of financial transactions is clearly important. We have seen a number of things in recent years about Crown dependencies and overseas territories agreeing to make transactions and ownership within their jurisdiction more transparent. The actual agreement, however, has not led to enforcement. Will the Government take action to ensure the voluntary agreement which overseas territories are asked to make is actually made and enforced?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to raise this; it is a work in progress. We are in close engagement with overseas territories on the sharing of information and on registration of ownership. We have done a lot of work in the UK relatively recently on this, which I know the noble Lord will be aware of, but he will appreciate that this is the subject of ongoing discussions and engagement with overseas territories.

Patrick Finucane

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Caine]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the Court of Appeal judgment of 11 July, and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland’s meeting with Mrs Geraldine Finucane on 25 July, (1) when they expect to announce a decision on how they intend to satisfy their Article 2 obligations in the case of Patrick Finucane and (2) whether they plan to do so via an Oral Statement to Parliament.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Caine, for his Question. On 11 July, the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on the previous Government’s appeal against the Northern Ireland High Court’s judgment in the case of the death of Patrick Finucane. The Court of Appeal dismissed the previous Government’s appeal, finding that there still has not been an Article 2-compliant investigation into the death of Mr Finucane. The Secretary of State met Mrs Geraldine Finucane and her family in Belfast to hear her views first hand on the circumstances surrounding the appalling murder of her husband and to discuss next steps for responding to the court’s judgment. The Secretary of State wants to ensure that the Government make a decision about the way forward on this case as soon as possible and that this decision takes account of the views of Mrs Finucane. As part of this, the Secretary of State has asked the Northern Ireland Office to examine the options available regarding the establishment of an Article 2-compliant investigation into the death of Mr Finucane. The Government will provide further information on their response to the court in due course and are happy to commit today to update Parliament via an Oral Statement when a decision has been made.

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. The murder of Patrick Finucane was a vile atrocity for which there could never be any justification whatever and I stand by the apology that I helped to draft for my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton when he was Prime Minister in 2012. Now that the Government have decided that they will not scrap the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, can the noble Baroness confirm that referral of the Finucane case to that body remains an option, given that the High Court ruled in February that it is independent and capable of carrying out ECHR-compliant investigations? I welcome what she said about updating Parliament via an Oral Statement and we will hold her to that.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Caine, for his words and concur with what he said about the apology from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. Noble Lords will understand that the Secretary of State wishes to engage fully with the Finucane family and others in respect of finding the right way forward at this stage, but I note what the noble Lord said about the commission.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the approach of the previous Government has resulted in the Finucane family, like so many other families in Northern Ireland, waiting far too long for justice? In the light of Hilary Benn’s Written Statement yesterday on the legacy Act, can she say how and when the Government will announce whether they intend to restart inquests?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is my understanding that inquests can be restarted as soon as the necessary steps are taken. The Government do not seek to delay that any longer than is absolutely necessary, for reasons that I am sure the noble Baroness can appreciate.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

First, I take this opportunity to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, to her place dealing with Northern Ireland issues and look forward to working with her in the future. Today is the start of the Omagh bomb inquiry in Omagh, and I am sure the whole House will have the victims’ families in the forefront of their mind as they go through the start of what will be a very long procedure. Does the Minister agree that it is important that His Majesty’s Government never take any action or decision that would give the perception to victims right across Northern Ireland that some victims’ lives are worth more than others?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, for her welcome. I note, as she did, that today is the start of investigations into what happened in Omagh. On her point about all victims being treated with equal respect and concern, of course she is right.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to the Front Bench. I recall the murder of Patrick Finucane. It was one of the most heinous murders in Northern Ireland back in the late 1980s, like many other murders right across the piece. I hope that the Government will find a solution for Geraldine Finucane and her family because no doubt they are tortured as a result of such a murder. Yesterday, I welcomed the Government’s decision to withdraw the previous Government’s decision to take the High Court to court in relation to the ruling over the amnesty decision. In that respect, there are other outstanding cases. Will the Government withdraw the application by the previous Secretary of State for a judicial review of the decision of the coroner in the case of Sean Brown to confirm that state agents were involved in his murder, as they were in other murders in Northern Ireland?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lady Ritchie for her question and completely agree with her comments about the heinous nature of the murder of Pat Finucane. I remind noble Lords that one of the first meetings the Secretary of State held was with Geraldine Finucane. That signals something about his intention to deal with this issue with the greatest care. It is important that a way forward is found with families and victims that can command as wide a degree of support as possible in the circumstances. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will consider all the issues that my noble friend Lady Ritchie has raised.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the noble Baroness to her place. Will she tell the House what the criteria will be in determining any future inquiries? It seems to a lot of people that there is a hierarchy of who gets inquiries and who does not. That can, in part, result from a campaign, whether well-funded or by people who have a profile. However, hundreds of ordinary people were murdered in atrocious circumstances similar to those of Patrick Finucane, and they do not seem to have a voice. Sight of the criteria that the Government will apply would be most helpful, because that would at least let people know what the process is rather than it seeming to be simply responding to high-profile campaigns.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am familiar with the point that the noble Lord has made. The Government are giving careful consideration to the recent rulings and requests for public inquiries in these cases. A decision to establish a public inquiry will be taken only after full consideration of the specific individual factors of each case. The Secretary of State is very concerned to ensure that the Government make decisions in these cases as soon as possible.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to her position; I also welcome the Statement and the engagement of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. This has been a long-running problem, I think since 1989. It is true that the campaign has been kept alive, not least by the stalwart efforts of Geraldine Finucane. It is time that it was brought to some sort of closure. I therefore commend the Secretary of State for his engagement with the Finucane family, because, without that, I do not think that we will never reach closure.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the points that he made and assure him that I will make sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is aware of his comments, given his extensive experience in Northern Ireland.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome my noble friend to her position on the Front Bench. I welcome very much the Secretary of State having met the Finucane family. This has been going on for years, and we have just got to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion, if that is at all possible. I note the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, because we open the door and then there is a list of tragedies where everybody wants an inquiry. For example, if I was pitching one in, it would be Ballymurphy, where again we need a resolution. I welcome the progress that has been made so far and hope that this issue, the Finucane family tragedy, will be resolved as soon as possible.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for making that point. I do not think there was a question there; I take it as general support for the broad approach being taken by the Secretary of State, and I will make sure that he is aware of my noble friend’s views.

Global Combat Air Programme International Government Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2024

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 23 May be approved.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, in December 2022, the United Kingdom, Japan and Italy jointly launched the global combat air programme, known as GCAP, to deliver next-generation aircraft by 2035. On 5 July, the Prime Minister reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to promoting co-operation and collaboration between the UK and Italy, with Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and on 6 July between the UK and Japan, with Japan’s Prime Minister Kishida. It was agreed that the security of the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific are indivisible. His Majesty’s Government are committed to ensuring the security of the Indo-Pacific, working closely with our allies.

For the UK, this aircraft will sit at the heart of a wider system, networked and collaborating with a range of aircraft, including the F35, and broader military capabilities. It will use information systems, weapons and uncrewed collaborative combat air platforms to complete the capability. Replacing the capability provided by Typhoon, this system will sustain the UK’s operational advantage. In addition, GCAP will attract investment into research and development in digital design and advanced manufacture processes, providing opportunities for our next generation of highly skilled engineers and technicians.

The signing of the convention on the establishment of the GCAP International Government Organisation, known commonly as GIGO, by the parties of the United Kingdom, Japan and Italy took place in December 2023 and was conducted by the respective defence secretaries of the three nations. The GIGO will function as the executive body, with the legal capacity to place contracts with industrial partners engaged in the GCAP. Through the GIGO, the UK will lead on the development of an innovative stealth fighter jet with supersonic capability and equipped with cutting-edge technology, to facilitate collaboration with key international partners that will raise the profile of the UK’s combat air industrial capacity.

The GIGO headquarters will be based in the UK, employing personnel from the UK, Italy and Japan. The chief executive and director posts shall be filled by nationals of different parties, according to a mechanism that shall preserve a balance between the parties. Given the nature of the GIGO as an international defence organisation, the Ministry of Defence, with support from the FCDO, has been leading on trilateral engagement and negotiations on its establishment.

The convention, once in effect, will enable closer collaboration between the parties—being the Governments of Japan, Italy and the UK—and support the development of His Majesty’s Government’s defence capabilities, stimulated by development of the UK-based headquarters. It will enable further collaboration with key industry partners, with the headquarters supporting hundreds of jobs, working in close partnership with Rolls-Royce, Leonardo UK and MBDA UK, and with hundreds of other companies from across the UK in the supply chain to deliver the GCAP.

This Order in Council is a statutory instrument and forms part of the secondary legislation needed to confer legal capacity and privileges and immunities on the GCAP International Government Organisation. It accords certain privileges and immunities to the organisation’s personnel and the representatives of the parties to the convention. This order was laid in draft before Parliament on 23 May 2024, is subject to the affirmative procedure and will be made by the Privy Council once it is approved by both Houses. Subject to the approval and ratification, the treaty would enter into force on the deposit of the last instrument of ratification, or acceptance of the parties. This is anticipated to be autumn 2024, to meet the 2035 in-service date.

This order confers a bespoke set of privileges and immunities, to enable the GIGO to operate effectively in the UK. The Government consider these privileges and immunities both necessary and appropriate to deliver on the interests and commitments that the UK has towards the organisation. They are within the scope of the International Organisations Act and in line with UK precedents. The privileges and immunities conferred on agency personnel and representatives are not for their personal advantage but are in order to ensure complete independence in the exercise of their functions in connection with the GCAP. To be clear, agency personnel have no personal immunity if they commit a crime, and there is a clear carve-out ensuring that they have no immunity in any vehicle incident. These immunities in respect of the GIGO cover immunity from suit and legal process, inviolability of premises and archives, and appropriate tax exemptions and reliefs in relation to its official activities.

In respect of representatives of the parties and staff, the provisions cover functional immunity and an immunity waiver. Additionally, the order includes an exemption from the legal suit and process immunity in the case of a motor traffic offence or damage caused by a motor vehicle. This is a standard clause included in statutory instruments and treaties, providing for privileges and immunities.

To conclude, the support for the GIGO’s establishment ensured through this order is a unique opportunity to showcase UK leadership and innovation in the combat air industry on a global stage. Through the GIGO, the UK will collaborate with its international partners on the development of an innovative stealth fighter jet and facilitate collaboration with key international partners that will raise the profile of the UK’s combat air industry. The security of the United Kingdom will always be of paramount importance to this Government. Defence is central to both UK security and our economic prosperity and growth, including by harnessing the strength of our well-established defence industries. This GIGO is key to GCAP, and the UK continues to make positive progress with our partners Japan and Italy. I beg to move.

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as in the register. Behind this necessary and detailed order lies an enormous project, one of the biggest ever, which we are to undertake with Japan and Italy. We are talking about billions of pounds involved. This is only a small part of it but the importance of the bigger picture is colossal. Behind that lies a weaving together of the most advanced parts of Japanese and British industry in a way that I find immensely encouraging and that we have been working towards for years. We reached a peak of co-operation at the end of the last century, but it rather fell away in the first 10 or 15 years of this one. Now, the scene is much revived, and there are enormous gains for Japan and ourselves. Japan is our best friend in Asia, as they used to say; and I do think Japan still sees us as its best friend in Europe. There are enormous opportunities for prosperity in this country.

All I am asking of the Minister, who introduced this very clearly indeed, is that if there are any bumps along the road, any postponements or any difficulties arising out of interpretation of this order, please could they be handled with the utmost consideration of that wider picture, the sensitivities on both sides and the fact that an enormous amount is at stake? No aircraft will fly for 11 years. It is a long way ahead, and we have many challenges to pass through, and world conditions will probably change enormously by the time we get there. I am sure what I am saying is obvious to the Minister and her government colleagues and I ask to be forgiven for reiterating it. There is a great deal at stake.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this afternoon’s discussion, and will address some of the important questions raised. I am grateful to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and to hear his trenchant support for GCAP. That is noted, and I am sure it will also be noted by my noble friend Lord Robertson as he conducts his strategic defence review.

I know that the House has a keen interest in the UK’s work as part of GCAP. Together with our partners Japan and Italy we are working to deliver a next-generation combat aircraft with advanced survivability, sensors, weapons and data systems. As well as cutting-edge military technology, the programme is delivering significant economic benefits, with more than 3,500 people already working on GCAP across the UK.

The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about investment and opportunities for jobs, and in particular small businesses, was important and well made. I reassure her that there currently are over 600 organisations and academic institutions involved, including small businesses. I thank her for making that point.

I am not an MoD Minister, and my noble friend Lord Coaker would be unhappy with me if I started to give too many of my own opinions on defence issues. We are looking today at the privileges and immunities that will enable us to continue with the GIGO establishment. In doing so we will be able to better support GCAP’s programme aims and fulfilment of the Government’s objectives. We will also be better placed to work with international partners and influence the combat air industry as a result.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, urged us to handle this programme with sensitivity. He gave wise counsel and his speech was well received. I will keep his wise words in mind.

Just as my noble friend Lord Robertson will hear the support given to GCAP by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, I am equally sure that he will hear the argument made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, and the words of support he shared with us.

I am aware of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about the International Agreements Committee. I will discuss this with our business managers. Obviously, there will be no desire to delay anything any further than necessary. He makes the exact point that I would have made, sitting where he is, but we want to make sure that we can proceed in a timely manner. There will be opportunities to scrutinise this, as noble Lords would expect. I also take the noble Lord’s point about the strategic defence review, and ask him to note that we have brought this here today in a timely way.

The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, asked an important question about where the location will be and when that announcement will be made—the answer is in due course. I am told that there are commercial sensitivities around this, which I am sure he will appreciate, but I am heartened to know that there would be considerable pride taken in hosting this organisation, wherever it ends up being established.

As a Government, we of course welcome the opportunity to work with the Indo-Pacific region. No reluctance should be interpreted in any way about the Government’s enthusiasm for working with Indo-Pacific nations. I speak as the new Minister for Latin America, so I am very keen that we take this approach.

My heart always sinks a little when I am challenged by my noble friend Lord Liddle. We do not enter these arrangements lightly. There are clear benefits for both defence capability and jobs and skills. My noble friend made a strong case for this strategic defence review. He is very well placed to make sure that his view is known to his noble friend Lord Robertson.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, for his offer of support and assistance. His experience in this and in the other place will be invaluable.

The issue of further partners was raised by my noble friend Lord Liddle and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. All three GCAP partners have highlighted our openness to working with other nations through this programme while supporting the objective of the core partners, delivering a successful programme and keeping us on course for a 2035 in-service date. Any decisions on wider partnering will be made together by the core partners.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, introduced her question by talking about membership of the EU and whether we might wish to rejoin. I am not sure if that is her party’s position currently—I may have missed it—but it is not currently the Government’s position.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

To clarify, I was merely speculating about where a country might wish to join—or rejoin under Article 49. I was not suggesting that noble Lords on any Benches are necessarily pushing for it at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the noble Baroness for that clarification.

Motion agreed.

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [HL]

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th July 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is an important Bill, as it enables a long-awaited status change for two significant organisations. Indeed, the Bill comes at a crucial time for both the CPA and the ICRC. Before I go on, I want to comment on the hard work that the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, put into the previous Bill, before the election. He leaves very large shoes to fill on this side of the House, but endeavour to fill them we shall.

March saw the celebration of the 75th anniversary of the creation of the modern Commonwealth, and we continue to work together in partnership with our Commonwealth family on vital issues, such as empowering women and girls, bolstering the rule of law and good governance, and protecting the freedom of the media. The ICRC has been at the centre of international humanitarian work in recent years, including in Ukraine and the ongoing crisis in the Middle East. The UK values its partnership with the CPA and is proud to support work being done by the CPA and its regional branch, CPA UK. This includes developing benchmarks as indicators of parliamentary democracy, and addressing modern slavery in supply chains and gender-based violence with Parliaments and parliamentarians across the Commonwealth. The organisation’s current status as a charity has meant that the CPA has been prevented from operating fully across the Commonwealth and international fora. Without this legislation, there remains a high possibility that the CPA would look to relocate its headquarters outside the UK.

The UK supports the ICRC and its important work around the world. It is an essential partner for achieving the UK’s global humanitarian objectives, as it has unique legitimacy to engage all parties to conflicts and unparalleled access to vulnerable groups in conflict situations, and it operates in dangerous and challenging situations across the world. Its specialised role engaging with all those involved in conflict, including the growing number of non-state armed groups, is coupled with its direct delivery of a comprehensive range of integrated humanitarian assistance and protection programmes.

It is critical that both the CPA and the ICRC are given the correct status in UK legislation to conduct their work and deliver their objectives while operating in the UK. This will guarantee that the CPA remains headquartered in the UK, and that the UK is able to give the ICRC the guarantee that the information it shares with the UK Government is secure and protected.

That is why this Bill and the provisions contained in it are so important. They enable the Government to treat the CPA and the ICRC in a manner comparable to that of an international organisation of which the United Kingdom—or His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom—is a member, so that the CPA is able to continue its work on promoting democracy and good governance across the Commonwealth, and the ICRC is able to pursue its humanitarian mandate in conflict zones. By creating the power, by Order in Council, to give both organisations the legal capacity of a body corporate—that is, the ability to bring claims and have claims brought against them, and to enter into contracts and hold assets and liabilities in their own name, as well as having specific privileges and immunities—the Bill will support the functional needs of the CPA and the ICRC, including their property, information, and certain personnel.

The actual suite of privileges and immunities to be conferred, including relevant exemptions and limitations, will be determined by the functional need of each organisation and will be specified in the Order in Council. To be clear, personnel have no personal immunity if they commit a crime, and there is a clear carve out ensuring that they have no immunity in any vehicle incident.

The ICRC confidentiality provision in the Bill provides for the protection of certain information related to the ICRC’s sensitive work, which it has provided in confidence to His Majesty’s Government. For example, it is protected from being disclosed in UK court proceedings, except for criminal proceedings. This provision reflects the ICRC’s standard working method of confidentiality, which is designed to protect its staff and operations in active conflict zones. The public disclosure of information that the ICRC obtains from confidential dialogue with conflict parties is likely to put this at risk. It is also a principle that underpins its ability to operate in dangerous locations on sensitive issues, such as negotiating safe access to civilian populations caught up in conflict, engagement with both state and non-state armed actors, and working with prisoners and hostages. There is undoubtedly a very clear risk and concern about ICRC information being used in legal proceedings, with the ICRC’s confidentiality having been challenged in the UK some 20 times over the last 15 years. The Government therefore consider that the confidentiality provision is both necessary and proportionate.

The financial implications of the Bill are minimal and there will be little or no loss of revenue as a result of the fiscal exemptions or reliefs, which will be granted by delegated legislation through the provisions in the Bill. Refunds of certain taxes will be made in accordance with the separate arrangements between the Government and the CPA and the ICRC respectively, as is standard for international organisations. Administration of the arrangements will be resourced from the existing resources responsible for managing privileges and immunities with international organisations in the UK. The FCDO will consult both organisations ahead of secondary legislation, and will work closely with them to agree subsequent specific arrangements, detailing day-to-day management of the privileges and immunities granted to both organisations, based on functional need, and other facilities.

I assure noble Lords that any Order in Council made under Clause 1 or 2 of the Bill will be subject to the draft affirmative parliamentary procedure, which requires the approval of both Houses of Parliament. The FCDO has committed to lay the draft Order in Council as soon as possible.

To conclude, the Bill gives the CPA and the ICRC the correct status in UK legislation to allow both organisations to continue their international operations without restriction. It reflects the Government’s strong commitment to the Commonwealth, and our support of democratic legislators through our work with the CPA and our global humanitarian objectives through our work with the ICRC. This is not the first time that the Bill has been read in this House. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, for their work to introduce the previous Private Member’s Bill in the last parliamentary Session, and I thank noble Lord for their unwavering support of that Bill. I hope that this Bill continues to receive that support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad. People said I was triggered by remembering the Northern Ireland protocol debates; they were very long and intense, they meant an awful lot to both of us at the time and we came at them from very different angles. However, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, dealt with them, as we would all expect, in a most respectful and considered way. I think we probably got to the right place in the end, as is often the way with these things in your Lordships’ House. I look forward to him taking a similar approach with legislation that we may bring forward in the future to that which I took to the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. I am very grateful that has not been the experience on my first outing at this Dispatch Box. I noted with the Whip during the debate that I think this is the very first piece of legislation to receive its Second Reading in this Parliament, under a new Government. It is great to know all our legislation will be so warmly received.

I thank noble Lords for their incredibly insightful contributions, bringing a huge amount of experience to the debate. It is not the first time we have discussed this, but your Lordships’ House does a very fine job on issues such as these and has made a strong case this afternoon for the importance of the Bill. As others have done, I thank again the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and Maria Miller, Ian Liddell-Grainger, Lord Chidgey and Stephen Twigg. I remember being in a bar with Stephen Twigg in 1997, just after the election—I definitely bought him a pint, and he definitely has not bought me one back yet, but perhaps he will after today.

I look forward to further discussions while the Bill continues its passage as we seek to ensure, as many noble Lords have said, that the CPA and the ICRC are given the correct status in legislation.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 7th November 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington]

39: Clause 19, page 10, line 17, leave out “the Minister considers appropriate” and insert “is necessary”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment limits a Minister’s ability to use a delegated power when they consider it “appropriate” to cases where it is “necessary”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I will allow a couple of seconds for people who have obviously got it off their chest during the first group to leave, in the hope that we do not go through the whole thing again.

Clause 19 is very short, at only a couple of paragraphs, but it is quite interesting, as it pleasingly addresses the situation we may find ourselves in where the Government have been successful in reaching an agreement with the European Union. Many of us have said, time and again, throughout this Committee, that we hope to see that. We have been challenging Ministers, as we have seen in the previous group, to show visible political leadership. The visibility has been lacking. I take on board what the Minister said about his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary playing an active role, but visibility and political momentum have been lacking. I like to think that, had one of my right honourable friends been leading these events, we would have seen a far more outward-facing presence, if I can put it that way, through this process—but never mind.

Clause 19 looks at the eventuality of there being an agreement. The amendment I have tabled is one that will be familiar by now to noble Lords who have been taking part in this process from the first day of our considerations. The first line of the clause, as it stands, says that:

“A Minister of the Crown may, by regulations, make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate”.


I have asked that “appropriate” be changed to “necessary”, and I will explain why, in this particular instance, that is sensible.

This clause gives Ministers the power to implement an agreement that they hope to reach with the EU. Obviously—and we accept this—Ministers will need some flexibility in that event, and things may need to be done as a consequence of having an agreement. But I would have thought that an agreement, by its nature, would be clear and specific, and that things would be agreed that are not currently in place that would need to happen. In that instance, surely the things that need to be done by Ministers will, by virtue of the fact that they have just been agreed to with our negotiating partners, meet the test and be necessary.

It troubles me that the Government feel they should have “appropriate” there instead. That seems to give them much greater scope than is ever going to be needed in the event that this clause is used—and we hope that it will be. I would like to know from the Minister what the Government’s thinking is there, beyond thinking that “necessary” is too tight and just wanting to allow themselves a bit more room—of course they do; who would not? But this clause deals with the fact that there may be an agreement, and I do not think it is justified for the power to be as widely drawn as it is.

While I am on my feet, I note that I support the stand part notice from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, in this case as well. The DPRRC believes that the powers in this clause are just too widely drawn, though there is obviously merit in discussing what powers are needed in the event of an agreement and what the role of Parliament should be in that situation. We think that a deal can be struck—we have said that many times—and also believe that Parliament should have the opportunity to debate any agreement, as other Parliaments will. I just note that the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020 was passed in a day and the TCA was ratified without direct parliamentary process. We accept that Ministers need the ability to act in the event of an agreement and we appreciate the Government demonstrating their anticipation of such an agreement in this clause, which is notable, but surely a Bill to enact an agreement would be better. That is what we have been asking for.

This is a discussion we have had with the Government on many occasions and on other agreements, when we have talked about the unsatisfactory process we still have in this country for parliamentary involvement in agreements. We do not think we have got it right yet; that is understandable, and it is perhaps going to take some time to get to that point. We have not had to engage in this for many years, but I do not think that many people in Parliament are satisfied with the way this works at the moment, and it would be helpful if the Minister could acknowledge that.

Without being too cheeky about it, we want to help the Government, given just how unsuccessful they have been so far in settling these issues. We do not see why they would be so resistant to involvement from people who are being very positive and cheering them on in their endeavours. We really do want to see a resolution to this. With that, I beg to move the amendment in my name and express my support for the stand part notice tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

We support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness. In supporting it, I want to make two points. First, this clause effectively turns the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act principles on their head. We have well-established mechanisms, which are set down in statute, on how we approve new international agreements. If this is a mechanism to replace the Northern Ireland protocol, an internationally made agreement, with a new agreement, then why is the CRaG process, which allows parliamentary scrutiny, debate and, unlike this, an ability to have enhanced approvals or indeed vetoing by Parliament, not going to be the route for it? I do not understand why.

Secondly, it also sets on its head every commitment that has been provided for every trade agreement: namely, that if a trade agreement requires any primary legislation to bring it into effect in domestic law, primary legislation is brought forward—this is not done by regulation. But, again, this is being set on its head. The Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill is coming up, which is primary legislation—not regulation —implemented with agreement. The two Bills contradict each other really quite glaringly.

I think that this is significant because of an interaction I had with the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, on one of the previous days in Committee. I asked him whether he had given consideration—if there is, as a result of these talks, an agreement with the EU—as to how that should be put in force. The Government are saying “by regulations”, which are unamendable and could even be under a negative process; they could use Clause 19 to do this. If the noble Lord’s concern—as well as that of the noble Lord, Lord Empey—was about the need for consent, this is not the means by which that would be secured. Yet this is the means by which the Government could enforce it. There is a very jarring comparison between what consent of any new agreement would be and how the Government are seeking powers under Clause 19 to enable them to put this into force. Clause 19 should not be the mechanism by which we have sustainable support for any agreement. An order-making power for a Minister is simply not the route—and that is in addition to the fact that they are turning on their heads long-standing practices by which we put international agreements into domestic legislation. For this reason, I do not think that Clause 19 should stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My understanding is that we would certainly abide by our previous commitments in that respect. In the interests of clarity, I will confirm that in writing to the noble Lord.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I do not think we are very happy about this. The Minister says that he wants to address stability in Northern Ireland, yet this whole process goes over the heads of people in Northern Ireland. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and others just how unsuccessful they expect that to be. There are so many issues here, I just do not understand why Clause 19 is required when there are processes available to the Government to do this. We shall come back to this, but the only thing about saying that we shall come back to it on Report is that we do not know whether we will actually get to Report, given the amendments that we discussed before we started our formal consideration of the Bill. We still have not heard anything from the Government on that. Obviously, we shall leave it for today but the discussion we have had leaves a few more questions than answers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 39 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for her amendment because it goes to the heart of the protocol and the protocol Bill issues in relation to the need for an SPS veterinary agreement. The dairy and farming industries on the island of Ireland require an SPS agreement. I have written to the noble Lord, Lord Caine, today, following last week’s debate on this issue following further discussions with elements of the dairy industry. The bottom line is that unless there is an SPS agreement, that could very much interfere with our dairy industry and totally undermine it.

I shall give a short explanation from the letter. Those in the dairy industry acknowledge the issues that the Northern Ireland retail sector is dealing with regarding the protocol and support for a dual regulatory regime, but such a regime would not work for the dairy industry because we are looking at the very survival of Northern Ireland dairy farmers. Approximately 30% of all Northern Ireland milk is processed in the Republic of Ireland because there is not the capacity to do so in Northern Ireland. It may be worth visiting some of the processing factories in Northern Ireland that are part of a greater co-operative group to see what they do and what they are trying to tell us.

If you create a hard border for milk, which the dual regulatory scheme outlined in the Bill will, there will be enormous environmental issues. Northern Ireland does not have the capacity to dump 30% of its milk, and milk has special regulations for its disposal. You could then move to the culling of perfectly healthy animals which, in a cost of living crisis, is inconceivable. Finally, this would lead to devastating consequences for the economy of Northern Ireland, as the agri-food industry is its bedrock.

So I say to the Minister that those in the dairy industry have looked at the impact of a 30% reduction in sales to an average Northern Ireland farmer. When you consider their average interest on loans and their loan repayments, this would result in an annual negative cash flow. In other words, their costs would be greater than their income.

In summation, it is vitally important that the negotiations achieve an SPS veterinary agreement. From what I have read in the non-papers from the EU of October last year, it is very prepared to enter into such an agreement as part of the negotiations. However, the dual regulatory regime will not work for the agri-food sector. Maybe a bespoke arrangement is required for the retail sector where some of the problems lie.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for her amendment because it roots our discussions in the real world of farmers and manufacturers and focuses our minds on jobs and prosperity. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, as usual, got it completely right and explained the impact on the dairy industry very powerfully. I will not repeat some of what she has already said, although I was intending to.

We ought to be working towards an SPS agreement. We on these Benches have thought that we should be working towards that sort of agreement for the whole of the UK and we have held that position for over a year because of the very clear benefits it would bring to food and drink manufacturers. I think the food and drink industry is still our biggest manufacturing sector in England, so there would certainly be significant benefits to the whole of the UK of this approach.

One benefit would surely be to assist—not to resolve completely—in overcoming some of the issues experienced by producers, hauliers and those wishing to trade east-west. We are reminded quite rightly by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, that we need to be concerned about this. It would be hugely beneficial to our industries in Northern Ireland and beyond. We understand that not every problem will be solved this way and we know that some SPS checks were there prior to the protocol, for other reasons. That seemed to work fairly well for quite a long time, so that may still be necessary. It will be interesting to see what the Minister thinks about that.

At this stage, we think we need this to help with the costs and administrative burdens faced by producers, distributors and retailers. A couple of examples have been referred to. I will briefly refer to the Swiss deal. They have an agreement where regulations are aligned, eliminating virtually all documentary, identity and physical checks. New Zealand, as we have heard, has an equivalence model that has made processes simpler and reduced checks. We probably would not want to replicate either of those models directly. Obviously there are differences, such as the volumes coming from New Zealand and the fact that many of the loads going east-west in our situation are mixed, that make neither model directly replicable. We think we probably need a bespoke agreement and the door to that seems to be open with the EU, so it is curious that the UK Government seem quite so reluctant to explore that option.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. In particular I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for tabling her amendment. I was saying to my noble friend Lord Caine that I think we are getting into some of the reasons. Irrespective of people’s views on the Bill itself, the fact is that businesses are facing problems and challenges that need resolution. I will come on to the specific point that the noble Baroness tabled so ably.

Amendment 43B, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, asks the Government to update Parliament on the progress of negotiations on the veterinary agreements between the UK and the EU. Let me say right from the outset that we have always been very serious about our negotiations on the protocol, and we remain so. Our preference remains to resolve the issues with the protocol through negotiations, and the Bill provides a power to implement any agreement which follows those negotiations—indeed, we had quite an extensive discussion on that particular point. I assure the noble Baroness that the Government have engaged quite extensively with the EU on reducing the burden of SPS checks and controls under the protocol, which she also highlighted.

Where we are right now—I am seeking to provide detail while also acknowledging what the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, said—is that, currently to date, the EU has proposed that any veterinary agreement should be based on dynamic alignment; the Government believe that this would compromise UK sovereignty over our own laws, including our ability to strike trade deals. However, on the specific points that the noble Baroness raised, we remain open to broader negotiated solutions, and we hope that the talks taking place currently can secure a bespoke biosecurity assurance—I welcome the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, in this respect—which maintains our high standards for animal, plant and public health. I know that resonates with all noble Lords.

I will also provide some detail on where we are on both the Swiss and the New Zealand agreements. Of course, the EU has a precedent for making such agreements with other countries—as all noble Lords acknowledged, and I am grateful for that—either through stand-alone agreements, such as the EU-NZ veterinary agreement, or as part of wider agreements with trading partners such as Canada and Switzerland. The UK proposed an SPS model predicated on equivalence and similar to the EU-New Zealand model in the TCA negotiations last year and, indeed, in earlier negotiations and discussions with the EU on the Northern Ireland protocol. However, the EU rejected the possibility of an agreement based on equivalence. The Swiss-EU SPS arrangement is the model that the EU has put forward repeatedly to agree with the UK and is based on dynamic alignment. There is a difference here, but at the same time I appreciate both the tone and substance of this debate, and I want to assure noble Lords that we remain open to these specific points because they address the practical problems being experienced.

Let me say a brief word on the issue of statutory reporting, although I think I have already covered this point previously. As with any negotiations, this is a matter of the foreign affairs prerogative. As I said previously—and I have sought to provide a bit more detail on some of the context in my response—I will certainly seek to update noble Lords, and I appreciate the insights that the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, has brought to this debate.

Turning now to the other contributions, including those from the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Chapman, I will discuss Amendments 58, 60 and 63 together. These amendments would also place a number of requirements on the Government relating to various specific sectors within Northern Ireland, notably the publication of draft regulations and a sector-specific impact assessment, as well as to engage in consultations with representatives from those sectors. Let me say immediately that I entirely sympathise with the desire to ensure that we are properly considering the impact of legislation on all businesses within Northern Ireland. It is for this reason that we have engaged extensively with stakeholder groups across business and civic society in Northern Ireland, in the rest of the UK and internationally—I know that my noble friend Lord Caine will speak to this in subsequent groups; indeed, he covered this in our previous debates in Committee.

In addition to routine engagement, during the summer the Government held over 100 bespoke sessions with over 250 businesses, business representative organisations and regulators to inform the details of how the dual regulatory and trade boundary models should work in practice. In this respect, I can share with all noble Lords—and, in particular, with the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey—that we gained a lot of practical information from that, and we are reflecting on the wealth of feedback received as we continue to develop the details of the underlying regime. The regulations themselves will be the product of this very engagement with business to ensure that the implementation of the new regime is as smooth and operable as possible. Your Lordships’ House will have the opportunity—

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Although what the Minister has just said is very welcome, ordinarily there would be engagement so that the Minister could make well-informed suggestions. Then, of course, a period of consultation on whatever ideas the Government intended on implementing would follow. Is the Minister saying that that process would be followed in this case?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

I know that the noble Baroness, and other noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, among them—have pressed me on the issue of the detail of the draft regulations. That is, again, very much the process we have adopted to make sure that we are speaking to industry and businesses and reflecting those in the draft regulations that will be published. The regulations will be reflective, as I said earlier, of the wealth of the feedback we have received. The scrutiny of the regulations will be done in the usual fashion and, of course, the Government will provide all the usual accompanying material under parliamentary procedures. The full details of the new regime will be set out in and alongside the regulations made under the Bill, including any economic impacts where appropriate. This will allow Parliament to be informed in its scrutiny of the new regime when it has been put in place.

On the issue of a statutory duty to publish such material, as suggested in the amendments, the Government’s view is that it would not be appropriate to place a statutory duty on the Government. The legislation is needed to tackle the urgent problem we have sought to identify with the workings of the protocol in Northern Ireland. While we do not anticipate any issues with providing information before regulations are brought forward, we do not want to tie our hands unnecessarily in this respect.

Finally, I say to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate that I welcome these specifics, and I hope noble Lords will appreciate that I have sought answers and am listening during the course of Committee, as are my colleagues. I am seeking to provide a bit more detail on what we have but, while asking the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, I do value the insight and the practical and constructive nature of the amendments that have been tabled.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

I thank the noble Baroness. That then begs the question: why is it not in her amendment? Why is it simply the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which in fact removes it from cross-community consent? That is not what they are talking about here. If it had been, it would be in this. I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, saying that this would be looked at on a later date. I trust that this will be taken on board. We will not move forward unless there is cross-community consent, and there is no cross-community consent and no unionist consent for this protocol, which they believe is a vehicle for taking Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, this is an extraordinary clause. The speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, introducing this group, proved the point. She argued that Ministers could, under this clause, act in a way that is incompatible with the Act of Union. My interpretation of this clause is similar to that described by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in the discussion of the previous group, in that it gives Ministers the ability to do pretty much anything. There is no restriction on powers. Maybe the Minister had been briefed that there was. Clearly, in this clause at least, that is not the case. That is the point that many noble Lords have been trying to get across to Ministers, and it is the underlying reason for much of the unhappiness with this Bill.

It is probably a bit tedious for the noble Lord, Lord Bew, to listen to us wittering on about this again and again. I completely understand that, as it does seem rather separate from what is happening on the ground and the political issues that he quite rightly says the Bill is really all about. I totally agree with him on that. Nevertheless, the method that the Government are choosing to deal with these political issues is one which gives them these quite unprecedented powers. We have come across this sort of thing many times, but we have never seen it quite as blunt as this. That is why they are getting a sort of two-pronged dissatisfaction with this approach.

The amendment in my name refers specifically to subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b). This is the bit where Clause 22 makes it clear that Ministers would be breaking international obligations and gives them permission to do so. Obviously, if the Bill became law, Ministers would not be breaking domestic law because it would be domestic law, but they would be breaching their international obligations. Ministers’ answers on this issue have been far from convincing. How is passing the Bill responsible if we do not know what the Government are going to do? We do not know that because they are giving themselves such wide powers. If the powers were in some way restricted to issues relating to the problems that the Bill tries to solve, perhaps the Government would be on a firmer footing. However, we are at such a precarious point; for example, there may be elections and there may not be.

I am trying not to have a dog in this race but, from the discussion we have just heard, it is absolutely clear that the problems being described are real and need to be dealt with. They need a Government who are properly engaged and will deal with them seriously. A clause such as this one says the opposite to all communities. Who knows where this will go? There is obviously no trust in the Government on this issue. We have heard it; it is very clear. Even the people who broadly support the Government’s approach do not trust them to do this correctly and do right by them. That is a big problem. It is a problem here in getting support for this clause, but it sure as heck is also a problem on the ground in Northern Ireland.

The Government have got themselves into a real mess on this issue. The powers in the Bill are not constrained to a particular purpose. I just do not know how the Government will deal with this. We have been told that we will get a letter, as if this is a discussion that the Government could not have foreseen, anticipated and had proper answers for. While we are doing our job of going through this Bill, the Government do not have an answer on what was foreshadowed well by noble Lords’ contributions at Second Reading but have to go away and write us a letter. It is not good enough. We need to know the Government’s response to that issue, and particularly on this clause, before we can properly proceed.

I completely agree with everyone who said that we must have the restoration of the political institutions. Some people seem to think that the Bill will help but we disagree. We think that it is bad politics and will lead to more disappointment, probably disappointing the very people who have come here tonight to support the Government in this endeavour. This clause is a problem; the Minister has learned that very well, I think. I am afraid that listening to tonight’s exchanges has made me more convinced than I was before that we on these Benches cannot support this clause unless something shifts dramatically before we reach Report. I just do not know where we go with this Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in this debate. I rather hesitate to say this in front of the noble Lord, Lord Bew, who was taught at Cambridge by the great Tudor historian Sir Geoffrey Elton, but as we go through these debates, I feel I am becoming increasingly isolated in being a Member of your Lordships’ House who might still have a sneaking admiration for the reign of Henry VIII. Indeed, I confess that I have a portrait of Thomas Cromwell in my office. However, I will go no further because I do not want to provoke a debate with noble Lords about the 1533 Act of Restraint in Appeals and its preamble. I will therefore fast-forward, if I may, to 1800 and the Acts of Union, referred to in the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey.

Let me say at the outset that I entirely sympathise with the noble Baroness’s position and amendment. Clause 1, as she pointed out, explains that the Acts of Union are not to be affected by provision of the protocol that does not have effect in the United Kingdom. I agree with her and noble Lords who have pointed out the fundamental importance of the Acts of Union as the bedrock of Northern Ireland’s constitutional position in the United Kingdom.

However, I am sorry to point out to the noble Baroness that her amendment has the potential to risk the exercise of the powers under the Bill. For example, the red lane in our new model will continue to apply EU rules to goods moving through Northern Ireland into the European Union and single market. This is crucial to ensuring that there is no hard border on the island of Ireland and to upholding the overall objectives of the Act of Union regarding the free flow of trade in the United Kingdom. The restrictions imposed by her amendment could risk the implementation of this revised operation of the protocol, which is designed to uphold our commitments to the union.

I know the noble Baroness is very supportive of the Bill, but this amendment could undermine the certainty that it seeks to provide. She and my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn made a very large number of points around subjugation and so on. I hope she will appreciate that I cannot go into great detail at the Dispatch Box because, as she knows since she is a party to it, this amendment treads very much the same territory as is the subject of a live case in the Supreme Court, which I think is expected to be heard very shortly.

I reiterate my and this Conservative and Unionist Government’s—a label I proudly wear in your Lordships’ House—strong support for the union and Northern Ireland’s integral position within it. I have no hesitation in reiterating what we said at the end of last week about joint authority; it is simply incompatible with the provisions of the Belfast agreement and we will not countenance it. I assure the noble Baroness that we are determined to resolve the issues to which she alluded in her amendment this evening and, on that basis, urge her to withdraw it.

I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. It has been said many times and in much detail, but I feel I have a duty to remind the House again that it is because of the operation of the protocol that the Northern Ireland Assembly has not been sitting since February, and the Bill aims specifically to restore political stability in Northern Ireland and facilitate the reconstituting of a fully functioning Executive and Assembly in line with the Belfast agreement. In the absence of functioning institutions, creating a legal requirement—as the amendment from the noble Baroness would do—that consent from the Assembly be granted before regulations can be made under the Bill risks in these circumstances setting a test that simply cannot be met, because there is no functioning Assembly.

This amendment would also be constitutionally problematic, effectively limiting the UK Government’s ability to exercise their powers in excepted and reserved areas of policy such as international affairs and trade, respectively. Given that it would also apply to the commencement power, it would make the coming into force of legislation of this Parliament subject to a veto by the Northern Ireland Assembly. That would affect this Parliament’s right to legislate for Northern Ireland, something the Belfast agreement makes very clear is unaffected; as such, the Government cannot accept it. For that reason, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her Amendments 46 and 55.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington]

57: After Clause 22, insert the following new Clause—
“Parliamentary approval of the outcome of negotiations with the EU
(1) A Minister of the Crown may make regulations under section 19 only if—(a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament—(i) a statement that a relevant agreement as defined in that section has been reached, and(ii) a copy of the agreement,(b) the agreement has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, and(c) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the agreement has been tabled in the House of Lords by a Minister of the Crown.(2) A Minister of the Crown may make regulations under sections 4 to 17 only if—(a) they have laid before each House of Parliament a statement that—(i) His Majesty’s Government have been unable to reach an agreement with the European Union regarding outstanding issues with the Northern Ireland Protocol, and(ii) they are of the opinion that His Majesty’s Government have exhausted all legal options under the EU withdrawal agreement,(b) they have laid before each House of Parliament an assessment of the likely impacts of the regulations, and(c) they have consulted Northern Ireland business organisations on the contents of the proposed regulations and laid a report regarding that consultation before each House of Parliament.” Member’s explanatory statement
In the event of a negotiated settlement being achieved with the EU, this amendment would require both Houses to debate that agreement, with the Commons having to approve it. In the event that no agreement is achieved, Ministers would have to follow various steps before being able to make regulations under parts of the Bill.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. I do not want to spend too much time on this amendment. Essentially, what we are asking for is a process in Parliament in the event of an agreement being reached. We want the Government to succeed in getting an agreement and think it is a helpful safeguard to allow the elected House to express its view and for this House to debate a draft of the agreement. It would be especially useful, I suggest, if the Northern Ireland Assembly is not restored in time. It would be helpful because if it is not and there is no debate in Parliament, who knows what they might be agreeing to? There would not be an opportunity for anybody’s elected representatives anywhere to have a debate about what is going to happen, and we think that is not ideal, given the history of how we got to where we are.

If Ministers are unable to achieve a deal and have exhausted legal routes under the protocol and wish to use the powers in the Bill, they should have to follow the steps in subsection (2) of this amendment, which would include a detailed impact assessment and proper consultation with Northern Ireland businesses on proposed regulations.

We have had many of these debates already and I do not propose going over each element of this in great detail now. Ministers know how we feel about consultation, draft regulations, the involvement of Northern Ireland and listening to businesses. So I think I will just leave it at that and I beg to move.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the amendment and her explanation. On her second point about consultation, I think the Government have rehearsed this point several times and the record of the Government’s position stands. It totally resonates with us. I have sought to the extent that I can to give reassurance of continued consultation in that respect.

Turning specifically to Amendment 57, on the supremacy of the House of Commons and giving the vote, I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from on this. However, I once again state quite clearly that the procedures under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act—CRaG 2010—will apply to any qualifying treaty that needs to be implemented by regulations made under the Bill. The Act already provides for appropriate scrutiny and I hope that, while she may not be totally satisfied, based on the fact that she has tabled this amendment, I once again give her that reassurance. I am sure that we will return to several aspects of this, particularly as we move through to other stages of the Bill.

Again, I note the point she is making about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, but I hope at this time she is minded to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I do not really feel the need to reply. I think we have said everything that can be said on this topic through these debates, so I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 57 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

59: After Clause 22, insert the following new Clause—
“Impact assessment: construction
(1) Within the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and before a Minister of the Crown may exercise any of the powers in sections 1 to 20, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament an impact assessment pertaining to the construction sector in Northern Ireland.(2) In preparing the impact assessment under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must—(a) publish any draft regulations they intend to make under this Act, and which may be reasonably expected to relate to the sector,(b) consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate representatives of the sector.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish and consult on draft regulations relating to the construction sector, prior to using the powers under the Bill to make regulations affecting that sector.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Similarly, these amendments would require the Secretary of State to publish and consult on draft regulations relating to various sectors of the Northern Ireland economy—including construction, electronics, energy and manufacturing—prior to using powers under the Bill to make regulations affecting those sectors. We want to see these draft regulations. They keep coming up. We have made our contentment with going to Report conditional upon them; they are very important to us and, I believe, to sectors in Northern Ireland.

We have previously had interesting debates on the merits of a UK-EU veterinary agreement and the importance of proper consultation with food-focused sectors of the economy, but it is important to remember that Northern Ireland businesses operate in every imaginable field, so these amendments cite a variety of sectors. We could have gone further—it is not an exhaustive list by any means—but we wanted to highlight to Ministers the unique challenges faced by businesses in Northern Ireland. Manufacturing, in particular, is having a tough time at present, with supply chains still experiencing disruption and inflation adding to business costs. In August, the Northern Ireland Business Brexit Working Group said that using the powers under the Bill would

“create a myriad of reputational, legal and commercial risks for many of our businesses”,

putting at risk Northern Ireland’s position as

“a top performing region in exporting goods”.

My noble friend Lord Hain has previously spoken about the challenges facing the energy sector in Northern Ireland, and the ongoing uncertainty around future trade terms is creating its own difficulties for the other sectors mentioned in these amendments.

We continue to hope that the protocol can be made to work but, if the Government are to insist on their unilateral action, they need to fully involve the businesses that are operating on the ground, trying to fill and satisfy their order books. It is an incredibly difficult time for businesses anywhere in the UK but you cannot listen to the debates that we are having and not understand how much more difficult it is to plan and run your business in Northern Ireland. Some of the problems are caused, of course, by the protocol that we all want to see fixed; others, I am afraid, are caused just by the continuing uncertainty that has been brought about by this situation. I beg to move.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 59. Again, I suppose the final thing is about approach. There is nothing the noble Baroness has said that I disagree with, in that, yes, we are seeking to provide clarity to Northern Ireland businesses. I totally subscribe to what the noble Baroness said about problems arising from the operation of the protocol but that, equally, there are wider issues that businesses across the United Kingdom, and indeed globally, are facing.

I fully sympathise and align myself with the desire to ensure that we consider the full impact of our legislation and its practical application for businesses. My noble friend Lord Caine previously detailed some of the groups that we are working with; indeed, the Northern Ireland Business Brexit Working Group, which the noble Baroness mentioned, is one of them. We will continue to engage with them. We have had quite extended discussions and debates on the publication of regulations, and I have acknowledged that I fully recognise the desire to do so, and to ensure the scrutiny of these regulations in the usual fashion. Equally, our view is very clear that these regulations also need to be fully discussed—a point agreed on by all noble Lords—to ensure that businesses can make them operable in a practical sense. Notwithstanding that, I hope the noble Baroness will be minded at this time to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I am obviously happy to withdraw the amendment. I note what the Minister just said about understanding our desire to see the draft regulations and his desire to make sure that they are worked up—I think he said “consulted on with business” or words to that effect. However, we had asked for draft regulations before we moved to Report. Before I sit down—that is the phrase we use here—can he indicate whether he anticipates that the Government will be able to provide that?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I will have to disappoint the noble Baroness on that point. I cannot give a specific commitment. The material will be published in due course. I fully recognise and note what the noble Baroness has said.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 59 withdrawn.