Palestinian Territories

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Thursday 7th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Luce, said, all political problems are capable of settlement, however intractable, as we have seen in Northern Ireland and South Africa. Looking at the Israel-Palestine problem I am reminded of the old Polish question, what is the difference between an optimist and a pessimist? A pessimist says, “Things cannot get any worse” and an optimist says, “Oh yes they can”. It is so easy to despair of any settlement, looking at the current problems, the continued Israeli control of much of the West Bank, the expansion of settlements, the building of new settlements, the division in the Palestinian leadership which allows Israel to say that there is no negotiating partner, the emigration of many young Palestinians who see no future for them in Palestine, and the threats of a further intifada because of the deep frustrations. All this at a time when Israel has the most right-wing Government in its history and when the US has abandoned any aspiration to be a mediator—as it was, of course, when President Clinton devoted such energy to a settlement and when Secretary Kerry criss-crossed the two areas so frequently.

Then there is Gaza, mired in deep social division, vacated by Prime Minister Sharon only to allow the firing of rockets into Israel. Hamas now admits that 50 of the 60 people killed on 14 May were actually members of that organisation, which plays into the Israeli narrative of their over-reaction.

Then there is the population explosion in Gaza, which is not frequently mentioned. In 1947 there were 250,000 people in Gaza. There are now more than 2 million in that small area. Yet international donors and the UN refuse to do anything serious about family spacing and tackling that population problem, which can lead only to further frustration and extremism.

Externally, the situation for the Palestinians has worsened recently due to a number of factors, such as the turmoil in the region and the fact that Arab Governments appear to have lost interest in the Palestinian cause and make common cause with Israel against Shia Iran. Israel now speaks from a position of enormous strength. Surely there is no better time to seek peace before the demographic problems for Israel mount and the threat from Hezbollah makes frontiers less relevant because of its great arsenal of rocketry.

Prime Minister Netanyahu parrots the possibility of a two-state solution—at least, he has until recently—while his settlements policy makes it impossible, creating facts. Clearly, there is no plan or vision with the objective of reaching any port; the objective is merely to keep the ship afloat, to manage the situation. The Palestinians are led by old men, imprisoned by the past and unwilling to modernise. Abbas plays to the gallery by implying that Jews were partly responsible for the Holocaust and is content to foster hostility towards Israel via the textbooks. There is a policy of illusion, not realism, as shown by the demand for the right of return, which would be the end of Israel. It is unreal, it is nostalgia. Until new leadership can take over, the problems will continue.

Alas, the only way forward is through the micropolicies mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Luce: that is, by building bridges; by exchanging universities; and through technical expertise, including the greening of the desert. All this is possible and is being done in preparation for what, I hope, will ultimately be a settlement. Blessed indeed are the peacemakers but they are all too few in this tragic situation.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL]

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 21st May 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the abuse of human rights was an issue of significant concern to both your Lordships’ House and the other place, as was made clear by many people who spoke at various stages of the Bill. The Government fully recognise why noble Lords and Members of the other place wished to reference gross human rights abuses explicitly, particularly in reference to the abhorrent case of Sergei Magnitsky. In her speech to the other House on 14 March, the Prime Minister made clear the Government’s intention to bring forward a “Magnitsky amendment” to the Bill. As a result, the Government worked closely and constructively with all sides of the other House to table these amendments, which have captured the maximum possible consensus in this area.

Commons Amendment 1 puts gross human rights abuses in the Bill as a purpose for which sanctions may be imposed. Commons Amendment 5 links the existing definition of a,

“gross violation of human rights”,

to the definition in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and so ensures that it includes the torture of a person,

“by a public official, or a person acting in an official capacity”,

where the tortured person has sought to,

“expose illegal activity carried out by a public official”,

or to defend,

“human rights and fundamental freedoms”.

This makes it clear that all gross human rights abuses or violations are explicitly captured within the Bill. Commons Amendments 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 19 and 20 are consequential on the changes to Clause 1.

Amendment 17 requires reports to be made about the use of the power to make sanctions regulations. Reports must identify regulations that have been made for human rights purposes. They must also specify any recommendations made by a parliamentary committee about the use of that power in relation to gross human rights violations, and include the Government’s response to any recommendations. It is right and proper that scrutiny of the regulations is carried out by Parliament.

Commons Amendment 16 was tabled in recognition of the concerns, raised by both the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, that the repeal of Part 1 of the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010—TAFA—would remove the independent reviewer’s oversight of the UK’s counter-terrorism asset freezes. I can assure all noble Lords that there was never any intention by the Government to remove independent oversight of the UK’s counter- terrorism asset-freezing regulations made under this Bill. That is why a carefully drafted government amendment was tabled in the other place to replicate effectively the scope of the independent oversight currently provided under TAFA. This ensures that there will be no removal or narrowing of the oversight of counterterrorism asset freezes as a result of the Bill.

The amendment also makes the Government’s commitment to this clear by imposing a duty to appoint an independent reviewer. The duty applies to any part of sanctions regulations that imposes asset freezes that are not made for a purpose that implements international obligations in this area but would further the prevention of terrorism. This is consistent with the scope of the independent oversight provided for under TAFA, thereby ensuring there is no removal or narrowing of the oversight of counterterrorism asset freezes as a result of the Bill.

I put it on record again that the Government are committed to promoting and strengthening universal human rights, and holding to account states and individuals responsible for the most serious violations. We will continue to do this after we leave the European Union and we intend that the powers in the Bill should allow us to be part of a global network of like-minded jurisdictions, working together to tackle those who commit gross human rights violations. We will continue to work with international partners to this end. I beg to move.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, it is good to turn to a period of calm after the clash and clamour of Brexit. I congratulate the Government on responding to the pressures in this House and the other place, and on taking a stand that I hope will be followed by other countries where appropriate. The current amendments relate to sanctions on the perpetrators of human rights abuses, wherever committed, and against individuals rather than states. They are therefore smart sanctions and I congratulate Sir Alan Duncan in the other place and those who have worked together. The Minister stressed that it was an all-party group and I believe the amendments in the other place were signed by all parties. This is therefore very important.

I congratulate also Bill Browder, who has worked tirelessly following the murder in custody of Sergei Magnitsky. These amendments are made in the context of the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal in Salisbury and the murder of Magnitsky in Russia in 2009, but they are clearly not limited to Russia. They are much broader and universal, just as the Magnitsky Act of 2012 in the US was, in 2016, broadened to include perpetrators of gross human rights abuses wherever committed. As the Prime Minister has said:

“There is no place for these people—or their money—in our country”.

--- Later in debate ---

I repeat that the measures called for are not the ideal ones to address anti-money laundering. We certainly need to include all non-local companies and to have verification, and our arrangements lack that. Public registers are rather cheap political playing to the gallery, saying “Aren’t we wonderful to have done this?”, ignoring the fact that what we have established in the UK does not work properly. I hope the Government will think again and find a sensible and reasonable way to implement this legislation but that, if necessary, it will be put to judicial review.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, the use by Russia of dirty money was highlighted in the report today of the Foreign Affairs Committee in respect of counterterrorism and so on. It is clear that although the two Members who have just spoken did so with great passion and knowledge, they failed to take on board the actual figures. Global Witness says that at the moment there is £34 billion of Russian money in the overseas territories, £30 billion of which is in the BVI. Why does the Russian money go there? Is it suggested that all that money is clean? Noble Lords will recall that when the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and I among others were pointing out areas of property investment in London, we said there are several streets in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which we both know well, where the lights never go on at night because money—

[Lord Flight]

My Lords, does the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, have the figure for black Russian assets in the UK? I imagine that there is substantially more than £30 billion.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

My Lords, with the public register of beneficial ownership it should be possible to obtain those figures. It would be absurd if money that fled from the London property market went to the overseas territories and sought a haven there. Anyway, the figures that are given—I am very happy be told that the they are incorrect—are that £34 billion of Russian money is currently in the overseas territories, £30 billion of which is in the BVI, and there has been over £100 billion over the past decade. Surely a proportion of that at the very least is dirty money, and the question must therefore be posed: are we prepared to countenance dirty money finding a haven in the overseas territories? That is what is suggested.

We have to respond very sensitively. Of course there will be an economic impact, and that will only be exacerbated by the impact of the hurricane, particularly in the BVI. Because of the UK’s responsibility to these overseas territories, we will have to bear at least part of the cost, but surely we should not countenance the position that I have mentioned. If the Minister has figures other than this £34 billion, I am very happy to hear them, and if he suggests that none of that is dirty money then I will be happy to hear his view, but surely it is in everyone’s interest that dirty money be pursued wherever it is and that there be a publicly accessible register.

At the same time, the economic impact should be recognised, along with the possible damage to the constitutional position. If those countries wish to go independent, so be it. Fairly recently there was a report on the contingent liabilities to the British taxpayer of the overseas territories. I wonder where the balance would lie, if a number of these countries went independent, regarding the amount currently spent by the British taxpayer. I am happy with that, but the question must remain: if these figures are correct, and if it must be that a portion of that sum is dirty, are we prepared to allow that to continue?

[Lord Northbrook (Con)]

My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, aware that none of the overseas territories is on the EU blacklist of non-co-operative tax jurisdictions as of December last year?

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

That may well be the case, but I pose the question again. There is this £34 billion of Russian money. We know that the oligarchs look for areas where they can usefully hide their assets. Are we prepared to continue to allow that?

[Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury (CB)]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. The clause which he seeks to remove from the Bill is a classic example of a proposal which may seem right to many people—for the reasons given so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea—but, after proper consideration can be seen to be very wrong.

Unlike most countries, our constitutional arrangements are based on conventions and mutual respect rather than pieces of paper, and we break those conventions and trample on that mutual respect at our peril. As the 2012 White Paper on the territories recognised, the UK’s legislative power over the territories is in practice and by convention limited to,

“external affairs, defence, internal security (including the police) and the appointment, discipline and removal of public officers”—

and, I would add, compliance with the UK’s international obligations. Accordingly, the proposal would run contrary to the established distribution of powers—quite apart from the points made about the constitution of some of the territories.

Not only that, it would do so in a most inappropriate way. There has been no consultation with the democratically elected Governments of any of the territories about the legislation. There has been no investigation of the effectiveness of this law in relation to any of the territories. There has been no inquiry as to the economic and social consequences of the legislation on any of the territories. That is in circumstances where, to go back to what the White Paper said, the UK Government aim,

“to work with Territories to strengthen good governance arrangements, public financial management and economic planning”,

to work with the territories.

I regret to say that the proposed law appears to be old-style colonialism at its worst: damaging legislation which has no cost for the legislating country but which will cause hardship to the victim countries, and does so not merely without representation but without consultation or full investigation. But it gets worse. The law is imposed in circumstances in which it is indisputable that the BVI, Cayman and Bermuda comply with all current international transparency and taxation requirements, such as those laid down by the OECD. This was recognised by the very full and generally rather critical December 2017 EU Muscovici report, which identifies which countries are unco-operative by hiding assets, and so on, and it does not include any of the territories.

[Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury]

I believe that is the case, yes. I was going on to say that in many respects it appears that all three territories which I mentioned have a regulatory regime which in many respects is stricter than that of this country.

On top of all this, this proposal imposes a financially damaging regime on at least three territories in the Caribbean area with significant financial service industries for which the UK has responsibility, while not doing so for the Crown dependencies with substantial financial service industries closer to home: Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, for example. That adds discriminatory insult to unconstitutional and unfair injury. Let me make it clear to the Crown dependencies that I say this to oppose the proposed law applying to the territories, not to support it applying to the dependencies.

Finally, what will happen if this unfair and unjustified law is brought into force, apart from leading to a real sense of grievance and of being let down on the part of small states which it is our duty to protect? It will do no good. If there is the hot money to which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, referred, it will quickly move away from the BVI, Cayman and Bermuda to places which do not have respected democratic Governments and independent and respected courts, where the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which I had the honour to chair for five years, has no power. In effect, it will not be upholding the rule of law, it will be undermining it.

It will be only when we have universal acceptance of such regulation that, I respectfully suggest, it will be appropriate to impose it on these territories.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

With respect, is that not avoiding the question in an Augustinian way: make me good, but not yet, not until everybody else is good?

[Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury]

So we have to sacrifice other people many miles away who have no say in it for the purpose of feeling good and leading the way? That seems to me, if I may say so, a very selfish attitude to take. It is simply inappropriate for us to do this for other countries.

Brexit: Sanctions Policy (European Union Committee Report)

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Thursday 3rd May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Baroness and her committee and welcome what is a highly timely report—timely not only in the sense that the EU Committee is carrying out a whole series of reports via its sub-committees on the implications of leaving the European Union, but also with respect to our policy on Russia. We go back to the death by a Russian agent of Litvinenko and that agent now being in the Duma in Russia. We think of the invasion of Georgia in 2008, and the fact that Russia and its minions still occupy South Ossetia and Abkhazia. We think of other actions, such as the recent tragedy in Salisbury, and of course Ukraine, including Crimea. The only problem about Crimea is that it is claimed as a maxim of diplomacy that we follow the road sign that says, “Do not enter box unless your exit is clear”. If we make sanctions on Russia wholly contingent on Russia’s leaving the Crimea, that, alas, will never happen, and there is therefore no obvious exit in terms of sanctions if we follow that route. Russia seems to be permanently in the Crimea, and there comes a point, after Salisbury and the chemical bombing by its ally Assad, when Russia must learn the lesson of behaving properly in international affairs and must also learn that there is conduct that will not be accepted and for which it will have to pay a price.

Sanctions, as was said in the committee report, are a most useful soft power tool, short of war. Some dismiss sanctions as gesture politics and, of course, they are not always effective and do not always hit the right targets. Iran and North Korea have been mentioned. I was fairly involved in the 1980s as the opposition spokesman on Africa, with the history of the anti-apartheid struggle. There is no doubt that, at that time, the sports boycott had a significant effect on public opinion on South Africa, and private sanctions by the financial community—illustrated by the effect of the 1986 failure of Chase Manhattan to roll over loans—had a major effect on the South African economy.

I note that, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on her Written Question of 13 March, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, replied that sanctions are indeed biting in Russia. I remind him of his reply: of the 3.7% decline in Russian GDP in 2015, Citibank estimates that 0.4% was due to the sanctions. Perhaps more importantly, it has made it more difficult for Russia to access western finance. As the noble Lord, Lord Horam, has just said, the role of the City of London is particularly important in this context. However desirable sanctions may be through the United Nations, the experience of the Russian veto in the UN Security Council on sanctions for Syria illustrates the limitations of that route. For us, by far the most useful institution is the European Union, where over 50% of the sanctions we impose are autonomous and where we in the UK have played a leading role. There is no doubt that the clout of a unified European Union response is powerful, both as a sword in bringing pressure on such countries and as a shield to protect EU member states against counter sanctions, if we were to carry out those sanctions on our own.

The possible isolation of the United Kingdom in this field would be neither attractive nor effective, so our aim must surely be to retain as much influence on EU policy as possible, even when we are outside the formal structures. The committee has looked at a whole variety of possibilities, the disadvantage being of course, on the evidence from Norway and Switzerland—in paragraphs 80 and 81 of the report—that, however closely we align ourselves and however inventive we are in respect of EU sanctions, we will be outside the club and thus following decisions over which we have no or very limited influence.

My first observation, therefore, is that any alternative to our current membership cannot be an improvement for us. I have seen a similar position in the EU sub-committee on which I have the privilege to serve—the judicial committee—both in terms of consumer protection, where any alternative is worse, according to those in the field, than the current relationship we have with the European Union, and also on the dispute resolution report that we have just published. What is clear is that this is an exercise in damage limitation for the United Kingdom. It is true, as the committee concludes, that there are several possible options which could be mutually beneficial, and who doubts that it is most important and mutually beneficial for us and the European Union that we work together? We have so much experience and so many resources, not least our intelligence resources, to bring to the table. But all other options are less desirable and make us weaker, and that is true over the field of foreign policy as a whole.

My second observation is that currently, our considerable expertise in the field is highly respected in the European Union and beyond, and its loss would weaken EU sanctions regimes. Not only that: our reduced weight in the debate would have a serious effect on the balance within the European Union. If we look, for example, at the EU sanctions against Russia, a number of countries, either because of geography or history, or more particularly because of their economic interests, are very wobbly on those sanctions. I think of Hungary, Austria—where both left and right are much weaker on Russia—to some extent the Czech Republic, certainly Cyprus, and certainly Italy in its current configuration, as it seeks a coalition. All these are reluctant partners in respect of sanctions against Russia, and the balance within the European Union will be substantially altered if our weight is taken from it. The loss of our influence is one reason why Russia belatedly intervened in the EU referendum, and we saw the allegations yesterday from the Conservative Member for the Isle of Wight about one Brexiteer tycoon who played a role on behalf of Russia in that referendum debate.

My next observation is far more positive: I turn to the question of sanctions against individuals for human rights violations. I commend and welcome the recent moves of the Government in this field. In the previous Parliament, the Government amended the Criminal Finances Act to allow our law enforcement agencies to recover from property in the UK the proceeds of human rights abuses, wherever in the world they are committed. This was the first part of the US Magnitsky Act; on the second part, on visa bans, the Government argued that adequate powers were available to exclude individuals whose presence was not conducive to the public good.

This week, in Tuesday’s debate on Report on the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, the Government went very much further. The result will be that sanctions can be made to prevent, or in response to, gross human rights abuse or violations. This is defined in a separate government amendment—I commend Sir Alan Duncan on his willingness to listen on this—to include the torture of a person by a public official or by a person in an official capacity, where the tortured person has sought to expose the illegal activity of a public official or to defend human rights or fundamental freedoms. This is a most welcome response to the Magnitsky case. Your Lordships may recall that Magnitsky, a Russian national, was an agent of Hermitage Capital Management who was tortured to death in a Russian prison. Subsequently, through an evidence trail, it became clear that Russian tax officials benefited financially from their misdeeds. The Russians took no action save to pursue Bill Browder, the head of Hermitage Capital Management, relentlessly, including at the moment in Cyprus.

Finally, there is a variety of relevant laws in force in this area in the US—the Magnitsky Act—Canada, Latvia and Lithuania. Relying on these precedents, and the precedent set by our own Government, I am producing a report to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which will encourage all members of wider European bodies to enact similar laws. The spreading of such precedence across the membership of the Council of Europe will be a memorial to Sergei Magnitsky himself and a tribute to Bill Browder, who has waged a most effective lobbying campaign to highlight the wrong done to Magnitsky and to seek an appropriate international response.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting 2018

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I join the noble Baroness in paying tribute to the Minister and to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for providing such a good foundation for this debate. CHOGMs have had a mixed history. Sri Lanka in 2013 was an unmitigated disaster because of the human rights record of the host country; it had limited participation. Malta in 2015 was a qualified success. Now, we are in London next month. Clearly, it has been extremely well-prepared by the Government and again, there is talk of the turning of the tide and new beginnings.

Colleagues will forgive me if I say that there is an element of “we have been here before”. I was spokesman on the Commonwealth for the Opposition during much of the 1980s. I have been a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association executive for over 25 years and chaired that organisation for four years. I saw at first hand parliamentary diplomacy at its best and the value that so many parliamentarians attach to the Commonwealth. I was also in the margins of the special Commonwealth conference on apartheid at Marlborough House in 1986 when there was a real danger that the Commonwealth would collapse. That same Conservative press that now trumpet the possibilities post-Brexit were urging us to leave what was deemed to be a “useless organisation”.

It will be interesting to learn what the public response is to the Government’s strenuous efforts—for example, how many big lunches will there be?—and to look at the press coverage of CHOGM. Mr Hitchens of the Cabinet Office told the IRC that the UK’s aim was to ensure that what was agreed at CHOGM was,

“not just words but has money and commitments underneath it”.

Clearly, he accepts the need to distinguish between the Commonwealth of declaration and the Commonwealth of reality.

I want the Commonwealth to move forward successfully, but surely the best starting point is to avoid exaggerating what the Commonwealth can do. Realistically, the Commonwealth is not and cannot realistically aspire to be a political bloc. Diversity has its advantages, but there is increasing evidence of a north-south divide within its institutions, particularly on human rights. For example, I understand that there is no attempt at caucusing at the United Nations General Assembly because each of the Commonwealth countries gives greater priority to its own regional organisation or to the non-aligned movement.

Again, the Commonwealth cannot aspire to be an economic bloc, although Commonwealth members do belong to a number of regional trade blocs. There is scope for increasing intra-Commonwealth trade, which should be exploited. But there are major links between the European Union and Commonwealth countries, now particularly with Canada after negotiations for CETA lasting seven years. Preparations have recently been concluded for the EU to begin negotiations with Australia and New Zealand. Again, there is an economic partnership between the European Union and South Africa and the SADC countries. India has been negotiating an FTA with the European Union since 2007, but is basically protectionist and would demand major migration concessions from the United Kingdom post Brexit. India has blown hot and cold over the Commonwealth for some time. As in politics, the EU has more negotiating clout than bilateral Commonwealth deals, so we must avoid the illusion that the Commonwealth could be an alternative to the European Union. That is why all the Commonwealth leaders I have been able to trace are remainers. It is particularly true that some of the smaller countries, such as Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, saw the UK as a bridge to the EU market and as an advocate for them in Brussels.

Declarations on human rights there are aplenty—from Harare to the charter—but press freedoms are threatened in India and Pakistan, capital punishment is legal in 36 Commonwealth countries and in many it is difficult to be a Christian. After the Eminent Persons Group report, the Commonwealth shot down the attempt to have a commissioner for human rights. Why? Because it would have shone a searchlight on practices which would have been embarrassing to so many countries.

If we are, as I hope we are, committed to the Commonwealth, what about additional resources for the secretariat? At the moment, we pay one-third of the budget; two-thirds of the budget is paid by us, Canada and Australia; while India pays 4%, Malaysia 1.6% and Nigeria under 1.4%. Will the Government encourage other Commonwealth countries to pay more to the secretariat?

I mention these negative features as an antidote to overblown assumptions, but we should remember that one test of the value of an organisation is that other countries are seeking to join. There are at least seven such countries, Gambia has rejoined and Zimbabwe is reconsidering its position. Some examples of the benefits of membership include the good offices of the Secretary-General, particularly notable in Chief Emeka Anyaoku concerning South Africa; the informal Commonwealth network, which has been mentioned, and the Commonwealth’s role in fragile states, particularly in helping post-conflict countries such as Sierra Leone. The Commonwealth consensus on climate change was an essential prerequisite to the success of the Paris conference. Small countries walk taller in the Commonwealth.

I have a few final questions. First, does the Government favour the establishment of a new associate status and was Ireland invited to this CHOGM? Do the Government hope that relations with la Francophonie will be developed? How will they evolve? As part of her campaign to be Secretary-General, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, published her ambitious manifesto. She deserves the full support of Parliament and the Government, and I hope that will be forthcoming.

Commonwealth Summit: Human Rights

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Chidgey (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

On the latter group, I totally agree with the noble and right reverend Lord. We continue to raise these issues in the context of the Commonwealth but also bilaterally where those groups are discriminated against. On LGBT rights, I assure noble Lords that the Prime Minister herself has committed to raising issues around LGBT rights during Commonwealth Week. As I have also made clear on a number of occasions, we continue to raise these issues, particularly with those nations across the Commonwealth which still criminalise homosexuality. We continue to raise this both in the context of the Commonwealth and bilaterally.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

Does the Minister agree that the Commonwealth has been strong on declaration —Harare and the charter—but less strong in practice? For example, of the 58 countries in the world where capital punishment is legal, 36 are in the Commonwealth. The recent report of Open Doors shows that, of those 50 countries in the world where it is difficult to be a Christian, seven are in the Commonwealth. Is this a priority of the Government?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I assure the noble Lord that, on all issues of human rights and opposing the death penalty, the Government remain very clear and firm, including in the context of Commonwealth visits. For example, most recently I visited the Gambia and raised LGBT rights and the death penalty directly with the appropriate Ministers. We will continue to do so. I agree with the noble Lord that declarations from the Commonwealth are always strong but the actions have perhaps not delivered on those declarations. Together, working with the Secretary-General, it is our aim to revitalise and re-energise the Commonwealth.

Foreign Policy: Parliamentary Participation

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I have of course seen the report from the Foreign Affairs Committee. Having been before the committee on three occasions over the last month, I was asked about Britain’s position in the global world. Look at our leadership in the area of development—at how we are working hand-in-glove with Commonwealth countries on preventing sexual violence and ensuring reforms in the United Nations. Our membership of NATO underlines Britain’s global position in the world. Of course we will continue to work with parliamentarians. I say to all colleagues across your Lordships’ House and in the other place that it is on all of us to ensure that the voice of global Britain is heard in all corners across the world.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that post-Brexit it will be even more important that parliamentarians are encouraged to build relationships with their counterparts in EU countries? To that end, does he agree that the parliamentary scheme should be such that it does not disadvantage parliamentarians who participate in it, so it should be put on a par with the emoluments for those who go to international parliamentary conferences?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I am sure all those who are involved with the various committees and bodies will listen carefully to the noble Lord’s suggestion. From the Government’s perspective, I reiterate that we have bolstered many of our positions in European capitals in preparedness for the post-Brexit world. As for parliamentary support, I am sure that the extra support within our different missions across Europe will also assist. If I may say so as Minister for the UN, we are also adding to our support in our missions in New York and in Geneva, which will also assist parliamentary colleagues when they visit those offices.

ISIS: Trial of British Citizens

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that in September last year the United Kingdom Government, along with other members of the Security Council, drove the issue of Daesh accountability. I am sure we were very pleased to see the passing of Resolution 2379, which is focused on ensuring that, as peace prevails in Iraq, evidence is gathered and the perpetrators of these crimes are brought to justice, exactly as the noble Lord said. On his broader point about ensuring that justice is brought to bear on those who have committed crimes, I assure noble Lords that we expect everyone, including foreign fighters and those holding British nationality who are captured in either Iraq or Syria, to be treated in accordance with international humanitarian law. As the noble Lord will know, that includes ensuring that they have the correct legal representation by those who speak their language, among other conditions.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord’s Question refers to some very dangerous individuals who could cause considerable harm if they were allowed to return to this country freely. The problem is surely finding adequate evidence that will stand up in a court of law. Therefore, are the Government now providing, and are they prepared to provide in the future, funds to third-party organisations to help them bring forward evidence of ICC crimes?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I agree with the noble Lord. The first duty of any Government is the security of their citizens, and I believe we all subscribe to that. On his second point, I referred to the Security Council resolution and he will be aware that the Government are also providing financial support in this regard, having already allocated £1 million for that purpose.

United States: Foreign Policy

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, and I will make three reflections. One is on the unpredictability of current US foreign policy; the second is to offer certain examples; and the third on what is our appropriate UK response.

In the past, there have been periods when we have been comfortable with US foreign policy and others when we have been less so. Those differences reflect in part our respective geography, history and culture. Our tradition is more elitist, that of the US led more by the democratic tradition, which was described by Alexis de Tocqueville as being subject to waves of popular emotion. Past phases of US foreign policy included the post-First World War liberal internationalism, followed by the isolationism of the 1930s and, post-Second World War, the commitment to international institutions with the Marshall plan, Bretton Woods and NATO. Then there was the harsh realism of Suez, the moralism of Carter, Reagan’s naive expansion of democracy, the crusader element of Bush—leading to the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq—and the ultra-cautious realism of Obama, which vacated the ground in the Middle East to Iran and Russia.

During those periods, however, at least US policy was predictable. Under President Trump, it is more capricious. President Zigzag has a large ego and oscillates from tweet to tweet. One of the few consistencies is the aim to overturn the Obama legacy and have “America first”. It is therefore more difficult for our Washington embassy to report accurately on the changes. Think also of the US ambassadors in Africa who have carefully built up relationships over time, only to see them demolished by the ill-considered expletives of President Trump. All this is compounded by cuts in personnel and attacks on the intelligence and diplomatic communities, but we are hardly a good example on the reduction of personnel.

The President’s idiosyncrasies have caused real problems for US ambassadors, not least the US ambassador in London, who was wrong-footed by the President’s decision—taken on spurious grounds—not to open the new US embassy here. When the President calls the press “enemies of the people”, it makes it the more difficult for the West to set an example and criticise press curbs in places such as Russia and Turkey. Equally, when he criticises the judges, it makes it more difficult for us to carry on our tradition of supporting the rule of law elsewhere in the world.

Particular areas of concern include Israel and Palestine. The orthodox view is that there can be no settlement without US involvement, but this US role has been made less possible—perhaps impossible—by the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the reduction in aid to UNRWA. The President has made childish comments about the North Korean leader such as calling him Little Rocket Man, and said, “My button is bigger than yours” and “I will destroy North Korea”. These were all to the embarrassment of our ally, South Korea, which seeks to build bridges with the north.

By reducing security aid to Pakistan, the US could well lose a key source of intelligence on terrorism. The points on Iran have already been well made by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and others. There have been similar brash utterances on climate change, Latin America, NATO and Russia.

How should we respond? Our response in respect of climate change, Iran and the Middle East has been measured and correct. We have avoided bluster but at the same time have accepted that the US is a key ally—particularly in the field of intelligence and US agencies—and have avoided divergence wherever possible, looking long. We should not seek differences with the US but should recognise that over great swathes of policy, our position is much closer to that of our EU partners. This is hardly surprising, as the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, would no doubt say, because of the working relationships developed over many years by diplomats and Ministers.

We will continue to bring major assets to the table: the P5 and our hard and soft power, which are relevant to our current discussions with President Macron. We will co-operate with the French on defence, building on St Malo and the Lancaster House agreements on climate change and many other policies. What shall we exchange for the French gesture on Bayeux? As a Francophile decorated by France, I counsel against offering our French colleagues the Maclise paintings in the Royal Gallery. Yes, we should avoid policy divergences with the US but, notwithstanding Brexit, we should align our policies and interests with those of our EU partners, particularly France.

Syria

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Wednesday 20th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I assure the noble Earl that, as others in your Lordships’ House know, the Government have taken a very firm line on ensuring, and, indeed, leading the way on ensuring, that in particular the NGOs working in the context of the Syrian conflict and in Syria get the necessary exemptions to allow them to deliver humanitarian aid. He will also be aware of the UK’s contribution: we are second to only one other in our contribution of close to £2.5 billion-worth of aid, assistance and humanitarian assistance. He may also be aware that we were very pleased to note the renewal of UN Resolution 2165, on the cross-border provision of humanitarian aid directly to Syria without the approval of the regime. That underlines the humanitarian commitment and support that the UK Government are delivering to the war-afflicted people of Syria through DfID and other NGOs working with great courage on the ground.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not clear—

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords—

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL]

Lord Anderson of Swansea Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 12th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beith]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. At the beginning of my remarks, I said that I was referring specifically to the Crown dependencies and not to the overseas territories, on which a different speech might have to be made. I would also have to say that registers of ownership are only as good as the quality of the information contained in them. The decision of Crown dependencies not to have publicly open registers but to have registers fully open to law enforcement and tax authorities, so long as those registers are of a high quality, is what is most important. It can reasonably be argued—and was argued with a noble Lord with responsibilities in this area during our previous debate—that the registers now in existence in the dependencies are actually better enforced than that of Companies House.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

Is the noble Lord aware that, for the first time, the European Union has published a list of those countries that are countries “of note” in respect of money laundering? It is sad to say that, of those, Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man appear, which is a matter of concern.

[Lord Beith]

The noble Lord bears out my point. The process of challenging anything found to be unsatisfactory is one to which the dependencies are open. That may come from European Union sources or non-governmental organisations, but these are open and democratic societies, in which those challenges can be made. The UK Government have responsibilities and have the means of exercising them already at their disposal.