Moved by Lord Howell of Guildford That this House takes note of the
2022 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and the future of the
Commonwealth. Lord Howell of Guildford (Con) My Lords, I declare a
general interest and involvement in this subject over many years,
although nothing specific in the register. My purpose in seeking
this debate is not merely to reflect on the just finished Heads of
Government meeting in Kigali in Rwanda but to share some
thoughts...Request free trial
Moved by
That this House takes note of the 2022 Commonwealth Heads of
Government Meeting and the future of the Commonwealth.
(Con)
My Lords, I declare a general interest and involvement in this
subject over many years, although nothing specific in the
register. My purpose in seeking this debate is not merely to
reflect on the just finished Heads of Government meeting in
Kigali in Rwanda but to share some thoughts on how the
Commonwealth network fits into the entirely new contours of the
international landscape that we now confront and into our own
future prosperity, security and influence.
Kigali seemed to go extremely well. Personally, I welcome the
outcome that the change of Secretary-General will be orderly and
in two years’ time. This prevents further division and gives a
chance to the current Secretary-General, the noble and learned
Baroness, Lady Scotland, to overcome her past difficulties and
help lift the evolving Commonwealth to its new level of
significance in both economic and security world affairs.
A good deal of quiet work has been going on at the secretariat,
especially in the causes of women and girls in the changing
Commonwealth, in environmental and marine co-operation and in the
struggling smaller island states. However, people now look to
Marlborough House to give an altogether stronger lead to the
network, especially in the face of the new security threats its
members confront, to which I will come a little later.
I also salute the work of my noble friend , who I see is here and I hope
will speak, whose business forum meeting in Kigali showed how he
has injected fresh vigour into expanding Commonwealth trade and
investment. The opportunity is certainly there for that when the
Commonwealth today contains several of the fastest-growing and
highest-tech economies in the world, as well as many of the
poorest, which are most threatened by current events, such as the
pandemic, energy costs and increased climate violence.
However, I want to come to the future and how the Commonwealth
fits into it. I can do that best by asking some basic questions.
First, what is the Commonwealth’s purpose today? I begin to
answer this by repeating what the Commonwealth is not: it is not
a block, an alliance, a treaty-bound organisation, a relic, or a
nostalgic leftover of Empire. Indeed, it is an entirely different
network today not just from the imperial past but from the
eight-member Commonwealth of Nations set up in the 1949 London
declaration. It now has 54 members and is about to increase with
two more; several other countries indicate a desire to join. That
is hardly a sign of a declining system or a fading association,
as ill-informed critics like to keep claiming. Indeed, I find my
Japanese friends constantly inquiring about it. In better days
than now there was quite a strong interest in the Republic of
Ireland’s closer association with it—perhaps that will return
when things improve on that front. At one stage, even the
Americans were asking about the need for a Commonwealth office in
Washington. That struck me as a little odd as they fought a whole
war of independence to get away from us.
It is also not the case that Britain is at the centre of some
kind of hub-and-spoke arrangement, with member states sometimes
depicted as outposts. That belongs entirely to 20th-century
thinking; it is completely out of date. Networks have strong
links all around, but no centre; all are connected to all. Today,
the Commonwealth is such a network—indeed, it is the largest that
has ever formed in history. Modern, digitally empowered networks
work away, grow at every level and never sleep. We must remember
that, although Kigali was for Heads of Government, the
Commonwealth is primarily a people’s and grass-roots linked
system, given new relevance—almost a sort of blood transfusion—by
the technology of connectivity, Zoom and the age of the
microchip.
That is why, although some Governments may not see eye to eye and
some may blatantly disregard the values embedded in the
Commonwealth charter, which is always very regrettable, at the
non-governmental level, the level of civil society, business and
everyday life and work, a binding and integrating process
nevertheless continues apace. This may sometimes be difficult for
officials and diplomats to grasp, but it draws together a largely
English-speaking nexus, with a vast and growing mesh or
latticework of common interests in everything from science and
law to health and education of all kinds. This includes, for
example, the largest long-distance learning system in the world
through the Commonwealth of Learning based in Vancouver and the
Association of Commonwealth Universities, with 500 or more
universities on its books.
Of course, parliamentarians connect through the lively
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which we all know.
However, the linkages go far beyond governance to engineering,
all kinds of technology and research, education at every level,
health and medicine, magistrates and judges, architects and
designers, every aspect of our culture, and, of course, sport, as
we shall all be reminded shortly at the forthcoming Commonwealth
Games in Birmingham. Indeed, the linkages go to all professions:
the list of Commonwealth professional bodies, most of them now
thriving, goes off the page because it is so long.
Her Majesty the Queen described the Commonwealth a decade ago as,
in many ways,
“the face of the future”
and that is exactly what the communications revolution has proved
as time has gone by. I must say that her comments showed a good
deal more insight and perceptiveness than some of her Ministers
or some foreign policy experts or think-tank tyros. So that is
the scene, but I have to ask my second question. Why does any of
this matter to us here today in the UK, as we still seek to
reposition ourselves globally after the Brexit drama and other
changes?
First, all this activity covers areas where soft power and
influence—ours is considerable and usually underrated
—increasingly work best. Secondly, it is true that in the last 50
years our trade and investment links with the Commonwealth
countries have declined substantially. But now, as Asia rises and
becomes the fastest and biggest growth area of the globe—pulling
ahead not just economically, but in advanced technology and the
education and skills to drive it—and as two-way direct investment
flows open up again on a massive scale, the situation is
reversing fast.
These are the markets we need to be in and the official intention
to join the rather heavily called Comprehensive and Progressive
agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership —CPTPP—underlines the
fact. Incidentally, if and when we join, and we have the strong
support of Japan in doing so, then more than half the members
will be Commonwealth states. Beyond the CPTPP lies the Regional
Comprehensive Economic Partnership. We are not members of that at
the moment but that will be, and indeed already is, by far the
biggest world trading network of all. Elsewhere, the new African
Continental Free Trade Area opens out big new areas of economic
exchange, on a continent all set for an immense population growth
to about 1 billion by 2050.
That is the new picture on the trade side but, aside from all
that, there is now a new geopolitical and security priority
emerging. I very much wanted to get that into our debate today.
Today, China is intruding into every part of the Commonwealth;
not just commercially or via unrepayable loans but via military
matters, officer training and even policing involvement. China
understands what our experts often seem to overlook: small island
states, far from being strategically unimportant, are now of
immense strategic value in controlling maritime traffic, air
traffic, GPS systems and even space. Hence, to take a current
example, Chinese interest in establishing naval bases in places
such as the Solomon Islands and having a footing, or outright
control, in 96 port facilities in 53 countries scattered across
the entire world, many of them Commonwealth. This is China’s way
of extending its naval reach against ours and pursuing its
hegemonic strategy of rejecting what it sees as the Western, and
especially American, lop-sided dominance of the globe.
Not a week goes by without news of China extending its distinctly
military activities into new islands in the South Seas, to the
utter dismay of our Australian ally, which takes these things
very seriously, or the Caribbean states, or the coastal states of
Africa. I am not one of those dogmatic Sinophobes who thinks we
have to break all links with China and regard it as a deadly
enemy. In some key areas, such as energy and climate, we have to
work with it closely and perhaps rather more cleverly than some
of the American approaches in recent times. But if we let our
Commonwealth network —our best means of transmitting our soft
power—crumble or be nibbled away, then that undoubtedly will be a
major foreign policy failure.
Meanwhile, China, the Commonwealth and the Ukraine horror weave
together. President Biden says that the world is united against
Russian brutality. The West may be, but the developing
world—so-called—is not. Too many Commonwealth members are
reluctant to condemn the unprovoked Russian attack on a smaller
nation. Their immediate reasons may be understandable but their
preference for a sort of neutrality on Chinese lines, when such
actions undermine the entire international order, is deeply
concerning. There can be no neutrality between inhuman butchery,
unprovoked aggression and ordered governance. No nation is safe
from that kind of lawlessness.
Via the belt and road initiative, double taxation and investment
agreements and so on, the Chinese influence is creeping onwards.
China now has BRI memorandums of understanding with 141
countries, including 38 of the Commonwealth’s total of 54—about
to be 56. That indeed is networking, but the wrong sort of
networking from our point of view. What should be our chain of
liberty against the autocrats, and the best containment of rising
Chinese power in Asia and elsewhere, could well be turned on its
head, becoming instead a spearhead of Chinese influence across
the planet.
My final question is: what should we do now, beyond all the
initiatives that we have undoubtedly taken during our
chairmanship? I was very glad to see that, at the G7 in Bavaria
the other day, the idea of counterinfluence to the tentacles of
the belt and road initiative was resurrected and developed. Of
course, the Commonwealth is central to this. Using private
enterprise in harmony with government policy, we certainly ought
to be able to check the global march of the Chinese state and its
corporate henchmen across the globe. While not matching all
Chinese inducements, we should certainly be containing Chinese
ambition.
Further tests of which side one should be on may come up shortly,
if and when China impatiently uses force against Taiwan. Are we
ensuring that the Commonwealth will choose diplomacy and
understanding against brutal aggression on that issue? Have we
talked to them? Have we lined up the support of India on this
one, in contrast to its wobblier stance on Russia? How does
Pakistan fit in with its strong Chinese links, or Sri Lanka as it
wallows in debt, or Malaysia or the African leaderships?
We have been told repeatedly over the decades that we lack a role
and a vision. To me, the role is now quite clear and has been for
some time. At a time of enormous international instability, with
old types of primitive warfare and new types of threat
multiplying everywhere, our role is to uphold freedom under the
law and to stand shoulder to shoulder with like-minded nations,
large and small, in fruitful two-way partnerships and coalitions.
In doing so, the Commonwealth is the key element of that mission.
It is changing all the time and may well evolve into something
different—that is possible. If so, we should be at the heart of
it, creatively, constructively and imaginatively.
Are we up to it? We should be straining every muscle of diplomacy
to ensure that we work as closely as possible with the
Commonwealth family. But this family needs to move from being
seen sometimes by British officialdom as marginal and a slightly
tiresome legacy to being a central component of our strategy,
direction, role fulfilment and future security. That is the
assurance we need from Ministers: that they understand what is
happening and where we are going. As to the vision and
presentation of our story in this new world we have entered, I
admit that that needs some brushing up, but the time for doing
that is now—before it is too late. I hope that this debate will
assist in that respect. I beg to move.
3.09pm
(Lab)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, , and congratulate
him on introducing this debate. We know his interest in the
Commonwealth; he has spoken about this on several occasions in
this House in the past. He will forgive me if I give a slightly
different view and raise questions that have not been raised
before about the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth is basically a legacy of the British Empire—of
course, not entirely so, because it includes states that were not
part of the British Empire, such as Rwanda and Mozambique, and it
excludes states that were once part of the British Empire, such
as Ireland and even the United States. Nevertheless, it remains
the fact that it is primarily a legacy of the British Empire.
Given this, we cannot understand it unless we understand the
British Empire. What was the character of the British Empire?
What was it about? What did it do to those 54 or 56 colonies out
of which the Commonwealth came to be constituted?
The British Empire was very different from the other great
European empires, such as the Portuguese, the Spanish, the
French, the Dutch, the Belgian and many others. That is the first
thing to note about the British Empire. However, the second and
most important thing about the British Empire is that it was
never a cosy affair. Empires involve brutality, genocide, a great
deal of violence, and humiliation of the ex-colonies and subjects
of the empire. The memories of this brutality and genocide may be
forgotten and forgiven by the imperial power, but they are never
forgotten by the victims, by those who suffered them; they
continue to remember them, with the result that we are often
surprised that they do not seem to show sufficient gratitude. For
example, many ex-colonies—six in the West Indies—do not wish to
be members of the Commonwealth and want to be republics, and we
are surprised. They raise questions about slavery during the
British Empire and we are surprised. We are constantly surprised
by many of the awkward but realistic questions they raise. The
question to ask, therefore, is whether our view of the
Commonwealth is based on adequate recognition and acknowledgement
of what actually went on in the name of the British Empire.
To think of ourselves as a kind and generous people who went
thousands of miles to other countries to civilise the natives and
came back having done our job, sometimes angry that they were not
sufficiently grateful, is not really a proper understanding of
what we actually did. So, before we talk about the Commonwealth
as a viable force, we ought to understand what the British Empire
was about. In the three minutes I have left, or even less than
three minutes, I want to set out a very brief agenda in the hope
that, in the future, we might be able to take it up.
The first thing I suggest is that there has to be a broadly
agreed Commonwealth view of the British Empire. Britain has one
view of the British Empire; India has a very different
view—partly good, partly not so good; South Africa and other
countries have a totally different view. I think the time has
come for historians and others from different Commonwealth
countries to get together, debate and form a just estimate of
what the British Empire really did. That is very important:
unless the truth is faced, we are in danger of allowing the
Commonwealth to become an irrelevance or a pointless and
ornamental appendage.
The second thing it is important to recognise is that, if it is
going to be a Commonwealth and not the British Commonwealth, it
should not be seen as a property or an extension of British
foreign policy. We cannot expect Commonwealth countries to do
what we would like to do, in Ukraine or anywhere else. We see the
Commonwealth through our eyes; have we tried to look at ourselves
through Commonwealth eyes and asked ourselves how we look from
that perspective? I therefore suggest that the Queen or her
successor should not automatically be the Head of the
Commonwealth. As for the modus operandi we should operate, that
is something that can be sorted out later.
The third important thing we need to do is to build up an
institutional infrastructure, to which the noble Lord, Lord
Howell, rightly referred, so we can have co-operative
institutions and practices at the level of journalism, sport,
education, and so on.
Fourthly and finally, the Commonwealth consists of
transcontinental countries. It is the only association I know,
other than the United Nations, whose members come from every
continent, so it is very important that it should be a pressure
group for important global issues such as climate change and
others.
My simple conclusion is that, as Britain stretches out to explore
its relations with other countries in the context of implementing
the Brexit policy, it is very important that it should face the
truth, recognise its past and come to terms with it; otherwise,
we are in danger of talking about a wonderful picture of the
Commonwealth which matches no reality.
(Con)
I respectfully remind noble Lords that the Back-Bench speaking
time is five minutes.
3.15pm
(LD)
My lords, the Commonwealth is very important to people such as me
who would not have been here without it. It was membership of the
Commonwealth that opened the doors for the people of its member
countries to work and settle in the United Kingdom, to rebuild
the country after the Second World War. I commend the British
people, who welcomed our families with open arms, and in the same
breath I acknowledge the adult education service that helped
people such as me to work and learn at the same time, to compete
in the labour market with the provision of equal opportunity.
The United Kingdom, being the head of the Commonwealth, has a
huge amount of respect and influence in the development of its
member countries. Under the banner of the Commonwealth all member
countries commit to the development of free and democratic
societies and the promotion of peace and prosperity to improve
the lives of all its peoples. In 2018 at the Commonwealth Heads
of Government Meeting in London, the theme was “Towards a Common
Future”. Following the meeting, the leaders adopted a communiqué,
which set out a series of political commitments and practical
actions that had been agreed. These commitments included
strengthening democratic institutions and building peace.
The Commonwealth has a combined population of 2.5 billion people,
and approximately 1.5 billion of them live in two member
countries: India and Pakistan. A quick glance at the economic
condition of these two countries paints a very gloomy picture.
According to the recent report of the Global Multidimensional
Poverty Index, in India 97 million people are living in extreme
poverty. According to its classification, “extreme poverty” means
individuals who are without income, home, health, or food twice a
day. Additionally, people who are bedridden, those who have no
facilities to make and eat food, and those who have debts due to
health ailments come under this category.
According to UNICEF, less than 50 per cent of the population of
India has access to safely managed drinking water. In Pakistan,
according to the World Bank, in 2018 46.5 million people—21.9% of
the population—lived under the national poverty line. According
to WaterAid Pakistan, 21.7 million people do not have clean
water; that is one in 10 people. This is only the tip of the
iceberg. If you look at other strands of poverty, including
health, education, the environment and other areas in these two
countries, the situation is alarming.
Yet India’s defence budget for 2022-23 has increased by 9.8% to
$70.6 billion, while Pakistan has announced a defence budget of
$7.5 billion, a 12% increase on last year. These massive
disparities between the levels of poverty facing such a large
number of the population of these two countries and their
incredible defence spending shows the sense of insecurity and the
fragile peace between these nuclear neighbours, who have been at
war with each other at least three times, with continued sporadic
border skirmishes. Any accident or mistake could trigger an
all-out war, with devastating consequences not only for the
region but for the world at large.
The main dispute between India and Pakistan is the issue of Jammu
and Kashmir, a region that is divided between India and Pakistan
and which is waiting for the implementation of the UN resolutions
of 1948, 1949 and many subsequent ones to decide its future.
The development of these two countries is held hostage by the
continued violence and warlike situation between the two
countries over Kashmir. If this was resolved, it would bring an
end to the continued suffering not only of the Kashmiri people
but of the 1.5 billion people of India and Pakistan. The
extravagant amount of money spent on defence could be better
utilised for the benefit of the poor people of these
countries.
Over the years, many rounds of bilateral talks between India and
Pakistan have failed to resolve this issue, and it is unlikely
that they will succeed without third-party mediation. Since
Commonwealth member states are committed to the development of
“free and democratic societies” and the
“promotion of peace and prosperity to improve the lives of all
the people of the Commonwealth”,
I am mindful that the Commonwealth has a role to bring peace in
the Indian subcontinent. Britain, as the head of the
Commonwealth, is best placed to help in the mediation for a
long-lasting peace that would benefit the 1.5 billion people of
India and Pakistan and resolve one of the oldest disputes in the
history of the United Nations.
With that background, I ask the Minister: what steps are Her
Majesty’s Government prepared to take to bring India and Pakistan
to a negotiating table and help to resolve the Kashmir issue in a
way that is acceptable to India, Pakistan and the people of Jammu
and Kashmir?
3.21pm
(CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on stewarding—on behalf of
two Prime Ministers—the duties of chair-in-office of the
Commonwealth, culminating in a smooth handover to Rwanda. It is a
rare achievement for a Foreign Office Minister to participate at
successive CHOGMs, and unprecedented for a Minister to be present
at two such meetings when they are over four years apart. My
remarks focus on three things: identity, agenda and the
realms.
First, at last week’s CHOGM, the Commonwealth admitted its 55th
and 56th member states: Gabon and Togo. I have the impression
that the news excited more interest in Paris and Brussels than in
London. Continental observers appreciated that two new members,
both part of la Francophonie, were proof of the vibrancy of the
Commonwealth. New members necessarily flex to the club they are
joining, their presence enriching but not fundamentally altering
the organisation, so French-speaking new members must not change
the Commonwealth as an exclusively English-speaking organisation.
Its meetings are productive because everyone speaks the same
language, unhindered by the barrier of interpretation.
Enlargement must not change that.
Secondly, in recent years, the Commonwealth’s agenda has
expanded, even effloresced. The final communiqué at Kigali ran to
117 paragraphs over 22 closely typed pages. I remind your
Lordships that history suggests that the impact of a summit
communiqué is in inverse proportion to its length. In the run-up
to CHOGM in Samoa, I urge the Minister to help the Commonwealth
Secretariat to prioritise.
Thirdly, and perhaps most urgent, is the future of the 14
overseas realms within the Commonwealth. Last week in Kigali, the
Prince of Wales said,
“each member’s Constitutional arrangement, as Republic or
Monarchy, is purely a matter for each member country to
decide”—
clear, selfless, and as much as he could say. This leaves the
Royal Family in an invidious position. Having said repeatedly
that they will serve for as long as their service is welcome, a
change in constitutional arrangements might look like a rejection
of the Royal Family. Yet they cannot express understanding, still
less support, for a change without looking reluctant to
serve.
Her Majesty’s Government can help. First, the Government can
explicitly acknowledge the case for change; constitutional
arrangements which were agreed in the rush of decolonisation are
now out of kilter with the times. It is impossible for us Britons
to argue with the sentiment of an Australian republican campaign
poster which said, “We want a Head Of State who is entitled to an
Australian passport”. Increasingly, the realms want a Head of
State who lives among them, and who is able to represent them and
only them on the international stage. They want one of their own
to occupy the pinnacle position in their country. Secondly, Her
Majesty’s Government can state explicitly that a change in
constitutional arrangements would have no negative impact on the
bilateral relationship of the United Kingdom with any realm that
becomes a republic.
Thirdly, the Government can make the Commonwealth the framework
for future relations with realms that change their status. India
was the forerunner. In 1950, India became a republic and remained
a member of the Commonwealth. In many ways, that transition was
the founding act of the modern Commonwealth. As the Prince of
Wales also said in Kigali:
“arrangements such as these can change, calmly and without
rancour.”
Since Her Majesty became Queen, 18 realms have become republics,
the latest being Barbados last year. Debate is hotting up in the
remaining realms. Logically, the accession of a new monarch would
be a moment for them to take stock. On the first day of this
month, Matt Thistlethwaite was sworn in as Assistant Minister for
the Republic in Australia. The direction of travel is clear.
It is vital that any change be consensual and harmonious. It
would be monstrously unfair for change in multiple realms to be
presented as a stampede for the exit or a personal rebuke to the
new monarch. In many ways, change is overdue. The unique
arrangement of having a Head of State residing thousands of miles
away in a separate sovereign country persists primarily out of
respect and affection for the Queen. I conclude that Her
Majesty’s Government can de-dramatise the impending and, I would
say, inevitable change by joining the conversation already begun
and stressing the importance of the Commonwealth as the vibrant,
indeed irreplaceable, framework for the future.
3.26pm
The Lord
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, , for securing this
timely debate. There is a tension throughout the history of the
Commonwealth in its structure between cohesion and comprehension;
between the fullest capacity to relate, and demands of function
and utility. When the Imperial Conference of 1926 adopted the
London declaration that the United Kingdom and dominions were
“autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in
status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of
their domestic or external affairs”—
comments which I think still resonate in terms of the last
speech—the competing argument of imperial federation was in
terminal retreat.
Since then, despite the closest bonds in war, despite the Ottawa
agreements on trade, and despite the sterling area, the pressure
in the Commonwealth has remained relentlessly centrifugal:
legislative independence under the Statute of Westminster, the
arrangement of the London declaration in 1949, the readmission of
republics and the strategic decision of the UK to align itself
with both the European Community and the United States. A
vigorous UK foreign policy in the 1980s conflicted with much of
the rest of the Commonwealth and tested the partnership to its
limits. Yet, and notwithstanding the very significant questions
about the legacy of Empire asked by the noble Lord, , the Commonwealth endures and
flourishes. Why should this be?
One feature, I believe, is Her Majesty the Queen, who now in the
71st year of her reign is still holding true to the pledge she
made on her 21st birthday in Cape Town in 1947. One part of the
speech tends to be quoted, but in another the Princess Elizabeth
assured us:
“If we all go forward together with an unwavering faith, a high
courage, and a quiet heart, we shall be able to make of this
ancient commonwealth, which we all love so dearly, an even
grander thing—more free, more prosperous, more happy and a more
powerful influence for good in the world—than it has been in the
greatest days of our forefathers.”
She said this on the cusp of momentous change, both in her own
life, and in the life of this country and the Commonwealth
itself. None the less, as Head of the Commonwealth, the Queen has
lived out what she commended to us. All of us, I suspect, have
coins about us, and those coins bear one of the royal titles:
“F.D.”—Defender of the Faith.
Increasingly, commentators down the years have noted the Queen’s
personal commitment to the Christian faith. It is also true that
she has never lost faith in the Commonwealth and never wavered in
her outward support or active engagement, even when the subject
became controversial. Indeed, her steadfast belief has been key
to the survival and development of the partnership. What others
have identified as a key weakness—its absence of a power
structure and capacity to project influence—allows it to focus on
relationships, providing a non-threatening forum for smaller
states to engage with larger ones on an equal footing. Hence its
expanding number, with applications from beyond the former
territories of the British Empire. What is inconceivable to the
authors of journal articles on international relations and
practitioners of realpolitik is seemingly all too evident to the
leaders of Mozambique, Cameroon, Rwanda, Gabon and Togo.
There are two causes for optimism going forward. One is the
flexible nature of the Commonwealth, which allows it to survive
without threatening its members, especially the smaller ones.
This is particularly valuable in the arena of co-operation
necessary to meet global and individual state targets to tackle
global warming. Such flexibility will enable the Commonwealth to
develop rather than atrophy. Secondly, His Royal Highness the
Prince of Wales will bring his own particular quality of
commitment and service to succeed that of the Queen when he, in
due course, becomes Head of the Commonwealth—a decision agreed at
the 2018 London Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting; it was
not automatic.
Two further things are necessary. One is to nourish the
Commonwealth organisations that facilitate relationships and
outcomes at an entirely different level, from the Commonwealth
Association of Tax Administrators to the Association of
Commonwealth Universities and the Commonwealth Magistrates’ and
Judges’ Association. Secondly, we should increase rather than
decrease our support through the Foreign Office and Diplomatic
Service for our international relations at this time. The threat
of cuts to the Civil Service will, I hope, be prevented in the
Foreign Office.
I hope that, going forward, Her Majesty’s Government will give
powerful and tangible evidence of their engagement with member
states of the Commonwealth, and that the depth of our commitment
will match the warmth of our words.
3.33pm
(Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Howell on
securing this debate and on his wise, perceptive remarks. He has
personally made a distinguished contribution to the Commonwealth
in various capacities. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord
Marland’s work for the Commonwealth Business Council, whose
activities have burgeoned under his leadership; I look forward to
his speech. It is a great privilege to follow the wise words of
the right reverend Prelate the .
The Government’s recent UK Commonwealth Chair-In-OfficeReport
tells an impressive story and is a comprehensive rebuttal of the
case of those who say that the Commonwealth is an amorphous
anachronism doomed to atrophy. The British Government’s role in
supporting Commonwealth work in global health security, most
recently during the pandemic, has been vital—especially in
delivering vaccine doses, where there is still much more work to
be done. In addition to allocating core funding for the
secretariat, the Commonwealth Youth Programme, the Commonwealth
Fund for Technical Co-operation, the Commonwealth Foundation and
the Commonwealth of Learning, the Government have supported 32
other projects, from good governance and parliamentary
accountability to countering violent extremism. Some may say that
future government support for the secretariat should be
accompanied by even more persuasive advice in the future than
there has been in the past; I could not possibly comment.
Important progress has been made in many areas. Commitment to
human rights and the rule of law was marked by the delivery of
the first Commonwealth statement in the United Nations Human
Rights Council. Trade barriers have continued to be lowered, an
area where further progress can and should be made. The
Commonwealth Climate Finance Access Hub gives vital support to
some of the most climatically vulnerable countries in the world,
again with essential British financial support.
The examples of British government support are legion but, as my
noble friend Lord Howell rightly pointed out in the debate in
your Lordships’ House last July, the binding ties of a voluntary
non-treaty global organisation such as the Commonwealth rely less
on Governments than on links between businesses, non-governmental
organisations, the professions, educational and scientific
institutions and in sport, culture and the arts. That remains the
reality.
The Commonwealth’s priorities—economic development, global
health, security, human rights, good governance, the rule of law,
an international rules-based system, climate change and
protection of the environment, and a more secure world—will all
continue to need the contribution of Governments, including our
own, and non-government participants. The Commonwealth is well
endowed with all such participants and has demonstrated clearly
the collective will to drive those priorities forward. It has
much to be proud of. It also has formidable challenges ahead. I
hope and believe that we shall meet those challenges.
I look forward to hearing from my noble and learned friend the
Minister, to whom the Commonwealth is greatly indebted, as the
noble Lord, Lord McDonald, has said, for his work over the last
few years, as indeed is your Lordships’ House.
3.37pm
(CB)
My Lords, the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in 2022
was postponed and postponed, and finally took place in Kigali,
Rwanda, from 20 June to 25 June. The Commonwealth is a free
association of sovereign states. It is a development of free and
democratic societies, a promoter of peace and prosperity to
improve the lives of all people in the Commonwealth. There are
now 56 countries in the Commonwealth; it has a population of 2.5
billion, of which India, one country, makes up 1.4 billion. More
than 60% of the combined populations of the member states are 29
or under, so it is a young Commonwealth.
Its combined GDP is $13 trillion, estimated to rise to almost $20
trillion by 2027. Her Majesty the Queen is Head of the
Commonwealth. Even if all the remaining countries became
republics, I would have no concerns whatever. They would continue
to be members of the Commonwealth, just as India has.
The theme of the 2018 CHOGM was “Towards a Common Future”. I
thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who has been a great champion
of the Commonwealth. In a debate on UK Commonwealth trade, he
summed it up beautifully, saying that
“in the age of networking and digital connectivity, the binding
ties of a voluntary”—
“voluntary” being the key word—
“non-treaty, global organisation such as the Commonwealth are
sealed as much by enterprise and trade, civil society concerns
and common everyday life and work interests as through government
channels”.
He talked about its vibrancy and brought it alive as never
before, as
“the nexus of non-governmental organisations, professions,
business interests, education at all levels, science, law and
hundreds of informal links, not to mention sports connections and
the enormous and expanding range of arts and cultural links of
every kind, that are increasingly at the core of the
Commonwealth.”—[Official Report, 8/7/21; cols. 1456-57.]
It was absolutely brilliant.
Talking of sport, I am the proud chancellor of the University of
Birmingham. We are hosting the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham
in July and August this year, and the university will play a role
like never before. At the heart of the Games, the athletes’
village is on our campus, as are squash and hockey. We sponsored
the baton relay that went around 76 countries and territories of
the Commonwealth, and a non-Commonwealth country; it went to
Dubai in the UAE, where I was present for the opening of our new
campus—the first Russell group university to open in Dubai.
Birmingham is, of course, a vibrant, relatively young city. It
will bring out the best of global Britain and showcase the
region’s strengths, and I am really looking forward to a
fantastic Games.
Her Majesty’s role is championing the Commonwealth and its
people. It has been agreed that His Royal Highness the Prince of
Wales will continue this role in the future. This year is special
for the Commonwealth Games because they happen in the year of Her
Majesty’s Platinum Jubilee. What a great celebration we have
had.
Global health and security have been at the heart of the
Commonwealth, particularly at this time. What better example of
cross-border collaboration in the Commonwealth is there than the
Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, developed by Oxford and AstraZeneca
headquartered in Cambridge, in conjunction with the Serum
Institute of India—the largest vaccine manufacturer in the world,
even before the pandemic—based in India? That is a Commonwealth
project. Two billion doses have been produced by the Serum
Institute of India.
We have British International Investment, BII, previously known
as CDC, mobilising up to £8 billion. The UK is increasingly the
headquarters of green finance for the world. Once again, the
Commonwealth is at the heart of it. Also, the more digital we get
as a world, the more vulnerable we get, and we have agreed to the
Commonwealth Cyber Declaration.
CHOGM 2022 was about delivering a common future: connecting,
innovating, transforming, protecting natural resources and
increasing trade. Sir Partha Dasgupta’s report, The Economics of
Biodiversity, from the University of Cambridge, is a must-read,
applying to the whole world as well as to the Commonwealth. It
describes nature as our most precious asset.
How wonderful it is that the position of one of our own, the
noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, as Secretary-General
of the Commonwealth has been renewed for a second term.
Right in the middle of this period, a free trade agreement is
being negotiated with India. I request an update from the
Minister on how well it is progressing. As a former president of
the CBI, I have been at the heart of these negotiations. There is
huge potential with that free trade agreement. I took an active
part in the Australia and New Zealand free trade agreements with
the UK, and I believe the India one should be as comprehensive as
possible, as well as hopefully being completed by the end of this
year.
The reality is that in total the Commonwealth accounts for only
9% of the UK’s trade. Trade with five Commonwealth
countries—Australia, Canada, India, Singapore and South
Africa—accounts for over 70% of this. So the potential to
increase trade between Commonwealth countries is absolutely
phenomenal. We are just scratching the surface and we need to
continue to press for increased trade between Commonwealth
countries. It is an open goal. With 20 of the global emerging
cities in the Commonwealth, next month we will publish the Oxford
healthy cities commission, of which I am a commissioner. Again,
that can help in a big way. I am a great fan of the Commonwealth,
which has huge untapped potential.
3.43pm
The Lord
My Lords, this summer sees the coming together of three
significant international gatherings, following the restrictions
of the pandemic years. One of them was the Commonwealth Heads of
Government Meeting in Rwanda last week—some of the background to
this debate. Another is the International Ministerial Conference
on Freedom of Religion or Belief next week in London. A third is
the Lambeth Conference, bringing together bishops from all but
three of the 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion, which starts
in late July. In each case, the leadership of these significant
meetings is being provided from within these shores.
There are many parallels between the Commonwealth and the
Anglican Communion, which is unsurprising, given our shared
history. Both draw together autonomous units of nations and
provinces. Both are held together by what the Prime Minister
described last week as the
“invisible thread of shared values, history and friendship”
and what the Anglican Communion describes as our “bonds of
affection”. Both have inevitable stresses and strains. Both need
to work hard at developing a sense of mutual interdependence, not
least because of the complexities of this nation’s imperialistic
past—so graphically portrayed by the noble Lord, Lord Parekh—and
the huge financial disparities between the members of each body.
In particular, we in the UK need to recognise that although
western secular values have a great deal to commend them, other
nations can look on in horror on occasions at our individualism,
materialism and religious indifference, and the breakdown of our
family and community life.
One of those western secular values to which I am sure everyone
in this House is committed is the theme of the meeting next week
and will play a major part in the Lambeth Conference too. That is
the human right not to be discriminated against, let alone
persecuted, on the grounds of religion or belief. I have a
particular interest in this subject, both historically and in the
present, not least because we in the diocese of Guildford are
twinned with Anglican dioceses in Pakistan and
Nigeria—Commonwealth countries that come seventh and eighth
respectively in an annual register of the nations in which it is
most dangerous to be a Christian.
The other Commonwealth nation that appears in the top 10 is
India, which reminds us that even functioning democracies can
move in a sharply negative direction over a short period if
religious intolerance, combined with a strongly nationalistic
agenda, is really given its head. In India especially, that
intolerance extends to Muslims and those of other faith
traditions, although statistically it is Christians who bear
considerably the greatest weight of religious intolerance around
the globe.
The three regimes, of course, are very different. In Pakistan, a
beautiful country I was privileged to visit in 2019, there is
systemic discrimination against Christians and other minorities
when it comes to further education and the availability of
quality jobs, as well as a periodic misuse of the blasphemy laws
and the all-too-regular shooting or lynching of Christians and
others, especially those accused of converting from Islam. In
Nigeria, where I am travelling in November, there are almost
daily attacks by Fulani tribesmen on Christians in the middle
belt—which sometimes, it should be acknowledged, provoke a
measure of retaliation—along with the continuing problems with
Boko Haram in the north, which are clearly religiously motivated,
despite protestations to the contrary. The president of the
Nigerian national humanist society has also just been given a
24-year prison sentence, off the back of alleged slurs against
Islam.
In India, which I visited in 2017, both Christians and Muslims
are suffering from incendiary rhetoric from some members of the
ruling BJP, resulting in often violent and well-targeted attacks
on Christians and other minorities and a plethora of
anti-conversion laws, which ostensibly prohibit forced
conversions but can all too easily be abused.
Here is where the Prime Minister and the British Government
possibly missed a trick when it came to the first of those
conferences. They rightly highlighted shared concerns, such as
global warming and educational discrimination against women and
girls—as we will also do at the Lambeth Conference—and addressed
issues of food security in the wake of the war in Ukraine, but
the issue of freedom of religion and belief seems hardly to have
featured in those conversations, despite its terrifying and
growing prevalence in the three Commonwealth nations with the
largest populations of them all.
Persecution is persecution, whatever its cause, but with the
sheer numbers involved there is no question but that persecution
on the grounds of religion or belief is uniquely widespread and
deadly. While I am delighted that we will be hosting the global
conference on that theme next week, and I applaud the seriousness
with which this is treated in this House and the other place, I
also believe we need a joined-up approach that brings this to the
fore in all our discussions with our Commonwealth and trading
partners, so as to create a better and fairer world for all.
3.48pm
(Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Howell
for his kind and generous remarks, as I am to my noble friend
. I agree with every single
word my noble friend Lord Howell said, with one exception: Kigali
was not about Heads of Government; it was about a business forum,
which I was privileged to chair, a youth forum and a women’s
forum. They were very vibrant events.
The business forum is an extraordinary event. Where else, apart
perhaps from Davos, can you attract 1,700 businesses from 60
countries, 20 Heads of State, the president of the World Bank,
the president of FIFA even and the secretary-general of the World
Health Organization? It was an incredibly vibrant event, probably
because there was pent-up tension after four years of us sitting
with Covid and not meeting each other face to face, but also
because it was in Africa. The Commonwealth had not been to an
event like this in Africa for well over 10 years and it was a
terrific credit to our hosts, the Rwandan Government, that it was
such a resounding success.
Rwanda has proven to be a country of formidable leadership. It
was safe, secure and clean and has a fast-growing economy lifting
its people out of poverty. The statistics for trade in the
Commonwealth and business are well known. It is 20% more
competitive doing intra-Commonwealth trade because of common law,
a common language and common trade agreements, and therefore the
British Government should be well set to take benefit from it,
but I am afraid to say that they have been asleep on their watch.
They have inevitably been encumbered by the post-Brexit situation
and subsequently Covid, but they have not taken full advantage of
their last four years as chair in office.
That manifested itself in the unfortunate circumstances
surrounding the extension of the Secretary-General’s contract
where the UK led a campaign to change the Secretary-General, but
it failed. The task ahead for the UK Government is to repair
those bridges and play catch up. There are signs—I thank the
Minister, who has been a stalwart supporter, and the noble Lord,
Lord McDonald, who kept us afloat while we needed it by sending
provisions down, and I am very grateful to them both—but the
opportunity has been missed and we must now turbocharge the
relationship.
We must ensure that the Commonwealth takes advantage of the
showcases that are available. One of them, as the noble Lord,
, said, is the Commonwealth
Games. Where I say there are signs of it happening, I am
co-chairing with the Department for International Trade a
business forum at that event which will involve the noble Lord’s
university.
It is important that the UK now starts to prioritise the
Commonwealth. It is not an alternative to the European Union, but
it is a vast and available market. There are other problems ahead
for the Commonwealth because Samoa is the chair in office
designate. It will be a difficult place for people to visit—it is
a long way from anywhere—but it that in itself is an opportunity.
With the Chinese invasion of the Pacific, raised by my noble
friend Lord Howell, Samoa could be a pivotal place for the UK and
other Commonwealth countries to establish the power of
democracy.
The second opportunity that presents itself is Sri Lanka, a
country which is now on its knees with financial difficulties. It
has sought succour from China for its investment. It gives
western democratic countries, led by the United Kingdom and the
Commonwealth, an opportunity to support it and help it
reinvigorate its economy.
Finally, there has never been any mention of empire, as the noble
Lord, , suggested—there was not for
the three or five days in Kigali, I am happy to say. I am happy
to say that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales arrived in
triumph and left in triumph. That is one of the great advantages
this country has, as well as the Minister who has carried out an
excellent job on behalf of the Commonwealth for all these
years.
3.53pm
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, the Commonwealth and its various associated
organisations may sometimes be perceived as belonging to a
colonial era. Its work goes largely unnoticed until CHOGM comes
round every two years—then we have the usual debate about its
relevance and effectiveness. The large umbrella of the
Commonwealth Secretariat, with all its internal and external
politics, tends to overshadow the work done by myriad
Commonwealth network organisations. I have had close associations
with many of them throughout my career: Commonwealth associations
of lawyers and media practitioners, Speakers associations and,
most of all, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. The
constant theme of these groups, so evident at their meetings, is
friendship, understanding and an eagerness to share good practice
and uphold government accountability.
I do not think that any of us should minimise the value of
getting together and sharing views. We live in a world where,
increasingly, electronic communication is king, but sitting
around a table with our Commonwealth colleagues or together in
working groups as well as the grander occasions of major
conferences, with all the opportunities for bilateral exchange,
is invaluable. For example, while a member state may have
publicly expressed anger about a particular instance, such as the
showing of a TV programme in the UK which has offended that
state, subsequent meetings between parliamentarians continue as
before, often without even mentioning the so-called offensive
incident. The Commonwealth in all its dealing emphasises that
there are official views and personal links, and that these do
not necessarily have to coincide. This is a vital component of
soft power.
As we all know, there are global and pressing issues at the
moment that require a concerted approach. These now include food
availability and distribution, economic recession, climate
change, security and slavery. An organisation of 56 member states
is a good place to begin the dialogue that will provide the basis
for global agreements and action.
Despite the potential and actual advantages of the Commonwealth
network, it is itself under severe strain, both economic and
political. Like all mulitilateral bodies, it faces change and
renewal. In which direction should it go, where can it be most
effective and what kind of changes might be undertaken in the
immediate future? By way of answer, I would like to refer to the
work undertaken by the CPA.
A gradual change of emphasis championed by the Commonwealth
Parliamentary Association towards more practical workshops, the
prioritisation of women parliamentarians at all levels and modern
slavery has resulted in tangible changes. I have participated in
small workshops examining government accountability through the
CPA programme on Public Accounts Committees. Almost all
Commonwealth countries have such committees, but their
effectiveness varies. What has become abundantly clear is how
much our colleagues welcome such practical sessions where there
can be learning from and between many different systems. The CPA
has now produced an online course fashioned from lessons learned
during these workshops. Similarly, the mechanisms to protect and
promote women whether against violence, online abuse and/or
slavery, and towards parliamentary involvement, are widely
welcomed.
It is these smaller, less highly publicised networks that
constantly meet and deliberate on how better to implement the
Commonwealth charter on the democratic process, that should be
fostered. The funds needed for these programmes are minimal in
comparison to those of the umbrella Secretariat and the outcomes
are impressive. Perhaps the essential changes should lie in the
direction of increasing the work of these networks with the
attendant opportunities for exchange, fostering friendships,
sharing practical methodology, monitoring elections and providing
guidelines for government policy and action. Inevitably, there is
internal wrangling within each member state and sometimes between
states, but the undercurrent of fellowship between members of the
Commonwealth is sustained by the work of the networks as a whole,
and this quietly provides the continuity that is the essence of
the Commonwealth.
3.58pm
(Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Howell for bringing this
debate forward, and for his lifelong dedication to the work of
the Commonwealth. Before going to Kigali, the Prime Minister set
out, in an article for the Telegraph, how the invisible thread of
shared values, history, institutions, and language that binds the
Commonwealth creates a trading advantage. As a network of
countries and of civil society built around the shared values of
the Commonwealth charter—democracy, human rights, tolerance and
the rule of law among them—the Commonwealth also has the
potential to be one of our greatest tools in facing the key
challenges of the 21st century.
As last year’s integrated review recognised, we are in an age of
systemic competition. Authoritarian states seek to extend their
influence and to challenge the international rules and norms that
underpin our security and prosperity. The Commonwealth can be a
bulwark against this. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s vision of
the Commonwealth as a counterweight to authoritarian regimes but,
as our values come under greater pressure, we cannot be
complacent.
My noble friend Lord Howell rightly pointed out that the
influence from China extends through the Commonwealth. Many
Commonwealth members are part of China’s belt and road
initiative. Beijing has even gone as far as cultivating ties with
Commonwealth country’s armed forces. Can my noble friend tell the
House what discussions he and other members of the UK delegation
had in Kigali about countering this influence from China, and
what practical steps the Commonwealth can take to limit this?
Winning a systemic competition requires us to prove that our
system is better. We need to show what we know to be true:
democracy, human rights and the rule of law give us a competitive
advantage. In order to show this, we need to be faithful to those
values. The Kigali communiqué states:
“Heads renewed their commitment to the Commonwealth’s fundamental
… values of democracy … They further reiterated their commitment
to human rights and fundamental freedoms”.
But, in too many countries, human rights are being rolled back.
In Freedom House’s annual ranking, 23 Commonwealth members were
found to be not free or only partially free.
The Commonwealth’s largest member is often billed as the largest
democracy in the world, but I fear it is increasingly at risk of
losing that title. It is deeply concerning that Prime Minister
Modi’s India is becoming less tolerant, more autocratic and less
safe for millions of its own population, including
minorities—Christians, Muslims, et cetera. NGOs have faced
restrictions. Human rights advocates, such as Aakar Patel, the
chair of Amnesty International’s India board, have been subject
to travel bans. The Editors Guild of India is calling for the
immediate release of Mohammed Zubair, the co-founder of a
fact-checking site who has been at the forefront of countering
fake news and disinformation, and who was arrested earlier this
week. He joins other journalists and human rights defenders,
including Khurram Parvez, the chair of the Asian Federation
Against Involuntary Disappearances and a leading campaigner
against human rights violations in Kashmir.
The communiqué from Rwanda tells us that
“Heads stressed the importance of … freedom of expression”—
yet they stand by as the free press faces attack in the
Commonwealth’s largest member. I know that my noble friend the
Minister takes this issue seriously and that the British high
commission in India is supporting interfaith work, but can he
confirm whether the Prime Minister discussed freedom of religion
and human rights with Mr Modi in India in April or in Kigali last
week?
For many in the United Kingdom, CHOGM was unfortunately
overshadowed by the Government’s new refugee offshoring policy.
Rwanda is a good example of the grey areas of foreign policy: it
is at once a symbol of huge achievement, recovering from
genocide, but also a country with an alarming human rights record
of political repression, kidnappings and assassinations. Debating
the provisions for refugees in Rwanda under the offshoring scheme
is a distraction from the more fundamental point: shipping asylum
seekers elsewhere fundamentally neglects our responsibilities and
duties, which we signed up to and which were not imposed on
us.
There is substantial evidence to suggest that the offshoring
scheme will be expensive, inefficient and ineffective. It
breaches our international legal obligations. The UN Refugee
Agency has stated that the Rwanda plan is
“inconsistent with global solidarity and
responsibility-sharing”
and
“does not meet the requirements necessary to be considered a
lawful and appropriate … arrangement.”
Shared burdens and respect for international law are surely the
epitome of Commonwealth values—yet, with the Rwanda plan, we have
somehow set them aside.
Sometimes, we seem to think that we can urge others to improve
their record on the rule of law, human rights and democracy
without respecting and protecting these values ourselves.
Underpinning warm words about shared values are real rights and
freedoms, which intimately affect the lives of the Commonwealth’s
2.5 billion people. If we are serious about the Commonwealth as a
bulwark against authoritarianism and a promoter of human rights,
democracy and the rule of law—the values that make it
successful—we need to strengthen those rights at home and
strongly argue for them abroad.
4.04pm
(CB)
My Lords, I hope that your Lordships have noticed how much of the
Commonwealth is represented in your Lordships’ House today. It
shows that we are interested in knowing what is happening to the
Commonwealth, as much as we want to share.
One of the things which I feel were done incorrectly was
line-drawing on a map. People were not consulted on whether they
would like to be with each other, and some of the countries have
had problems as a result, not to mention India and Pakistan. In
India, we did not have the line of separation until a month
before it came into force. We were very close to the line, so my
family was very anxious, because they wanted to know where they
were going to live. In the end, we were refugees in Delhi. We
were not against an old building but we were still refugees,
because my father left everything he owned behind.
My main feeling about the Commonwealth is that its members have
not learned to understand one another, because until you do that,
you do not do things together. When I first went to one of its
meetings some years ago, the French-speaking and the
English-speaking members had very few ways of communicating with
one another. I hope that that has gone, but it is an example of
how things can go wrong without meaning to go wrong. If there are
two tribes who do not like each other, you do not want to put
them in one country. I do not think that any research of that
kind was done before the lines were drawn on the map. It is one
of the weaknesses of the Commonwealth that I am not sure that
everybody likes everybody else who lives next door to them.
As for India and Pakistan, first of all, it was going to be
Muslim countries together and Hindus separate. Kashmir is a
Muslim region, and it should definitely have gone to Pakistan; it
has no business to be given to India, but it was not given to
India either—it does not belong to anybody except itself. There
is no end of problems with it, and they will not be resolved
unless some definite action is taken. The UN said that we could
have a plebiscite. We should have one. That would resolve the
question of who it wants to be with. That is not for me to
resolve, because I have no power to do anything. If I did, I
would say, “Have a plebiscite.” The other thing we could do is
try to increase the trade links, which we do not—we have a lot of
army links, but no trade links, and that is not very good either.
It is a big mess and I do not know whether it can be resolved.
People have pretended to try to resolve it, but they have not
been able to. Maybe the new generation, such as the noble Lord,
Lord Ahmad, will have something to do with it and resolve
something that is terrible.
A very senior Pakistani general said to me, “There’ll be no more
war between India and Pakistan—a proper war—because we know we
can’t win.” That is true—we are so much bigger than them—but
imagine making a Pakistan whose main part was in one place and
another little part, Bangladesh, was 1,500 miles away. How can a
country work like that? It cannot work as a country if you have
two very definite, separate bits, and it did not, so they
attacked Bangladesh, which did not go down too well with
India.
Anyway, here we are. That is what we are left with, so we have
got to make the best of it.
4.09pm
(CB)
My Lords, the House of Lords would not be the House of Lords
without a debate on the Commonwealth, and perhaps vice versa: the
Commonwealth seems to need people like us to restate and support
its aims and objectives. It is not a very visible organisation;
it does not set out to proclaim its importance. In fact, the
media are not kind to it: I had high hopes of reading a report in
the FT, but I still cannot find one. My noble friend Lord
McDonald has explained why the communiqué has taken so long.
However, this debate has more than compensated for that.
Having heard and learned from the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on
various occasions, I do not personally need any more convincing
of the value of the Commonwealth. He rightly refers to
connectivity and informality, and I understand the arguments put
forward by my noble friend Lady D’Souza about soft power and
quiet diplomacy, but surely the Commonwealth could sharpen up its
act a little and explain to the world what it is about?
We have heard a lot about the Commonwealth’s successes, but the
principal success story is quite clear: the contribution of Her
Majesty the Queen. Her role has been properly recognised through
the Jubilee and, above all, from her own remarkable performance
as an individual as well as a monarch. Where would the
Commonwealth be without her? I therefore personally expect, and
indeed look forward to, a more piano contribution from the UK in
future. It was an enterprise started by this country—as the noble
Lord, , reminded us—but I see no
reason why the UK should not retire a little more from the stage
and encourage others to come forward. I am sure that the
reappointment of the secretary-general will assist in that
process. Prince Charles himself set the tone when a new Head of
State replaced the Queen in Barbados last November; he said it
was “a new beginning” and acknowledged the appalling atrocity of
slavery. Anti-racism and decolonisation are rightly going to be
continuing themes.
I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, that we must
see more effort from the Commonwealth on human rights and
governance. This is the Minister’s proper area of responsibility,
so could we do more about this? Will quiet bilateral diplomacy or
a new trade agreement ever be enough, for example, to change
Prime Minister Modi’s discrimination against minorities and the
media in India? The right reverend Prelate the has spoken on Pakistan
in this respect.
Human Rights and Democracy, the FCDO report published in July
2020, contains some powerful statements of hope, some by the
Minister himself in his foreword, which I recently reread. There
is a comprehensive list of priority countries, including, I am
glad to say, the two Sudans, where the FCDO remains active. I
asked the Minister earlier this week whether any African member
states were backtracking on issues such as abortion and gay
rights, and he replied that
“one important thing about networks such as the Commonwealth is
that they allow us to look at a broad range of human rights
issues in a progressive and productive way.”—[Official Report,
28/6/22; col. 577.]
Fair enough—not a direct answer, but a very positive one.
Climate change and oceans are issues already pursued by the
Commonwealth, but smaller member countries and islands need to
take up climate change more aggressively. This is not so much for
themselves, since their carbon footprint is in most cases
minimal; but for some, climate change is an urgent question, and
they need to persuade we larger gas-guzzling nations to take more
action in prevention and mitigation. We will have to help pay for
this. Australia’s new Prime Minister, as my friend the noble
Lord, , knows better than any of us,
will be bound to help in that operation.
Under Paul Kagame, Rwanda has made great strides since the
terrible 1994 massacres, but few are under the illusion that his
Government are now squeaky clean; opposition leaders are
imprisoned and branded as terrorists. The most prominent case is
that of Paul Rusesabagina, who was sentenced to 25 years. Can the
Minister say whether the Commonwealth or the FCDO have done
anything for him or for human rights in Rwanda? He will already
know that 24 human rights agencies have written to Commonwealth
leaders asking them to speak up on this issue.
I end with a quotation from a friend who attended CHOGM, who
said, “It was wonderful to see African countries taking the lead
in Kigali, not least Rwanda but also the new members of Gabon and
Togo. The success of the Commonwealth in moving beyond its roots
in former colonies depends on the secretariat and its most
powerful member counties carefully listening to all members, big
and small, and allowing its newer and smaller members to take the
lead in equal partnership, not on driving the interests of a
few.”
4.15pm
(Non-Afl)
My Lords, let me concentrate on the problems and not the virtues
of the Commonwealth because I have only five minutes. First, as
was said by the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, and others, there was
a great constitutional change when India became part of the
Commonwealth, as a republic could continue to be part of the
Commonwealth which, after all, is an association of the former
colonies of the United Kingdom. That was very welcome. Now, any
country which was formerly a part of the British Empire could
become a republic and still be a member of the Commonwealth. That
is very straightforward.
Secondly, the fact that CHOGM took place in Kigali gives notice
that there are non-British Empire countries that want to join the
Commonwealth. That is a very welcome sign and a very good thing,
because the Commonwealth is one of the few associations, apart
from the United Nations, which straddles all five continents.
But, at the same time, there is a difficulty: whether the
traditions of the British Commonwealth, which have been talked
about quite a lot this afternoon, will continue to be adopted by
people who are not formerly from the British Commonwealth. We
shall see.
Her Majesty the Queen, as many people have said, has been a very
strong influence in maintaining the Commonwealth. Her reign of 70
years has more or less corresponded with the new Commonwealth.
The problem is—and we have not actually talked about it—that the
decision made in 2018, at her request, that Prince Charles
continue to be the Head of the Commonwealth after she has gone
was a mistake. I am sorry, but I have to say that that restricts
the future of the Commonwealth. It would have been better had the
Commonwealth decided to rotate its headship among other countries
besides Britain. That would have been more democratic and more
egalitarian. We should not always assume that the Commonwealth
has to be led by the British Head of State. Of course, people
will not protest too much but when tensions grow—especially
because some countries will have problems with that, or there may
be differences—that will be a major point of disagreement. Why
should Britain always be the head of the Commonwealth? The
Commonwealth should be a truly democratic association of
countries which want to be members together.
Looking at the Commonwealth, it is a miracle that it has survived
for so long. It is quite astonishing that countries which were
not part of the British Empire have chosen to join it. That is
very interesting and I continue to contrast the Commonwealth
with, say, the UN, which is a very badly organised body. It is
run by an oligarchy of five permanent members, which can plead
that they are totally above international law, as they have done
with a veto, for example. The Commonwealth does not have that
defect and has been able to expel members that violated the
Harare Declaration. From that point of view, the Commonwealth has
some advantages. The question is going to be, how can the
Commonwealth go on maintaining that advantage? A little bit more
equality among members and making the role of Britain more
ordinary, like other members, rather than special and always at
the top, would be a very welcome change. I do not think it will
happen, but it would be good if it did.
4.20pm
(CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, , for introducing
this topical debate following the CHOGM in Kigali last week. The
noble Lord has played a pivotal role in promoting the role of the
Commonwealth as well as the challenges that it faces. As my noble
friend mentioned, the Commonwealth
represents 2.5 billion people, of whom 60% are under the age of
29.
At the outset, I congratulate the noble and learned Baroness,
Lady Scotland, on her re-election as Commonwealth
Secretary-General and express my regret that our Government chose
to oppose her re-election. In her manifesto for her second term,
she highlighted the need to deliver a smart, connected, digital
Commonwealth that can unleash the talents of the population as
well as close the Commonwealth digital gap in health, education
and trade, building the digital infrastructure to boost
connectivity between Commonwealth countries. It is to this that I
want to devote my remarks in my short time, as well as the need
to promote more education on the impact of climate change within
the Commonwealth and what its members can do to mitigate it.
As technology continues to build our digital economies and value
continues to move into the development of digital systems,
promoting technological standardisation and regulatory
harmonisation that fit the digital world is essential in enabling
a collective and productive global economy, particularly among
Commonwealth members. We must look at the innovators who are
looking at architecting both financial systems and decentralised
systems of co-ordination to unlock new value networks and
optimise the very fabric of society and common nations. We are
witnessing a new renaissance in how we organise people,
societies, systems of government, supply chains and systems of
value creation and distribution.
Compliance data networks can facilitate greater national
security, reduce the cost of cross-border co-ordination and
system co-ordination, and provide a platform for the Commonwealth
to unite its members and citizens. I have for many years
advocated and promoted digital ID, which helps vulnerable
populations in the developing world to gain access to global
services and provides aid and resources to assist with education
and technology capabilities.
To fight crime, reduce corruption and enable more privacy, we
must look to how the Commonwealth can build universal policies
and digital regulations to streamline economic co-operation and
growth globally. Embracing new technologies such as blockchain
can assist in creating more transparency and accountability, as
well as enforcement. In this regard, I warmly support the
Commonwealth Connectivity Agenda to boost the digitisation of
economies and potentially achieve the $2 trillion target in
intra-Commonwealth trade by 2030. I join in congratulating the
noble Lord, , on his able chairmanship of
the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council, as well as
the business forum.
Finally, though much was achieved last year at COP 26, much more
needs to be done now to follow up on the initiatives and
resolutions. As the Commonwealth represents one-third of the
population of the world, I hope that more initiatives can be
taken to educate the youth on the impact of climate change and
what can be done to mitigate it. We are sadly seeing an
increasing frequency of climate change catastrophes which are
invariably impacting on the poorest people in the world. Apart
from education, what can be done to incentivise financial tools
such as green bonds? Time precludes me from elaborating on this
subject. Long live the Commonwealth. I look forward to the
answers of the Minister.
4.25pm
(LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, with the
great experience on these issues, particularly in Africa, which
he brings to bear in the House. I join him in congratulating the
noble Lord, Lord Howell, on bringing this debate. This is not the
first debate on the Commonwealth he has brought to this Chamber
and I hope very much it will not be the last. It has been of
interest to me that the debate has been a realistic one, not on
the history alone but also, if the Commonwealth is to remain
relevant, the characteristics that it will need to display to do
so.
I also pay tribute to the Minister for the Commonwealth who I had
the pleasure of being with in Kigali last week, as well as the
noble Lord, , and his very able private
office. The Minister is remarkable for looking fresh after having
programmes outside this country which have been so hectic. I pay
tribute to the hosts, Rwanda, and the amazing army of young
people who were so helpful and supportive of the hosts. I will
return to some elements of our relationship with Rwanda in a
moment.
I am a supporter of a Commonwealth which the nations choose to be
part of and where they should be equal. I agree with the noble
Lord, , that while equality on paper is
impressive, the reality is sometimes different, even in the
visuals, when we look at the choreography of the pictures of
those heads of state and government there. The real strength of
CHOGM, as the noble Lord, , indicated, was the preceding
fora—the business fora that he led so ably and that I was a
delegate to, the women’s forum, the youth forum and the people’s
forum—and the ability to allow debate about civil society with
representatives from across the various family networks and a
level of open discussion and debate of some of the realities,
that, for example the noble Lord, , who I regret to see is not in
his place for the winding speeches, indicated.
When I chaired the commission for the All-Party Group on Trade
out of Poverty, working with the Nigerian Trade Minister on
inter-Commonwealth trade, a witness said something that has
always stuck in my memory. She said that the Commonwealth has two
major strengths. The first is that China is not a member and the
second is that the USA is not a member. I think the ability for a
network of consensus, seeing the value of a non rule-making but
consensual body, shows its strength.
Of course, there are others: the noble Lord, Lord McDonald,
talked about La Francophonie and interaction between the two. I
do not see the Commonwealth as an English-speaking network; I see
it as a network where language and other elements are a common
and binding factor. It is of interest to me that very close
allies of the UK, such as the UAE and Qatar, are associate
members of La Francophonie, not of the Commonwealth. Ukraine has
had observer status to La Francophonie since 2006. So there are
multiple networks around the world, of which the Commonwealth is
a very strong one but not unique in some areas.
Where, perhaps, the Commonwealth is unique is that it can bring
together the most innovative places in the world, but also those
with the greatest developmental challenges. It has some of the
most open societies, as well as some where being gay is still a
crime, capital punishment can be used arbitrarily and opposition
political parties are often either banned or restricted. I agree
with the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, in this regard: we have to
see our relationships with our friends, but not through
rose-tinted glasses.
I was a member of a small delegation from the All-Party Group for
Africa visiting Kigali last week. We met an opposition member who
is banned from meeting members of her own political party in
public discourse in Rwanda. After our meeting with her, where we
stayed there were individuals who did not identify themselves but
asked for reports on our activities as British parliamentarians.
We have to understand that even though we received a very warm
welcome from Rwanda, Rwanda does not meet the norms that we in
this country would consider to be those of a free and fair and
open society.
On visits that I have made to friendly Commonwealth nations, one
of which was through the aegis of the All-Party Group on the
Abolition of the Death Penalty, I was told by the leaders of the
Anglican community in that country that they welcomed my visit to
campaign against the death penalty, but on condition that I did
not campaign for LGBT rights. We have to be open and aware that
the communiqué issued from CHOGM was weak in this regard. It
condemned discrimination in all forms but was not able to single
out where there have been the most egregious abuses.
The communiqué was also of interest to me as there was no mention
of any condemnation of Russia—that was symbolic in its
absence—but it is also useful to say what was in it. On a
positive, women’s empowerment and gender equality, as well as
moving on trafficking and forced labour, youth development and
tackling some of the climate challenges are all, I think, joint
priorities, and the communiqué was strong and forward-looking in
those areas. I commend the Minister and the UK envoy Jo Lomas for
the work that they have done in preparing that.
Our All-Party Group for Africa, with Jack Patterson so ably
supporting us in that role, was able to participate in the
forums, and we were able to work and discuss as equals with
others from around the Commonwealth development issues, climate,
trade and the common future. I agree with the noble Lord, : it was appropriate that many
of these discussions were taking place in Africa. That continent
is now seeing, for the first time in a decade, the potential for
famine—famine in a near-neighbour of a Commonwealth country. The
climate challenges for that continent in particular are going to
be immense, and the future that will be sapped away from its
young people should be our focus.
However, on trade I share the view of the noble Lord, : I think that the UK’s time as
chair-in-office has been a missed opportunity. We had the
opportunity to turbo-charge intra-Commonwealth trade and reduce
trade barriers, systematically removing them. Although the
communiqué has indicated that we want to see greater
interconnectedness in trade agreements, it has been a frustration
to me that in the agreements that the UK has negotiated and
signed with Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and the EPAs,
there has been no mention of intra-Commonwealth trade
facilitation.
My final point is linked with the visit to Rwanda, and I will
close with some reflections. It is not directly related to CHOGM,
but it is my first opportunity to report to the House on a visit
that I made to the Hope Guesthouse. The noble Baroness, Lady
Helic, mentioned the MoU with Rwanda; I visited the centre where
those individuals would have been sent. The MoU, which is not a
treaty, has no legal underpinning. I visited a centre which is a
private limited company, on a one-year rolling contract; has
facilities which, under my examination, had no areas for those
suffering trauma or for those potentially on suicide watch; is on
an agreement which has not been disclosed; and where there is no
limit as to who else may be put in the Hope hostels, other than
those who will be coming from the UK scheme. This obviously was
an area of debate and discussion among the civil society groups
that were there.
I believe that this policy is a stain on the UK. That is not a
criticism of Rwanda; it is a criticism of the UK Government.
There are, I am afraid, so many areas, such as the UK’s slashing
of overseas assistance and the immigration agreement, where,
apart from ministerial diplomacy, the UK is letting down its
position in the world.
Finally, if the Commonwealth is to reinvent itself and be
relevant for the future, it needs to embrace more of the fora
that are there, invest in our youth, and have joint and equal
consensus on many of those challenges. An Indian delegate at the
people’s forum said that while we share a common history, we also
have common pain—but we need to find common solutions to the
common problems that exist.
4.35pm
(Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for his
excellent introduction to this debate. The noble Lord is a
constant factor in debates on the Commonwealth—joined, of course,
by the Minister, whose record of being able to stay in office for
so long is incredible. Do not get me wrong: I wish for that to
continue.
As the noble Lord, , reminded us, this CHOGM had
been postponed since June 2020. I am pleased that the 26th
meeting finally took place, with the fitting theme:
“Delivering a Common Future: Connecting, Innovating,
Transforming.”
The fact that it was hosted in Kigali by Rwanda, the latest
addition to the Commonwealth, which joined in 2009 without
historic links to the UK, was a reminder that the summit is about
diversity. That is what makes the Commonwealth what it is. It is
the difference that unites us; that is very important.
CHOGMs present an opportunity for members to work together on
shared ambitions and to consider what has been delivered since
the last summit. At the London CHOGM in 2018, the UK Government
announced a series of projects in support of the outcomes, later
itemised in a Ministerial Statement by the Minister in January
2019. I will return to a number of those specific projects later.
I suppose I am old-fashioned in this regard, but I think it is
important to understand what we set out to achieve at the last
meeting, and then consider what was achieved. We seem to
constantly reinvent the wheel when it comes to CHOGMs. So, I hope
the Minister can tell us how many of the projects announced in
2018 were implemented. Is there a reason why we did not get an
update on the 2019 Ministerial Statement at the end of our period
as chair-in-office?
As we have heard, the 56 nations which constitute the
Commonwealth cover a population of 2.5 billion but, both within
and between the constituent parts, we see massive inequality, as
highlighted by the noble Lord, . I am therefore pleased that
the communiqué noted the 2030 agenda for sustainable
development—sadly, a theme that could have been better reflected
in this debate—as well as the opportunity to accelerate progress,
but it was disappointing that the agreement did not state
explicitly any concrete steps to realise those opportunities.
Nevertheless, the discussions showed that leaders are engaging on
the subject, but I hope the Minister can elaborate on what
exactly was discussed on the sustainable development goals, and
whether there was any serious analysis of the progress in meeting
them.
Unfortunately, the Commonwealth is still off track in meeting the
goals, with progress still stalling as a result of the pandemic.
The 2022 Commonwealth SDG tracker shows that the countries which
make up the group are lagging most with SDG 9, industry,
innovation and infrastructure, and SDG 10, reduced inequalities.
On the latter goal, I hope the Minister can update the house on
the SheTrades Commonwealth programme, announced following CHOGM
in London.
However, there is room for optimism. More progress has been made
on SDG 12, responsible consumption and production. I hope the
noble Lord can tell us whether the Government have made any
assessment of the reason for this. Can the Minister update the
House on progress on climate change and implementing the ocean
protection agreements, again made at the London summit?
Overall, the tracker shows that collective progress on the SDGs
slowed significantly for Commonwealth countries over the past
year. Can the noble Lord give us a better indication of what
steps the FCDO is taking to ensure greater progress, especially
considering that the Prime Minister did not mention the SDGs or
sustainability in his opening remarks at CHOGM?
I would like to move on to the question of equality and human
rights, raised by many noble Lords today. The communiqué’s focus
on human rights was largely intertwined with the concept of the
rule of law, with the main action encouraging
“the establishment and strengthening of … Human Rights
Institutions”.
It is slightly disappointing that, as part of this, there was
only a brief mention of civil society, although we have heard a
lot about it in today’s debate. We have heard about the events
prior to the meeting—the Commonwealth Youth Forum; the
Commonwealth Business Forum, mentioned by the noble Lord, ; the Commonwealth Women’s
Forum; and of course the Commonwealth People’s Forum. As is the
case with all summits and international institutions, we should
be cautious that the involvement of civil society is not merely a
tick-box exercise. The fact that these forums were held is good,
but let us see what was heard from those forums and how they were
engaged.
In response to my Oral Question on Tuesday, the Minister said
that
“one of the areas … pursued during”
the UK’s
“time in chair-in-office was to strengthen the voice of civil
society within … the Commonwealth.”
He said that “over 10 Foreign Ministers” engaged “quite directly”
with civil society at the CHOGM meeting. Perhaps he can tell us a
bit more in his response what form this took. The noble Lord also
asserted that the UK continued
“to fund human rights priorities, including those of LGBT rights.
They were featured very prominently in the civil society
discussions”.—[Official Report, 28/6/22; col.539.]
Can the noble Lord therefore tell us exactly how much of that
funding has reduced between the London CHOGM and this CHOGM? I am
concerned that the very groups that we have been trying to
support have had their support substantially cut. The noble Lord,
Lord Purvis, mentioned LGBT rights in particular, and his
visit.
I was really concerned to read that, in support of the New Plan
for Immigration that will fix our broken immigration system,
someone who sought refuge in this country because he was gay was
last night put on a plane and sent back to Nigeria, where the
penalty for being homosexual is up to 14 years in jail. This
individual, outed in Nigerian newspapers, has also had several
death threats. It is not uncommon for lesbian and gay people to
be subject to those horrific sorts of abuses.
I hope that the Minister will take my comments on board because
we cannot say one thing to people then do the complete opposite.
We have to be consistent, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic,
said, in support of our obligations to protect people. I hope
that the Minister will take that back to his ministerial
colleagues.
One thing we have heard earlier this week was the concern of the
noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, which she raised in her Oral
Question on the Commonwealth. Her particular concern was that
since Rwanda hosted this CHOGM, it was in a host country that has
failed to take further the opportunities for women and girls.
Again, I hope that that will be a priority.
I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said in relation to
the reappointment of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady
Scotland. It is absolutely right to provide that continuity and
that there should be a successful, sensible handover of power and
responsibility. However, I cannot fail to express our
disappointment that the UK Government sought to undermine her
position and seek her removal. I hope that we can overcome that
and work together. I heard the Minister’s assurances earlier this
week about how we will continue to work with the noble and
learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, to ensure that the Commonwealth
can focus properly on the 2030 agenda.
4.46pm
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development
Office () (Con)
My Lords, first, I join noble Lords in genuinely and sincerely
thanking—I say this from the bottom of my heart—my dear noble
friend Lord Howell, who has been an incredible champion of the
Commonwealth and remains so. I thank him for tabling this debate
in such a timely fashion as we return from Kigali. I also thank
him for his dedication to the Commonwealth, including as a
Minister, as the honorary president of the APPG and through the
various other Commonwealth organisations that he has led with
great leadership and aplomb.
From the outset, let me say that I very much welcome this
important debate. I recognise the important and valuable work of
all the noble Lords who contributed, strengthening not just what
the Commonwealth stands for but, through this debate, its
importance to a progressive, forward-looking, open United Kingdom
as we strengthen our relationships across the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, talked about the 2018 CHOGM. I put
on record my deep thanks to the many noble Lords who mentioned my
old role and longevity in office; whenever that is mentioned, I
wonder—because our debates are followed—who is listening, and
where and when. As a Minister, one should always practise one
important attribute: keep your bags packed. That is perhaps for
another moment but I am really grateful for their kind words.
Equally, in expressing those words, I understand noble Lords’
dedication and devotion to the Commonwealth in this respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned each deliverable. After
2018, a specific spreadsheet on every single line of the
communiqué was set up. It was included in the annexes and
addenda; if the noble Lord will allow me, I will share and
circulate them again. This was intended exactly so that we did
not lose sight of them. I also worked directly with the Rwandans
over our extended period of office to ensure the very continuity
mentioned by the noble Lord and others, such as the noble Lord,
Lord Purvis, from one CHOGM to the next. Yes, we had a slightly
extended stay as chair-in-office, but we used that time to
strengthen the deliverables for Rwanda, including on some of the
Covid protocols at a time when the Commonwealth Heads of
Government Meeting had to be postponed.
I will come on to the issue of leadership and the
Secretary-General but I assure noble Lords that, during that
time, notwithstanding the different perspectives that prevailed,
I always took a view based on practicalities. We worked closely
with the Secretary-General and the secretariat on the delivery
and handover of the chair-in-office role.
I come to a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather,
whom I thank for talking of me as part of the new generation.
When you reach a certain age, that is a quite welcome remark. I
have said before that the issues and history of India and
Pakistan, and the wider subcontinent, are defined in my very
being. As someone who has heritage and strong connections to both
sides, I feel it is important that we look towards the future. In
recognising the contribution of the noble Lord, , I say to him that ultimately
it must be for those countries to decide on, as we say in the
Commonwealth, “a common future” which brings people together.
There is so much between not only India and Pakistan but the 56
countries across the Commonwealth that ties us together. The
issue of the English language, raised by the noble Lord, Lord
McDonald, and others, remains central. I quote the
Secretary-General, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland,
on the importance of the English language in defining where the
Commonwealth is and how it will remain.
At CHOGM in 2018 the noble Lord, , mentioned the British Empire,
the role of the Queen and history. I greatly respect the noble
Lord and say to him that I have been Minister of State for the
Commonwealth for five years. It has been a matter of great pride
and honour to serve in that capacity, as well as in other areas,
because the Commonwealth is about the here and now and the
future. The fact that Rwanda, a country that does not have the
history of the old empire, and other countries that have no
history with what was the British Empire, wish to join, including
one of the new members, is a sign of the vibrancy of the
Commonwealth network of states.
At the start of CHOGM 2022, President Kagame said:
“The fact of holding this meeting in Rwanda, a new member with no
historical connection to the British Empire, expresses our choice
to continue re-imagining the Commonwealth, for a changing
world.”
That underlines the perspective of many a Commonwealth country. I
thank the right reverend Prelate the and the noble Lord,
, for qualifying that the
decision for the Prince of Wales to succeed Her Majesty the Queen
was not that of one country, Britain, but came from the consensus
of all members of the Commonwealth. I was there at CHOGM when
these discussions took place, and it is right that the
Commonwealth is defined by the important issue of consensus.
I have mentioned the Secretary-General, the secretariat and the
member states. Equally I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady
D’Souza, for her incredible work within the Commonwealth network.
She mentioned the CPA. It was lovely seeing there, though we did not get
a chance to sit down. There were a few respective taps on the
shoulder as we rushed from one meeting to the next, but I
recognise fully the important role that the CPA and the CPA UK
play in strengthening inclusive and accountable democracy across
the Commonwealth. Other networks play an equally important role.
The youth and women’s forums, the business forums and civil
society forums were mentioned by noble Lords, including the noble
Lord, Lord Collins, and my noble friend . Yes, they did feed back
directly. I will come on to the important role of civil society,
which is central.
We were represented in Kigali by my right honourable friend the
Foreign Secretary, and the Prime Minister, as well as by me and
the COP president, . Returning, we reflected and
talked of the four years but, more importantly, it was an
opportunity to look to the future and foster a renewed sense of
unity and purpose for the Commonwealth at a time of great
change.
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord St John, mentioned the
importance of digital. I will come on to some of the points that
we discussed but, equally, in our report as chair-in-office, we
focused on initiatives such as cybersecurity, to demonstrate the
importance of the Commonwealth. What is the Commonwealth? If you
are a small island developing state such as Vanuatu, you will not
have the capacity and technical expertise to deliver. That is
what the Commonwealth delivers, in bringing people together.
It is about the future. It is not a legacy of the British Empire
of old. The vibrancy of discussions demonstrates that, as well as
the issues that we discussed. Climate change is becoming
increasingly important for small and less-developed states. Of
course, Covid-19 remains very much alive and part of us in terms
of its impact on us all. Therefore, even notwithstanding the
Covid lockdowns, the Commonwealth family acted together on these
important issues, including in a statement. As the noble Lord,
, highlighted, from academia
to private sector engagement and manufacturing, it saw us and
India come forward with an important and lasting partnership,
tied together by the fact of the Commonwealth’s advantage. There
was the ability of companies within those two different countries
to be tied together by the common contractual nature of green
contracts and common languages. That has also resulted in benefit
not just to India’s manufacturing but to inward investment in the
United Kingdom and a lasting partnership.
The Commonwealth family makes up a third of the world’s
population and 30% of the votes of the United Nations. The United
Kingdom over the past four years has had a role in strengthening
the voice of the Commonwealth within the context of the United
Nations. Perhaps I may share a personal note, since the noble and
learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, was mentioned. Prior to the
closed session, where the Secretary-General issue was taken, the
United Kingdom did not hold back. During an earlier session when
I attended the last meeting of CMAG, the governing council, I
made specific announcements on the United Kingdom’s continued
support for the Commonwealth Small States Office in Geneva, which
is carrying out important work on human rights issues. I
therefore hope that I have given a practical perspective; while
different perspectives or differences may arise, in terms of
practicality, the United Kingdom has always sought to, and will
continue to, engage directly and constructively with the
secretariat on all aspects of the Commonwealth institutions.
The CHOGM 2022 programme was also varied. My noble friend Lord
Howell rightly highlighted the importance of our global soft
power, as the Commonwealth network was very much in play. As
Minister for the Commonwealth, I had direct bilateral meetings.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned human rights issues but
it is not always a question of collective discussions. The
Commonwealth is also defined by opportunities for world leaders,
Ministers and others to come together sometimes to discuss some
of the more sensitive issues around human rights—at times
candidly, constructively but also privately. The Commonwealth
network also provides for such discussions to be undertaken.
I personally represented the United Kingdom in a number of
ministerial meetings, negotiating on key issues. A point was made
by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about the language on Russia and
Ukraine, as well as on climate. I assure the noble Lord that I
sat through the Foreign Ministers’ meeting and while there were
differences of views and opinion, the Commonwealth is defined by
consensus. The agreement in the communiqué that the noble Lord,
Lord McDonald, rightly highlighted, ran to several pages. While
it was perhaps not reflective of what was achieved under his
stewardship as PUS at the Foreign Office during our time, it was
important that there was a leaders’ statement summarising some of
the key issues. That reflects a learning and constructive
carry-forward by Rwanda of something that we started in London
back in 2018.
I also had the pleasure of being invited to the business forum,
which was a grand affair; prior to that, I went to the exhibition
of businesses. It was profound and on one of the biggest
challenges, as my noble friend said. I pay tribute to his
stewardship. We talk about longevity; he is another example of
someone who has banged the drum of the Commonwealth Enterprise
and Investment Council—and rightly so. It was an incredible event
but I was taken by the businesses there, which were providing
practical solutions to food security and climate issues. I say to
the noble Lord, Lord St John, that many companies there,
including British ones, were showing expertise in digital.
I also took part in the intergenerational dialogue about sport in
the Commonwealth. I met the England goalkeeper David Seaman,
among others, and the FIFA chairman. These events, as highlighted
by my noble friend , brought together
businesspeople, youth and sport. We look forward to the
hospitality of the noble Lord, , when we all go to
Birmingham for the Games. Indeed, I am going there on Saturday; I
will be attending meetings of the OSCE that are taking place
there. I am very much looking forward to Birmingham
hospitality.
On the leaders’ statement, the UK Government believe that the
Commonwealth gets stronger as it grows. It is about encouraging
other countries—
The Lord
Will the Minister say anything about the question of persecution
raised by the right reverend Prelate the ?
(Con)
I still have about seven minutes on the clock and will certainly
get to that. Human rights are an important agenda item.
The interests of countries across the Commonwealth were also
reflected, including—it literally says this in my notes—on
freedom of religion or belief. These were discussed bilaterally.
I assure my noble friend Lady Helic that human rights were
discussed; I will come on to issues around the communiqué and the
statements and commitments made in a moment.
There was a selection process for the secretary-general. There
were two very capable candidates. Kamina Johnson Smith, the
Foreign Minister of Jamaica, was very close in the ballot that
took place. Nevertheless, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Collins,
and all noble Lords, as the Prime Minister said, that we will
work very constructively with the noble and learned Baroness,
Lady Scotland, as we have done before. I have always said, even
given the differing perspectives we have—I note the comments of
all noble Lords—that her advocacy of the Commonwealth, what it
stands for and its values, is well respected by many across
it.
On announcements and delivery, I thank my noble friend for his touching remarks about
my time as Minister. He also knows Australia well. The noble
Lord, Lord McDonald, mentioned an Australian Minister for the
Republic asking whether there would be a time when the monarch of
the United Kingdom holds an Australian passport. I have to give
full disclosure as Minister of State for the Commonwealth: Lady
Ahmad of Wimbledon actually holds an Australian passport, having
grown up in Australia. That reflects the vibrancy of the
Commonwealth.
The United Kingdom made a series of announcements on five new
virtual centres of expertise. I will provide the details to the
noble Lord, Lord St John. They reflect digital and our platinum
partnerships initiative in support of economic growth. We also
announced the launch of the UK’s developing countries trading
scheme, with simpler and more generous trading arrangements,
including for 18 Commonwealth members.
The noble Lord, Lord McDonald, talked about the identity agenda
and realms, some of which I have already touched on. As far as
the realms are concerned, we have addressed Barbados and Jamaica,
and this is important. I pay tribute to Her Majesty the Queen and
His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales for the leadership they
have shown and the full warmth they have demonstrated in our
engagement with those countries, as they seek to show change in
their overall progress towards becoming republics. As India has
notably shown, this does not change the warmth, affection and
strength of the Commonwealth family.
On trade, we showcased investment with Commonwealth partners. As
my noble friend reminded us, the Commonwealth
advantage knocks 21% off the cost of trade. UK trade with the
Commonwealth was worth over £120 billion last year alone and we
have made progress: we have signed free trade economic
partnerships with many Commonwealth countries and secured free
trade agreements with 33 Commonwealth countries, including EPAs
covering 27 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. This is
notwithstanding the challenges we faced with Covid and the
limitations that imposed on us.
The noble Lord, , mentioned the FTA. The
second round of negotiations concluded on 17 March and the third
round will begin shortly. During his visit to India, my right
honourable friend the Prime Minister and Prime Minister Modi set
a recognised challenge to everyone to achieve this by Diwali.
There was also a British International Investment announcement at
CHOGM 2022. Through BII, we will provide £162 million of capital
investment to the hydropower sector in Africa, to note one
example. A number of other announcements were also made on that
front.
My noble friends Lord Howell and Lady Helic talked about Chinese
influence on the Commonwealth. The UK has invested £30 billion in
FDI and bilateral ODA in Commonwealth countries and we are
working with key partners across the Commonwealth to provide a
structured and managed alternative to the reliance on China.
Turning, in response to the right reverend Prelate the , to the important issue
of human rights, the communiqué noted that freedom of religion or
belief is a cornerstone of democratic society. Indeed, the human
rights language in the communiqué from CHOGM 2022 further
reiterated the Commonwealth’s commitment to human rights
enshrined in international instruments, underscored the vital
role of a vibrant civil society, including human rights
defenders, in protecting democracy and urged good co-operation
between member countries and their respective national human
rights institutions; and there is more specific to that.
LGBT rights were raised by a number of noble Lords, including the
noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Collins. Since 2018, the United
Kingdom has invested more than £11 million in programmes to
support the promotion and protection of LGBT rights across the
Commonwealth. We continue to work with Commonwealth Governments
and civil society partners. There are challenges. Some countries
have moved forward, some have stayed still and some have moved
backwards: that is a candid assessment of where we are. At CHOGM
my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced a further
package of investment worth more than £2.7 million to continue to
promote and protect the rights of LGBT+ people across the
Commonwealth. I will share full details of our human rights
perspectives with all noble Lords.
Progress has been made on human rights, and I hope my noble
friend Lady Helic, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble
Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Purvis, recognise this. We are
building on progress together, as a constructive partner and
friend to Rwanda, during our term in office. There are girls’
education programmes worth more than £200 million. I have
mentioned the LGBT communication, and we working with India, for
example, on a new joint UK-India diplomatic training programme
for Commonwealth members.
In the limited time I have had, I hope I have been able to give
noble Lords a flavour of what has been achieved, what was
discussed and what continues to be delivered, and of our
continued commitment to the incredible institution—the network of
families—that is the Commonwealth. There are undoubtedly
differences on issues between member states, but the Commonwealth
provides an opportunity to come together, for civil society to
talk directly to Ministers, for specific feedback to be given and
for interactions to take place. We are truly delighted to be
hosting the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham next month. We look
forward to welcoming our Commonwealth friends and family to the
UK.
As we reflect on our four years in office, it is not customary,
but I think I should do this. I pay tribute to the incredible
team we have had at the FCO/FCDO leading on this: Philip Parham,
who was the Commonwealth envoy, and Jo Lomas, who is sitting over
there in the Box, together with Sarah Lingard. What can I say?
They were incredible officials and a great source of support
during the Commonwealth meeting, along with Harriet Mathews, our
director-general, and Laura Hickey, who did amazing work on
various aspects of the communiqué. Popping his head over the Box
is my ever-resilient, ever-working private secretary Alex
Fanshawe, together with Nick Catsaras, who is the Foreign
Secretary’s private secretary. They are unsung heroes. Too often
I get the credit for the work they do, and it is about time that
they are also named for the record—
(CB)
Hear, hear!
(Con)
So I hope noble Lords will excuse me for doing so. It is great to
hear the longest, loudest “hear, hear” from the former PUS at the
FCO, who did incredible work in strengthening our time as
chair-in-office.
To all noble Lords in all parts of your Lordships’ House, and to
the right reverend Prelates who bring into focus the moral
compass of the responsibility we have—I pay tribute to the right
reverend Prelates the and the , who have taken part
today, for their direct accountability —I say that it is right
that the Government are held to account. We look forward to your
contribution to the four events later this week. I assure the
House that we remain committed to the Commonwealth and wish to
play our part as a partner in the Commonwealth.
Finally, the Commonwealth is about the here and now, but it is
also, importantly, about the future and how we continue to
strengthen economic resilience and security; to step up action on
climate change; to become a force for good in standing up for
human rights for all and for freedom of religion for those who
are oppressed; and for the LGBT community, women’s rights, girls’
education and the Commonwealth family. There are differing
perspectives and different periods of travel, and different
pathways may be taken; but most importantly, as a network, it
allows us, as a Commonwealth family of 56 countries, to come
together for that common vision and common future.
5.10pm
(Con)
My Lords, I give the Minister more credit for his excellent
summing up and for all the work he does to promote and develop
Commonwealth links of every kind. I thank everyone who has spoken
in this debate for, on the whole, a very positive tone. This is a
very difficult time; the world is changing fundamentally.
Obviously, I see the Commonwealth structure itself evolving, as
it has evolved. We have to think very hard about how we can both
benefit from that as a country—why not?—and shape and benefit the
Commonwealth and the whole geopolitical situation.
I say to the Minister: we have to follow through on what the
Chinese are really up to. I notice that, over the weekend, they
have been having their BRICS meeting for 3 billion people. It
must be a rather odd meeting with India and China there when they
have recently been at war with each other. I do not really know
what went on, but we have to watch the Chinese. They are trying
to rebalance the world in ways that are not good for freedom and
democracy at all. We look to Marlborough House to be more vital
now that the Secretary-General issue is solved.
The noble Lord, Lord McDonald, raised the issue of the realms
versus republics and other kingdoms and sultanates. That will
sort itself out. It is really a media muddle, because they do not
understand the difference between the Queen as Head of State and
the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth—the answer is that there is
not much difference at all, but the media get very muddled.
Finally, we all have to think in terms of constant new
initiatives to develop further. As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis,
says, there is much more work to be done. Some of us are planning
to raise the idea of a brand-new Commonwealth centre at the end
of the Elizabeth Line. We have our eye on the Woolwich Barracks
that are now vacant. It is a vast area, a little bit of which, as
an exhibition centre, would make a magnificent place representing
the whole Commonwealth. The Minister will, I am afraid, hear more
about that.
Generally, the world is changing so fast. The digital
relationship is altering international relations so greatly that
we can now confidently look at the model of the voluntary
non-treaty Commonwealth, in all its diversity, as something that
will shape the international future rather than just be part of
the international past. I thank all my friends and colleagues and
your Lordships for applying their minds to that prospect this
afternoon.
Motion agreed.
|
