My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, with his direct experience of his visits to Belarus; it was fascinating to hear about that. I have not been to Belarus but am active in the All-Party Group on the Abolition of the Death Penalty; we have sought to engage with those brave individuals, including former parliamentarians, who have sought to work with us for the abolition of the death penalty there. Belarus is the only country in wider Europe which retains it. I understand that four people were executed in 2018.
That is one element of a whole range that the noble Earl indicated in justification of these measures, which I and my party support. The justification is not only in the high-profile events we have seen in recent months but, as the noble Lord alluded to, in a pattern of practice which is diminishing democracy, reducing people’s ability to have properly elected representatives and opening up the concern that there will be internal repression of its own people.
4.30 pm
That is why, therefore—this is where there is a slight tone of regret—we are debating a measure that is correcting a previous measure. This is not the first time that we have engaged when the Minister has come to correct measures. However, he does it very well. I do not mean that sarcastically; he is very willing
to engage and speak with Members when areas have been highlighted. Of course, mistakes happen—that is without question—but, given that the omission was on the military, internal repression, interception and monitoring technologies that were deleted by the measure in error, that highlights an issue with regard to checking these measures before they come into force but also before they are laid before Parliament.
The Minister pre-empted one of my questions—on whether there had been a gap in any of the continuity. He said that there had not. I was confused by the fact that, when looking at the timeline of the previous order, SI 2021/922, which this corrects, I saw that it stopped being law on 19 October, while this measure came into force on 14 October. I simply did not know why there were five days when there were two competing orders, but maybe it is not an issue. It may be that the more recent one trumps the previous one, but I am certainly not sure when it comes to that approach as to those periods. But that is academic, if there were no concerns.
Of course, these measures are not for the policing of those people who wish to operate fully with transparency and integrity. These measures are to protect people who seek to circumvent human rights and proper governance, so it is worth asking the question.
For the many people who sometimes belittle the role of parliamentary scrutiny, I commend the Joint Committee on its review of these instruments and on highlighting the error and reporting it to the House for action. I am glad that the department acknowledged that—I believe it was immediately—in its memorandum, and brought forward the other measures for this consideration. So I am pleased.
I have two technical questions to ask the Minister. On one, he very kindly spoke to me beforehand and, on the other, he may not have the answer to hand, so I would be perfectly happy if he wanted to write to me. When I was looking at the Government’s information for businesses, on the operation of these sanctions, I saw the section on immigration and Immigration Rules, and how it affects individuals who may have leave to enter or remain in the UK. It will not apply to UK citizens, of course, but it will apply to those who seek to carry out business activities in the UK. The measures impose a travel ban on certain designated people from the Secretary of State for the purpose of the immigrations sanctions under the sanctions Act. Is that in force for many nationals of Belarus? I hope that there is no loophole in the operation of these sanctions for trade or on the Home Office Immigration Rules. Can the Minister reassure me that there is integrated working between the FCDO and Home Office with regards to those for the travel ban or those who are refused leave to enter or remain in the UK?
My second question relates to an issue that I raised with the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, when we debated the regulations around dual-use exports and the licences for many of the technologies that are banned under these sanctions. Part of the UK—Northern Ireland—operates the EU licencing scheme, and I asked the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, for reassurance that we were not inadvertently operating loopholes where there were two different systems: either the UK or the European Union dual-use licensing systems for exports.
The Minister reassured me at the time—and I suspect that there will be reassurance now—that there is no loophole because we are working in concert with the European Union, as the Minister said, which is reassuring. However, I believe it is worth asking, because—notwithstanding the protocol—we are now in the realm of always having to ask whether the sanctions regime and the licensing systems for one part of the UK are in concert with the other parts of the UK. If the Minister can reassure me on those two aspects, I shall be grateful.