Census (England and Wales) Order 2020

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Tuesday 12th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, I shall raise the refusal by the ONS to include a tick-box in the census for those who identify as Cornish. The ONS seems to see this as a localised issue, ignoring the many thousands of Cornish men and women living across the UK who want to register their nationality as Cornish. I do not have the advantage of being Cornish myself, but I am aware of the strong campaign to have a Cornish tick-box on the census. Until the start of the pandemic, I used to spend a month a year as a visitor to Cornwall and stayed in visitor accommodation.

The Cornish were recognised as a national minority in 2014, and the Government pledged that they would be afforded the same status under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities as other UK Celtic peoples: the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish. The inclusion of a tick-box for the Cornish on the census would achieve that.

What discussions have the Government had recently with the group leaders of Cornwall Council about the refusal of the ONS to include a Cornish tick-box? The ONS has said that there will be a write-in option to identify oneself as Cornish and that there will be a campaign to raise awareness of that. What steps will the Government take to ensure that any such campaign is national and not just focused on Cornwall, given that the Cornish diaspora is spread across the UK? It would not be perfect solution, but it would be a step in the right direction towards delivering a census that could build a better, detailed snapshot of our society and help us to plan for the future delivery of services and for economic revival after Covid-19 has been defeated.

G20 Summit

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Monday 8th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Howell for introducing this short debate with his customary careful analysis, and pay tribute to his three years as the first ever chairman of the International Relations Select Committee. His expertise established it as a respected committee of this House and it is a privilege to follow him as its chair.

The G20’s convening power brings together the leaders of some of the world’s largest economies but, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, pointed out it is not perfect in its list of 20. That still makes it an important place for the UK to use an opportunity to promote a values and rules-based agenda. Like the UN, the G20 can be a deeply frustrating forum. The pursuit of multilateral co-operation within a grouping of Heads of Government who might justifiably give priority to their national interests means that it will always be tough to make real progress on crucial issues. The exception was of course about 10 years ago, when it came together over the sub-prime crisis. What is my noble friend the Minister’s assessment of the impact of the pursuit of national interests at Osaka on the progress that can henceforth be made on two of today’s issues, which I hope he agrees are crucial to the UK: global warming and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, the reform of the WTO? How will the UK be affected by the progress, or lack of it, on both matters at the summit?

Before travelling to Osaka, the Prime Minister pledged that she would introduce a legally binding target forcing the UK to end its contribution to global warming by 2050. At Osaka, she urged other G20 countries to set similarly ambitious net zero targets but the summit declaration falls far short of that. It does clarify that those countries which still stick by the Paris agreement will continue to work towards implementing their pledges—it does not say how. But then paragraph 36 sets apart the position of the United States in refusing to change its mind over its withdrawal from the Paris agreement,

“because it disadvantages American workers and taxpayers”.

Did the Prime Minister discuss climate change with President Trump while in Osaka? If so, was that in a bilateral meeting or in general discussions, and what was his response? Indeed, had the Prime Minister discussed such matters during the President’s successful state visit here earlier this summer? As my noble friend Lord Ahmad said on the matter that was discussed in this Chamber just before our short debate, we have a deep, special and enduring relationship with the United States. We can disagree but still be firm friends; we can strongly disagree and still be firm friends, so let us hope that continues.

Was global warming discussed at the Ministerial Meeting on Energy Transitions and Global Environment for Sustainable Growth on 15 and 16 June at Karuizawa? Which UK Minister attended that meeting, and what is the Government’s assessment of the progress made and its importance for the UK? Does the Minister agree that the eight ministerial meetings which take place separately from the summit itself play a part in the effective functioning of the G20, and can give the UK an important opportunity to ensure that issues vital to the safeguarding and furtherance of UK interests are discussed in some detail?

I note that in the DIT Oral Questions on 6 June, the Secretary of State for International Trade gave a commitment to support WTO reform at the G20 Trade Ministers’ meeting that was scheduled to take place later that week in the city of Tsukuba. The trade ministerial statement is referenced in the summit declaration, but it merely restates what the two problems are without demonstrating any agreement about how to solve them. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, the two problems are: paralysis within the dispute resolution mechanism, caused by the US blocking the appointment of new judges; and the need for a further round of market liberalisation which is WTO-consistent. Does the Minister see any realistic chance of resolving those problems at the 12th WTO ministerial conference, which is scheduled for June next year? After all, when we leave the EU, with or without a deal, the effective functioning of the WTO will be even more vital to us then than it is now.

We inhabit a global society and a global economy. Clearly, the G20’s role and functioning are not perfect and could be strengthened. But forms of global governance are needed now more than ever and it remains the case that an imperfect G20 is still better than none at all. As the Prime Minister said in her statement at the summit:

“Genuine collaboration and dialogue are particularly critical now as we confront serious threats to global stability … we are stronger when we work together”.

Domestic Infrastructure: Chinese Ownership

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the risks arising from Chinese ownership of technologies and platforms critical to the domestic infrastructure of the United Kingdom.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the Government take seriously any national security risks arising from the ownership of infrastructure assets and systems, and assess those risks on a case-by-case basis, irrespective of their origin. On 24 July 2018, the Government published the National Security and Investment White Paper, which consulted on reforms to powers to scrutinise investment for the purposes of protecting national security. The Government are now considering carefully the response to that consultation and will respond in due course.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his considered Answer, I point out that superfast 5G has great potential for our economy. It could be worth £200 billion over the next decade. The world leader in 5G is Huawei, but our closest security allies—Australia, New Zealand and the US—have already taken steps to restrict access to Huawei technology on the grounds of national security. Will we follow suit speedily? If not, why not?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to my noble friend, who has drawn attention to the need to get the balance right. America has banned Huawei from federal networks. We do not plan to go as far as that. I think America has a different approach from this country to international trade and inward investment, particularly under its “America first” policy. Of course, it has particular difficulties with China at the moment. We want to get the balance right and to have the best digital infrastructure we can, with up-to-date equipment to promote growth and inward investment, but we do not want to compromise national security. Huawei is precluded from taking part in certain sensitive parts of our infrastructure—lawful intercept, for example—and in other cases its equipment is interposed between equipment from other firms to mitigate risks. We keep the balance under review, but I think we have it about right.

Israel and Palestine

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2015 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)]

My Lords, at the risk of disobeying my former Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Cope, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Luce, for tabling today’s debate. It is indeed timely. It is a subject on which all noble Lords have made significant contributions, despite the narrow limit of two minutes for most of those taking part in this debate. In response, given my own time limit of 12 minutes, I shall address the main themes that have been raised today: the UK Government’s position on the Middle East peace process; what the parties must do; what the regions should do; and Gaza.

I start by saying that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for making clear the Opposition’s position in continuing their support. I am clear that the way in which the British Government can play a constructive part and speak with a strong voice is by speaking as a united Government and Opposition.

I turn first to the Government’s position on the Middle East peace process, and how we see the prospects for a two state-solution for Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The UK’s long-standing position on the Middle East peace process is well known; we support a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state. Such a vision is based on 1967 borders with agreed land swaps, with Jerusalem as the shared capital, and a just, fair and agreed settlement for refugees. We share the deep frustration felt in this Room today at the lack of progress towards achieving this vision. We will continue to push for progress towards peace and lead the way in supporting Palestinian state-building and measures to address Israel’s security concerns.

The noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, asked why we do not talk to Hamas. Our policy on Hamas remains clear: it must renounce violence, recognise Israel and accept previously signed agreements. Hamas must make credible movement towards these conditions, which remain the benchmark against which its intentions should be judged. We call on those in the region with influence over Hamas to encourage it to take those steps. Further, the noble Baroness asked a specific question about the European court decision to annul the Hamas EU designation. The court judgment is procedural and does not mean that the EU and UK have changed their positions on Hamas. The effects of the EU Hamas listing, including asset freezes, remain in place. We will work with partners to ensure that the Hamas listing at the EU is maintained. Hamas’s military wing has been proscribed in the UK since 2001 under separate UK legislation, which is not affected by December’s EU General Court judgment.

While the UK has not yet recognised a Palestinian state, the Government have long said that they would like to see a sovereign, independent, democratic, contiguous and viable Palestinian state living in peace and security, side by side with Israel. We reserve the right to recognise a Palestinian state bilaterally at a moment of our choosing and when we judge that it can best help bring about peace. We remain convinced that only negotiations can deliver a solution that ends the conflict once and for all, and that they are the most effective way for Palestinian aspirations of statehood to be met on the ground. That is what we are continuing to work towards. Either we move towards peace, as noble Lords have said today, with the strong support of the region and the wider international community, or we face an uncertain and dangerous future.

Several noble Lords referred specifically to the peace process itself and strongly commended Secretary Kerry for his tireless efforts to deliver a final status deal. We strongly support his work. Whatever the disappointments of 2014, Secretary Kerry has made it clear that progress was made. But it is vital that Israel and the Palestinians take advantage of any momentum gathered; it is vital that they commit to restarting the process, and focus once again on finding common ground.

So what must the parties do? They must take steps to build an environment conducive to peace, and they must avoid actions which undermine the viability of a two-state solution. In this regard, I am as one with noble Lords who are deeply concerned by Israel’s decision to freeze the transfer of tax revenues to the Palestinian Authority. This is contrary to Israel’s obligations as an occupying power. We urge Israel to fulfil its legal obligations under the 1994 Paris protocol, transfer the revenues without delay and refrain from taking any further punitive action, including announcing new settlements.

We have repeatedly condemned Israel’s announcements to expand settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including east Jerusalem. As the noble Lord, Lord Luce, pointed out, as well as being illegal under international law, settlements undermine the possibility of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and those working for a sustainable peace.

The Palestinian Authority must also show leadership. It must recommit to dialogue with Israel and to making progress on governance and security for Palestinians in Gaza, as well as the West Bank. We note the Palestinian Authority’s recent decisions to sign a number of conventions, including the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court. While we understand that the Palestinian Authority is seeking alternate ways to deliver the state that the Palestinian people deserve, there can be no substitute for negotiations with Israel. Negotiations must remain the focus.

What should the region do? I agree with all noble Lords who made the strong point that the international community can and must do more to support US-led efforts to find a viable, permanent solution to the conflict. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Luce, that regional players have a significant role to play. Through the Arab peace initiative, Arab states have offered Israel the normalisation of relations in the event of a comprehensive peace agreement. This opportunity must be seized upon as part of a relaunched negotiation process. It signals the benefits that peace would bring for the entire region.

We also agree on the need to promote economic development for the Palestinians to support the political process. That is why we are supporting the Office of the Quartet Representative, whose economic initiative aspires to grow rapidly the Palestinian economy over a three-year period. We are aware of the Israeli peace initiative and the work on the important role that civil society has in generating ideas to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Europe must also remain a key partner in the peace process. In December 2013, we led EU efforts to set out an unprecedented package of political, economic and security support that Europe would offer to both parties in the event of a final status agreement. That package remains on the table, should the parties return to negotiations—but much more needs to be done, and we will continue to work closely with our EU partners to support both sides in taking bold, necessary steps.

My noble friend Lord Cope and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark referred in particular to the duty of the faith communities in their varied forms. I agree with my noble friend Lord Cope that there is a duty on religious leaders to play their part on the route to finding peace. It is vital that Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan work together to maintain the long-standing status quo at Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif and other historic sites. Freedom of religion must be protected. I know that the Government have worked strongly to support the position of those of all faiths in the area and that these matters are discussed at the Human Rights Council and in the United Nations. All those of faith have a role to play.

There must also be progress for Palestinians in Gaza. Noble Lords, in particular my noble friend Lady Morris and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, described the terrible situation there. At the Cairo reconstruction conference, we pledged a further £20 million to kick-start Gaza’s recovery. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, asked about disbursal. We have disbursed a quarter of our funding, but we agree that other donors have not come up to scratch and we call on all donors to fulfil their financial pledges to aid the reconstruction efforts in Gaza without delay. I should point out that our pledge of £20 million was in addition to our earlier provision of £19.1 million in UK aid in response to the crisis. That relates to Gaza itself, not the wider area of reconstruction.

There is a problem with money, but there is also a physical problem with being able to get materials into Gaza to enable the works to make progress. This is partly caused by the security situation in Sinai and the Egyptian response to that, and partly by the situation between Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza. There are limits to what donors can achieve without a political solution. As a priority, we continue to urge both parties to ensure that the ceasefire is durable. It must address Israel’s security concerns and ensure that movement and access restrictions are lifted. We therefore urge the parties to resume serious negotiations to reach a durable ceasefire and tackle the underlying causes of the conflict.

We strongly believe that dialogue is the only way to ensure a lasting solution to the Middle East peace process. We will continue to work closely with the US, the EU and the wider international community to re-energise the process. Once a new Israeli Government are formed following elections on 17 March, the international community must take note to redouble its efforts working with the new Government to move the process forwards. Ultimately, Israeli and Palestinian leaders must show the courage, determination and creative leadership to make the compromises that a deal will require. When they show such leadership, we and our partners will be ready to show our full support.

Sudan and South Sudan

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2014 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Earl on securing today’s debate at such a timely moment, as he well put it, in the development of the recent conflicts in Sudan and South Sudan. I also take this opportunity to commend the work of the Associate Parliamentary Group for Sudan and South Sudan, of which the noble Earl is an active member—as, of course, are other noble Lords here today.

Peers have practical experience of the problems facing this area, as the noble Lord, Lord Luce, reminded us of his experience. Their work together ensures that parliamentarians on all sides of the House are well informed about developments in the region. It helps to raise awareness of the dire humanitarian situation facing millions of people.

The Government listen, especially my noble friend Mr Duddridge, the Minister with special responsibility for Africa. I have made him my noble friend too soon; he will win his seat at the next election. I meant my honourable friend Mr Duddridge. We would not like him to be translated here just yet.

Today’s debate comes as we approach a grim milestone: one year since the outbreak of the current conflict in South Sudan. It had a devastating impact on ordinary people in a nation that was born amid such hope barely three years before.

The noble Lord, Lord St John, reminded us that he made a recent visit to the area and gave us a description of it. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, gave a moving example—the story of Nyantay.

Those are both examples of the background, where there are terrible humanitarian consequences of conflict. In the past year, nearly 2 million people have been displaced from their homes, almost a quarter of them to neighbouring countries. Many remain without any source of food and are dependent on the assistance of the international community, in particular the United Nations.

The conflict has led to appalling violations of human rights, with reports of villages being razed to the ground, with widespread ethnic and sexual violence. Despite the signing of a cessation of hostilities agreement in January, both sides have continued to re-arm, and have yet to demonstrate the leadership, commitment, and urgency needed to end this suffering. It is essential that any agreement brings peace on the ground of South Sudan, and also leads to an inclusive transitional Government.

The UK has demonstrated strong leadership in responding to the crisis throughout this period. At the outbreak of conflict in December 2013, the former Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, my right honourable friend Mr Hague, and the Secretary of State for International Development, my right honourable friend Ms Greening, immediately called on all parties to lay down their weapons and come to the negotiating table. Our officials have worked tirelessly to press the parties on this. In New York they have worked to strengthen the UN Mission in South Sudan, and in South Sudan itself they have worked to support the safe evacuation of British nationals. The noble Earl, and the noble Lord, Lord Jay, raised the issue of the Sudan unit. To ensure that we had a proper response, extra staff were brought in to strengthen the Sudan unit during that period, but we continue to keep that under review; it is not a one-off. So we will keep our levels of resourcing under regular review to ensure that we respond appropriately to the range of government priority issues in Africa, which must include Sudan and South Sudan at all times. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, that Darfur gets the attention it needs from us.

Since January, we have been active in supporting the peace process led by the region and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, through the engagement of our special representatives and with our troika partners in the peace talks. The noble Earl asked about the troika, while the noble Lord, Lord Jay, asked about our engagement with the EU and China. Our troika partners, Norway and the United States, have been deeply involved in the region for a number of years. We work with them in a way that leverages our authority together. That includes our work through the EU. It is used as a strong method for negotiating influence and will, I hope, eventually lead to a successful conclusion. Together, we played a key role in the comprehensive peace agreement that led to South Sudan’s independence in the first instance. So we do have strong links.

The noble Lord, Lord Jay, also asked about China, and our engagement there. China is an increasingly important international actor in both Sudan and South Sudan, and we engage with it diplomatically on a regular basis. In particular, our former special representative and our ambassador in Beijing have discussed the South Sudan peace process with Chinese Special Representative Zhong, and we raise the two countries regularly with China in international fora in New York and in Addis Ababa.

Returning to the peace process itself, the UK has provided expertise and more than £2 million to support both the talks and the monitoring and verification mechanism, to ensure that violations of the ceasefire are investigated, and that those who are responsible are held to account. We continue to champion the need for accountability for all the grave human rights abuses that have been perpetrated by all parties to the conflict. It is important that impunity is not permitted.

My noble friend Lord Chidgey referred to sanctions. The UK was a leading player in pushing for the EU sanctions implemented in July, and we think the time has come for the United Nations Security Council to consider sanctions. As well as leading international efforts to support peace, the UK has also been the second largest contributor to the humanitarian response. I will not repeat information given by noble Lords. In particular I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for pointing out the detail of the contribution that this country, over many years, has provided under different Governments. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to humanitarian aid. The UK has provided clean water, or improved hygiene and sanitation, to more than 180,000 people in South Sudan, and nutrition for more than 90,000.

Throughout all this, I have taken account of what has been said: severe malnutrition exists. It is something we bear in mind. There is danger to the harvest in this current season, and nobody should relax their attention as to the severe outcome that there may be for those in this whole area in the next spring. However, we think that the Government of South Sudan should do more from their own funds to support their own people. The UK is also a leading donor in neighbouring Sudan. However, I shall not repeat the figures—instead, I shall move over to other matters raised by other noble Lords, because those facts have been put in Hansard during the debate.

To end the humanitarian situation, there has to be an end to Sudan’s internal conflicts. Sadly, this year’s events in Darfur, South Kordofan and Blue Nile, have reminded us of the violence and criminality suffered by the people of Sudan. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised Darfur in particular and the violence alleged to have taken place there. I am glad that he put on record the detail of that, although time does not permit me to go into as much detail myself. He reported what is in the media. What I can say is that we are using every opportunity to press the Government of Sudan, through bilateral discussions and through the United Nations Security Council, to end this violence and culture of impunity.

The noble Lord gave the particular example of Tabit, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred to this as well. The fact is that we do not know precisely what happened in Tabit. We know why we do not know—because of they way in which soldiers in the Sudan army went in with UNAMID when it was making its inquiries—but we do not know the detail. It is vital that we uncover whether there were indeed such gross violations of human rights and human dignities. If those are uncovered and proved, the perpetrators must be held to account.

The Tabit case is a reminder of the difficult environment in which UNAMID operates. The noble Earl is right to draw attention to that. This makes it especially important that the mission communicates clearly and openly with the UN Security Council and the wider international community, and provides all relevant facts. We recognise the constraints that UNAMID faces and, for that reason, we are strong supporters of the ongoing UN-led strategic review. We are working with the UN, the African Union and international partners to consider what further steps can be taken to increase the mission’s effectiveness, especially in its core function of protecting civilians. To the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I can say that we welcome the fact that the Cooper review was established to investigate reports of past underreporting in UNAMID. We believe that it is essential the United Nations communicates its findings openly and transparently, including through publishing a full report, and we have raised this in the Security Council. It is important that the UN system acts as a result of the report to ensure that in future all relevant facts are reported to the UN Security Council.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, also drew attention to the ICC. I am grateful to him for what he said about how valuable that organisation is. I am visiting the ICC later this week, and I shall make a statement there. I would be happy to discuss the matter of the ICC further with the noble Lord after I have made that visit.

We certainly support all the efforts in Sudan to achieve a full resolution. A national dialogue is crucial. The noble Lord, Lord Luce, is right that the UK, building on its historical ties, should continue to play a leading role in efforts to promote reform in Sudan and bring stability to South Sudan. There is clearly a huge amount yet to be done to bring peace to both countries—and peace also means stability and being able to grow your crops and have a living, not relying on others to feed you and keep you going. It means to have your own dignity and your own country. Ultimately, it is the region and, most importantly, leaders in Sudan and South Sudan who must take the initiative. But we, along with our partners in the international community, will not give up our support.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Clause 25 agreed.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, we gave an indication to the House that the Statement would take place after Amendments 94 and 95. This was for the convenience of, and to give certainty to, all those taking part in the transparency Bill, and to give some certainty to those who wished to be here for the Statement. The rationale behind this is that we have just heard the last of the amendments to Part 1 of the Bill and the House determined last week that Part 2 would not be considered until the middle of December. Therefore, during the rest of the day we will consider Part 3.

I can see that my noble friend Lady Warsi, like others, thought the first amendment would take a little longer. It was commendably briefly dealt with—it was a model for the rest—and at this stage I will have to move that the House adjourn during pleasure to enable others to take their places. As we are in Committee, I will first move that the House resume and then that it adjourn during pleasure, I suggest for 10 minutes.

House resumed.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I regret the fact that the Chief Whip has taken the decision unilaterally to impose business on the House. I have to make clear that Her Majesty’s Opposition did not agree to the tabling of the banking Bill for consideration on 18 November. It is clear from the conversations that we have had with the members of the Joint Committee on banking reform that the huge number of amendments and truncated timescale run the risk of an important Bill not being taken seriously. The arguments made very cogently in the Chamber today demonstrate that.

We recognise that this House is a part-time House—that includes Front-Benchers—and welcome the expertise that comes from Members, including Bishops, of course; it means that Members of the House can keep their interests and remain part-time, so changes to the timetable have a profound effect on the work of the House.

I ask the noble Baroness the Chief Whip, in these unusual circumstances—that is to say, the fact that yesterday, the whole House agreed that there should be a pause in consideration of the Transparency of Lobbying Bill—why, for just one legislative day, the Government cannot schedule debates on some of the many reports that are languishing, waiting to be debated on the Floor of the House. I well understand the need to deliver the Government’s programme, but I do not understand the difference that one day will make. I look forward to the noble Baroness’s reply and add that I cannot agree to the change that has been proposed to the House, but the House will know that my door always remains open to constructive discussion about the forthcoming programme.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)]

My Lords, of course, I am always sorry to cause concern to Members of the House in the matter of scheduling of business. In this House, as the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition said, Members are not expected to attend full time. I have to observe that many do and have a tremendous sense of duty to the work they do in scrutinising legislation. It is not a part-time House; we sit full time, but Members clearly have other expertise, which may keep them elsewhere on occasion. It is because of that, in scheduling business in this House, that we always take care to try to give advance notice. Commonly, we give three and a half weeks notice, which is considerably different from the one week given in another place, where elected, paid politicians are obviously in a different position.

As the noble Baroness said, yesterday, a deal was struck on the Floor of the House to delay part of the Committee stage of the lobbying Bill. An inevitable consequence of that was that I would have to make some changes to future business; there were two Committee days for the lobbying Bill which had to be vacated. I looked at all the available legislative business. This House is justly proud of the scrutiny that it gives to legislation. Of course, I looked at the availability of the opposition Front Bench spokesmen for that business; I always do. What I advertised today meets what I always try to do in looking at the availability of opposition Front Bench spokesmen and making good use of government time. I had other options available to me, it is true, but each of those options would either have been a worse use of time for the House, less convenient for the opposition Front Bench or, indeed, both. So I have decided that the only proper use was to schedule the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill.

I appreciate that those noble Lords who formed part of the commission—obviously, it no longer exists—play a very full and effective part. Committee finished on October 23, so we have not jumped in here. It is now two weeks later. In the normal run of things, Report could have been scheduled for today, but we wanted to avoid doing it within the normal time of two weeks. Taking it forward to 18 November gives almost a month after the end of Committee. It is not unusual to schedule after two weeks; it is quite unusual for it to have been left as long as it has after Committee. I have proposed today that Report should begin nearly a full month after the end of Committee.

There have been references to the Bill’s being longer. It is indeed longer, but that is due to the Government’s having accepted the commission’s proposals. It is because the Government have been responding positively that the Bill has grown to meet the recommendations. Reference has also been made to colleagues’ availability, and I note particularly what the right reverend Prelate said. Far be it for me to wish to take the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury away from discussion of important matters at his next weekly meeting of the Church, particularly if it is on the matter of women bishops. By the way, I do not hold the right reverend Prelate to any idea that that meeting will pass a resolution in favour of women bishops. I look on and wait with interest.

On a serious point, I know that the most reverend Primate attended two out of three days. He did as much as he possibly could to attend two days of Committee. He decided not to speak until late one night, when he was of great assistance in speaking briefly but importantly. Members of the House will know what I mean when I say that I did so “to assist the staff”, if I may put it that way, at 10.30 pm. It was a generous thing to do. I know that he listened assiduously and I am sure that he has read Hansard.

This is not in any way a matter of trying to put people out on any of the Benches. I assure the House absolutely of that. I know that my noble friends Lord Deighton and Lord Newby have been, and continue to be, very involved in discussions off the Floor of the House with those taking part in the Bill. Those started in Committee; they continued after Committee. They continue now, and I feel that those have been very constructive discussions.

I do my best in the way of scheduling. There are other legislative options. The noble Baroness, the Leader of the Opposition, asks why we do not have more debates. This House scrutinises legislation. I have offered a considerable number of days to the Committee Office—indeed, last week I was thanked for so doing. Two days of government time have been given over to committee dates this Session. That was what the Committee Office asked for in the first place, and we have fulfilled that commitment. Last week, the Committee Office was not able to take up the full offer of the time that we gave them, but we had extremely good debates last Wednesday.

This House needs to do what it does best, to use time efficiently and effectively for scrutiny of legislation. There is other legislation available which could be scrutinised on that day. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that my door is open to the opposition Chief Whip if he wishes to discuss the availability of his Front-Bench spokesperson, to look again at those dates for legislation to be scheduled.

Motion agreed.

Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Thursday 29th August 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

Forgive me, but I have just been informed by my noble friends that the Prime Minister has in fact reacted in the House of Commons to the defeat of both the government Motion and the amendment laid by my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition. As we are sitting, I wonder if it might be apposite to call for us to adjourn at pleasure, just for 10 minutes, so that perhaps the Minister or the Leader could report on what the Prime Minister has said in the other place.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I understand that Mr Miliband posed a question to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister as to the impact of both the defeats tonight—each of the Motions was lost. I understand that the challenge was whether my right honourable friend the Prime Minister would give an undertaking that he would not override the will of the House, and I believe that he has given that undertaking. There is a rolling Hansard, and I suggest that that is something that will be finalised with the Hansard tomorrow.

I think that it is impossible for the Government to deliver what the noble Baroness is asking for, which is to find out exactly what was said in the Commons and, within a matter of time, report it here. Certainly those who have been using their iPads and the modern technology that that gives, including the Clerk of the Parliaments, have been following proceedings in another place. Our proceedings are here. It is very fair for the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition to ask what next steps may be made. I can only say what the Prime Minister has said currently in another place. Clearly, I suspect that there may be other developments tomorrow. However, that is my understanding as it currently stands—that the Prime Minister will consider the matters as they have developed in the Commons.

[Lord Goldsmith]

My Lords, perhaps I may press the noble Baroness a little further. I understand that today the State Department said that it was not concerned or would not be deterred in any way in deciding what it was going to do by what this Parliament decided. The consequence of that may well be, therefore, that the United States may take action quite soon. Indeed, there were suggestions that that might happen this weekend. For that reason, and because the House has been recalled—it is more of an emergency for this House because it was not due to sit next week—it would be enormously helpful to know what might happen next and what involvement this House might have in it. That is why I would certainly support the suggestion of my noble friend for at least a short adjournment to see whether there is a plan B and whether the government Front Bench can advise the House on what that plan B is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

Perhaps I may assist my noble friend because obviously I did not explain myself clearly enough on the first occasion. A short adjournment tonight would achieve no more than I have been able to give the House to assist it with the general statements that have been made by the Prime Minister in another place. My right honourable friend has given an undertaking and no more is being said in another place. Therefore, there is no more to be reported at this stage. This House has made its views very clear and very cogently and another place has done so too. This is a Take Note Motion. The noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition wishes to engage in a requirement that we should make commitments now to recall the House in certain circumstances. I do not postulate on the unknown; I deal with the known. All colleagues know that when I give my word, I keep it. I have listened today and I have taken note. My word is always that this House should have an opportunity to contribute its views. It has done that today. I suggest that we should now conclude our proceedings and continue to consider the result of everything in both Houses today.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords—

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords—

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I think it is time to conclude the proceedings. If I could assist the House further, I would do so. I invite the Lord Speaker to conclude our proceedings.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

My Lords, this is a matter of a military operation. It is a matter of potential life and death. It is a matter on which both Houses were recalled. I would like the Government to explain this, but from my reading of it, the House of Commons has voted against an in-principle decision to have military action and against a conditional decision to have military action. When the Prime Minister said, “I will act accordingly”, we are surely entitled to know what that means.

We are asking for a 10-minute interval. We are not asking for a plan B or the plans of the US Department of State, but we are asking what the Prime Minister understands of tonight’s vote when he says, “I will act accordingly”. If there is no clarity after 10 minutes, the noble Baroness can tell us that there is no clarity. But it would be difficult to accept the Prime Minister’s statement, assuredly, that he will act accordingly if we are told that he has no idea what that means.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Reid, is inviting me to give this House an opportunity which the House of Commons does not have. That House has accepted the words of the Prime Minister and adjourned. I find it difficult that this House now questions whether the Prime Minister’s words should be examined further by this House at this hour.

If another place has accepted what the Prime Minister has said, short of bringing the Prime Minister here I do not see what further way I can adopt to assist the House. Whereas that may be a novel procedure that this House may wish to adopt in the future—I do not wish to be flippant because this is such a serious matter—much as I do my best to help this House it would be a little unusual if we were to adjourn to interrogate the Prime Minister when his words have been accepted by the leader of the Opposition in another place.

It is time. We have taken note. We have made our views heard very cogently in both Houses. It is time.

Motion agreed.

Human Rights: Burma

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords—

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I know that my noble friend Lord Alton is a courteous man, and will know that my noble friend Lady Berridge has been trying to get in, and indeed has started her question on four occasions. I am sure that the House might give my noble friend Lady Berridge a chance.

[Baroness Berridge]

My Lords, the overwhelming improvements are of course welcome, but there is growing concern that Burmese citizens are suffering discrimination on the basis of their religion. Therefore there is a danger that the millions of pounds of UK aid that are now going to Burma will not be distributed equally to all Burmese citizens. What discussions did the Prime Minister have with the President regarding freedom of religion and belief, particularly in regard to the rising intolerance towards Muslims and other non-Buddhists?

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, as we have heard from almost every speaker so far, there is widespread support for the objective of the Bill, but there is also profound unease about the way the Government are going about it. The Bill aims to bring in individual electoral registration which, as the Minister and others have described, has significant advantages over the current system of household registration. That is why the previous Government brought in legislation, for which I was the responsible Minister, which introduced individual electoral registration. However, unlike this Bill, that legislation secured cross-party support. That is because, unlike this Bill, it was designed to have no partisan effect in the way it was delivered.

This Government have abandoned that careful cross-party approach; instead, this Bill seeks to rewire our electoral arrangements in a way that is likely to have a partisan impact and damage our democracy. This may seem strong language to apply to what may appear to be a narrow and technical Bill, but while electoral registration is often a highly technical issue, it is always an important one. The struggle for the right to vote defines the history of our democracy and electoral registration makes that right a reality.

As my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said in his opening speech, the key question that has to be addressed when scrutinising this Bill is: why did this Government abandon the previous Government’s approach of bringing in individual electoral registration by linking it to the achievement of a comprehensive and accurate electoral register? That is the key question because all the evidence and expert opinion suggests that for all its merits, the introduction of individual registration carries with it the severe risk that significant numbers of people eligible to vote will not register and so will be unable to vote. This was the case in Northern Ireland when it moved to this new system, although, as we have heard, there were special circumstances there. The independent report on that experience by the Electoral Commission concluded that, while its findings about the impact on registration related directly to Northern Ireland,

“they are not unique and reflect the wider picture across the UK. They present a major challenge to all those concerned with widening participation in electoral and democratic processes”.

In evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee of the House of Commons last year, Jenny Watson, the chair of the Electoral Commission, upon whom the Minister relied in his opening speech, said it was possible that,

“the register could go from around a 90% completeness that we currently have”—

actually it turned out to be a bit less than that—

“to around, say, a 60% completeness”.

There is already a serious problem with the electoral register in the United Kingdom. As we have heard, the latest estimate suggests that at least 6 million people eligible to vote were not registered to do so in December 2010. The problem is all the worse because those eligible voters who are not on the register are disproportionately concentrated in particular groups: young people and students, people with learning disabilities, people with disabilities generally, those living in areas of high social deprivation, and ethnic minorities. The introduction of individual registration risks making a bad situation significantly worse, which is why its introduction was delayed for so long. The improvements it is likely to bring to the accuracy of the register by helping to ensure that all those on the register should be on it are balanced by the deterioration in accuracy it is likely to bring about as increasing numbers of eligible voters do not register.

As I have said, the previous Government sought to address this problem by linking the implementation of individual registration to the achievement of a comprehensive and accurate register by 2015. This timetable allowed for a phased introduction of the new system but we showed our commitment to meeting it by giving the Electoral Commission the power to oversee the process and the obligation to report annually to Parliament on its progress in achieving the objective, and substantial new powers to help it do so. This approach has now been junked by the Government, who want to bring in individual registration whatever the consequences for the coverage of the register.

I know that the Government, in good faith, are taking measures to increase registration and they are all welcome. But they are essentially a continuation of the same measures the previous Government brought in and, as I keep telling Ministers in this Government, when I was the Minister responsible for bringing in these measures I hoped that they would halt and reverse the likely decline in registration but I could not guarantee they would do so. That is why we took the approach we did. As I have said before, I could see no justification in advancing towards one public policy objective at the expense of another when it was perfectly possible to advance towards both at the same time.

In response to questioning in a debate in your Lordships’ House on I2 July, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, admitted that he could not guarantee that this Bill would not cause the numbers on the electoral register to go down but he appeared to justify this by saying that the numbers have been falling under the present system of household registration. I hope that, on reflection, he is not seriously seeking to argue that because a problem already exists, it is acceptable to make it even worse.

The impact assessment of this Bill carried out by the Cabinet Office is a very interesting document. It admits that in the long run the register is expected to remain 85% complete. In other words, all the efforts the Government are making to increase registration, which are considerable, will be counteracted by the damage to registration levels caused by the Government’s approach to bringing in individual registration. That figure of completeness is more or less where we are today.

The Government seem content to accept that, by their own estimates, some 6 million eligible voters will remain off the electoral register—even though the Minister has told us today that the Government place equal emphasis on the completeness and the accuracy of the register. This is in contrast to the previous Government’s approach, where there were continuing incentives to improve registration rates by tying them to the delivery of individual registration—a goal on which the whole of Parliament, I think, can agree. There was also provision for annual progress reports to Parliament by the Electoral Commission, giving Parliament the opportunity every year to introduce new measures should they be needed. All that was agreed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in opposition; all that has been junked by them now they are in government.

My concerns are increased by the silence of the impact assessment on two important issues that could make electoral registration even more worryingly incomplete. First, it does not say what levels of investment it assumes will be made by local authorities in registration. This Bill gives a lot of powers—we have heard a lot about data-matching—but it does not say how much local authorities are actually going to invest in the process of registration. Your Lordships will be aware that the money allocated by central government to local authorities for electoral registration is not ring-fenced. It is therefore likely that, at a time when local authorities are subject to intense pressure on their budgets, some—possibly many—of them might be tempted to spend those funds not on electoral registration but on other hard-pressed services.

Can the Minister say whether, in making projections about levels of registration, the Government have assumed that every penny of the money allocated for electoral registration will be spent to that end by every local authority? If they have not assumed that, what assumptions have they made about levels of local authority spending on registration? Will the Minister also share with your Lordships the calculations the Government have made about the impact on levels of registration if local authorities do not spend the funds allocated to them for that purpose to that end?

Secondly, the impact assessment is silent on the differential impact of this change on the system of registration. As I have said, under the current system, registration rates are lower among particular demographic groups and in particular parts of the country. Will the Minister set out the methodology through which the Government reached their assessment of the impact of this legislation on levels of registration? Can he say if the Government made any assessment of the impact on those groups and those parts of the country in which registration is disproportionately low under the current system? If so, what was that assessment?

Why are the Government risking such damage to the electoral register? They have suggested—in the Explanatory Notes, for example, and we have heard it again today from the Minister—that the aim of this Bill is to,

“reduce electoral fraud by speeding up the implementation of individual voter registration”.

Their argument appears to be that the problem of electoral fraud is so pressing that tackling it is such a priority that the Government must abandon the previous Government’s timetable and all its protections for levels of registration.

No one can quarrel with any measure that reduces electoral fraud, and I agree with the Government that individual registration can play a part in doing so; that was one of the main reasons the previous Government legislated for it. However, this argument needs to be kept in perspective. There is no evidence—none—that electoral fraud is widespread or systemic. That is what the independent bodies tasked with safeguarding the integrity of our electoral system have found over and again in their study of all the elections that have been conducted in this country over the past 10 years and more. To quote from just one analysis carried out by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Electoral Commission into the 2010 elections, they found,

“no evidence of widespread systematic attempts to undermine or interfere with the May 2010 elections through electoral fraud”.

With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who seemed to be making a slightly different point, they went on to say about those elections,

“we are not aware of any case reported to the police that affected the outcome of the election to which it related nor of any election that has had to be re-run as a result of electoral malpractice”.

There is never any justification for any complacency about even a single instance of electoral malpractice. I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and others have said. However, the evidence does not suggest that electoral malpractice justifies the risk that the Government are running with the register. The Rowntree Reform Trust report of 2008 concluded:

“It is unlikely that there has been a significant increase in electoral malpractice since the introduction of postal voting on demand in 2000”.

It went on to say that what malpractice there was,

“related to a tiny proportion of all elections contested”.

Nor will individual registration address all the cases of malpractice. ACPO and the Electoral Commission have concluded that the nature of recorded electoral malpractice tends to change as efforts are successful in tackling previous forms of it. Indeed, the Bill suggests the Government are actually not that worried about electoral fraud; they could have included measures to tackle it but they have not done so. They have not included, for example, anything to implement a suggestion by ACPO and the Electoral Commission that to strengthen the security of the electoral process the Government might require proof of voters’ identities at a polling station. There are strong arguments against it, but there is no consideration of it in this Bill and they have not brought anything forward to deal with it.

If the Government were really so concerned about electoral fraud, the Bill would include further measures, for example, to tackle directly personation, which still exists from time to time, and it would carry forward measures to tackle postal vote fraud. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Baker, on the advantages of 100% verification of postal vote ballots; he is absolutely right about that. At the moment electoral returning officers verify a small percentage of them, but 100% verification would help to tackle what postal vote fraud exists. There is nothing about that in the Bill; there could be, but it is costly. If the Government were as worried, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, seems to be, they would make provision for it, but they have not.

Looking again at the impact assessment, we can see that the Government are not altogether convinced about their own case. It suggests that the “problem under consideration” is the,

“widely held view that the current system for registration is vulnerable to fraud and a public perception that this allows electoral fraud to occur”.

In other words, the problem is not necessarily something that exists in fact but simply the perception that it might do so. Of course we need to be worried about perceptions—any doubts about the integrity of the electoral process are very important—so how widespread is that perception? I think the most recent evidence we have is from the tracker survey carried out by the Electoral Commission in 2011. That survey found that 36% thought that electoral fraud was a big or a very big problem but 50% thought that it was not a big problem or not a problem at all, so only a minority are worried about it. That becomes even more relevant when we look at the sample where those who said that they knew a lot about the problem amounted to a total of 6%. This hardly seems like a secure evidence base on which to bring legislation before Parliament. The Government seem to recognise this because they bring forward financial fraud as another reason for this legislation.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and, as always, I hesitate to interrupt in debates, but it may be helpful to all noble Lords taking part if I remind them gently that the Companion says, in chapter 4.44:

“In debates where there are no formal time limits”—

and this debate is not time limited—

“members opening or winding up, from either side, are expected to keep within 20 minutes”—

which, indeed, they have done. It continues:

“Other speakers are expected to keep within 15 minutes”.

I am sure that the noble Lord is coming to the end of his speech.

[Lord Wills]

I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for her guidance. I am actually about to come to the end. However, I would point out tactfully, although I am not intending to take advantage of this, that the notes issued by the Government Whips Office suggests that the House is due to rise at 10 pm, so I suspect that there is a little time left for me to conclude.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, that was perhaps taking account of the elasticity of the previous business, on which the House was commendably succinct.

[Lord Wills]

I assure the House that I will not tire it any further. However, as I spent a great deal of my life on this issue—not altogether of my own volition—when I was a Minister, I had hoped that I would be able to contribute something to the debates as we went forward. I hope that I may be allowed a little more latitude—another two or three minutes, if that is acceptable. I see that I am being allowed to continue for the time being until I get a signal from my own Whips.

I shall deal with the question of financial fraud because it is put forward as an important justification for the Bill in the impact assessment. No one has mentioned it so far, but the Government estimate that there could be a reduction in such fraud of £17.5 million by 2030. When we look at the arguments for this, though, we see that that figure is reached only if the amount of fraud detected and prevented is a linear function of the electoral register—but then it is admitted that no such assumption can be made. The impact assessment states:

“This figures should be considered to be indicative”—

a slippery word—

“only however because the mathematical relationship between the accuracy of the electoral register and fraud is imperfectly understood”.

In other words, it might be a strong argument for this Bill but it might be no such argument at all. We really should not be legislating on such a flimsy evidence base, and the flimsiness of the case for this legislation is matched by the damage that it is going to do to the electoral register.

What are the consequences of this? Clearly it damages our democracy when millions are excluded from the electoral register. Most agree that eligible voters who do not register are more likely to vote Labour when they do vote. The Government recognise this problem by allowing a carryover from the household system of registration for the general election in 2015. Significantly, though, as we have heard, they have not allowed for such a carryover for the boundary review that is also going to take place in 2015. What are the consequences of that likely to be? As I have previously argued, Labour constituencies are likely to see disproportionate declines in those on the register because those less likely to register are disproportionately concentrated in such constituencies. Because of the very tight numerical limits on constituency size imposed by the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, that is likely to mean fewer Labour seats. Furthermore, because of the way that Labour constituencies are often surrounded by strongly Conservative constituencies, that is likely to mean that more Labour safe seats will become marginal and more marginal Labour seats will become Conservative ones.

I have asked your Lordships before, and I ask you again today, to consider the impact on our democracy if it turns out that the outcome of a general election has been determined by the fact that millions of eligible voters could not vote because they were not registered to do so and this was the result of a government policy, deliberately pursued despite all the evidence that it would have precisely this consequence. As it stands, this Bill is noxious to democracy, and this is compounded by the broad order-making powers that Ministers wish to give themselves to alter the system further in future.

However, despite all that, I do not think that the Bill is beyond redemption. A number of amendments could rid it of its partisan elements while still securing its overriding objective. I conclude my remarks with a plea to all those Peers who have an understandable reluctance to amend too vigorously legislation that affects elections to the other place. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said about our slight remove and therefore our greater objectivity in these matters, but I also understand that many Peers do not wish to interfere in electoral matters. I ask any Peers who feel like that to recall that your Lordships’ House has historically seen the protection of our country's constitutional arrangements—

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the noble Lord is now in the 21st minute. The Companion says that even if the speech is of great significance to the nation that it should not continue beyond that period. It is a matter for the Minister to decide, of course, whether he responds to points put by the noble Lord. Given the general nature of this debate, I am sure that he would wish to do so. The Companion is clear and is there, for fairness, to all Peers because we are all treated equally.