Ethiopia Famine: 40th Anniversary
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on securing this debate at such a critical time for the security of the peoples not only in Ethiopia but across the whole region. There are high levels of humanitarian need across many parts of Ethiopia, as has been described. It is driven by climate changes, conflict, disease outbreaks and high inflation. The debate is also timely, since the noble Lord, Lord Collins, has only just returned from his diplomatic visit to Ethiopia.
I thank the Minister for his helpful response to my Question for Written Answer on the humanitarian situation in Ethiopia. I admit that I tabled it only just after he had been appointed as a Minister, so it was rather a testing time but he responded with a very full and helpful Answer, for which I am grateful. He referred to the pledging conference in Geneva in April this year, which was co-led by the UK, Ethiopia and the UN. The conference helped to increase humanitarian funding by pledging almost $630 million, including $253 million from the US and $125 million from the UK. What is the Government’s expectation of the period of time over which those countries—not just the US and UK, but others that pledged—will contribute their pledges in full?
The Minister also referred to the provision of UK support to the Government of Ethiopia’s productive safety net programme. That is welcome and should strengthen food security and resilience for the 8 million people living in extreme poverty in Ethiopia. However, is he confident that this will be fairly distributed among the different and sometimes conflict-affected regions of Ethiopia? The noble Lord, Lord Browne, referred to the conditions in some parts of the country but, indeed, all regions are at times affected by conflict.
I note that one of the commitments made by the Ethiopian Government in Geneva was to facilitate unimpeded and sustained access for humanitarian organisations to reach affected populations throughout the country, including conflict-affected regions, and to ensure the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and assets. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Browne, about what has been happening. Can the Minister therefore give an assurance that the UK Government will focus pressure on the warring parties in conflict zones to adhere to international humanitarian law to allow access to food supplies?
The noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, referred to the disastrous 1984 famine; I think all of us here are of a generation that can remember that. It meant, however, that huge progress was made around the world to tackle malnutrition and hunger, not only in Ethiopia but elsewhere. Ethiopia did indeed make remarkable progress after that famine. I had the opportunity to see some of the consequences of that progress when I went on a British Group IPU scoping visit to Ethiopia in February 2019. I went with just the noble Baroness, Lady Barker—I say “just”, but no one could say “just” about the noble Baroness, who is a force to be reckoned with; she is sadly not here today, but that is not her fault—and my then honourable friend in another place, Pauline Latham.
At that time Ethiopia was undergoing a profound political transition, set alongside economic and social transformation. Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed had been in office for nearly a year and had set a fast pace of reform. He declared the end of the conflict with Eritrea; appointed women to 50% of his Cabinet posts; appointed the first ever female President; and appointed a Tigrayan woman as Speaker of the House of Federation, with whom we had a very friendly and, I would say, very feisty meeting.
We saw construction under way of a high-tech business park and of a factory for the production of Ethiopian textiles and garments. The latter was expected to give employment particularly for women, who were experiencing high levels of violence and neglect and lacked the opportunity to get legal, regular employment. Our delegation left Ethiopia with hope that there could be a positive future. Later that same year, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Fast forward one year to November 2020, and the same Prime Minister declared a state of emergency in the Tigray region and Ethiopia endured two years of conflict, resulting in the deaths of thousands and the internal displacement of millions of people.
At this stage, we still hoped there might be a way of finding peace and progress. In November 2022, an agreement on a permanent cessation of hostilities was signed by the Ethiopian Government and the Tigrayan forces. However, the World Food Programme has reported that, despite agreement in the Tigray region, intense armed conflict had erupted elsewhere. Conflict combined with projections of severe drought conditions mean that over 8 million people are expected to be at risk of food insecurity this year. The expert briefing from the organisation United Against Malnutrition and Hunger, to which the noble Baroness has rightly referred, points out that some of the progress achieved over the previous two decades had been reversed by the recent two years of conflict but also by governance challenges, disease outbreaks—including malaria, cholera and measles— and natural disasters. By August this year, an estimated 16 million people needed food assistance and approximately 4.7 million children and women required immediate nutrition assistance.
While the Minister was in Addis, I note that he was able to have a meeting with Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, which the Minister’s tweet—I follow him on Twitter, obviously—reported was:
“A constructive first meeting to discuss strengthening cooperation on shared priorities: promoting economic growth; bolstering global security; conflict prevention; reducing humanitarian need”.
I was rather concerned that conflict resolution was not in that list. Was it discussed and, if so, what were the consequences?
It is encouraging that the Minister took so much of his time this summer to pay attention, as Minister for Africa, to the very areas that crucially need that attention. I know it has been well received in the countries he visited, but it also means he is able to give us a much more up-to-date report today than we would otherwise be able to get. I look forward to hearing his views on how he sees the future for that region and particularly the future for our relationship with Ethiopia.
Sudan
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has set out very clearly the challenges that are faced by every single person in Sudan. Indeed, the conflict has persisted for over a year and has escalated into one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises.
I welcome the statement the Minister made just a moment ago that there will shortly be an announcement about the appointment of a UK special envoy to Sudan. The All-Party Group for Sudan and South Sudan, of which I am one of the vice-chairs, has long called for that, and I congratulate the Government on doing it.
Yesterday, I had the privilege of opening a short debate about the impact of the conflict on children in Sudan. Today, I will pick up on some of the themes that the Minister has rightly mentioned with regard to the challenges of securing peace in the short and long term, and the need for humanitarian support. As the Foreign Secretary said on 2 August:
“Aid must be allowed to reach those in need. Starvation must not be used as a method of warfare”.
As the UK is the penholder on Sudan at the UN in New York and Geneva, can the Minister give us a little more detail today about the steps being taken by the UK to prevent further casualties and secure a ceasefire? He has given us some information, but I think we can go further just to find out what future debates are going to be called for at the UNSC and in Geneva at the Human Rights Council.
In opening, the Minister welcomed the agreement reached by the ALPS Group talks in Switzerland last month that the Adre border crossing would be open to humanitarian aid convoys. I understand that the RSF sent a delegation but the Sudanese Government did not, despite invitations and indeed extensive international pressure. One of the official reasons given by the Sudanese Government was their strong opposition to the fact that the UAE was going to be included in the talks, because they believe the reports that the UAE is providing military support to the RSF. Can the Minister say whether the UK Government believe that the UAE’s support is indeed being given to the RSF?
The talks went ahead, with representation from the United States special envoy for Sudan, Tom Perriello, who made it clear that the agreements reached went beyond the opening of the Adre border, although that is of course vital, and mentioned the fact that the RSF gave commitments to implement a code of conduct among its own fighters. I hope the Minister will forgive my cynicism about the likelihood of that actually happening, given the widespread reports of the atrocities caused by the RSF, to which the noble Lord referred; sometimes we find the RSF posting videos of the killings and the rapes online, celebrating what they have just been doing in graphic detail. Of course, there is an extremely difficult barrier to achieving any success in peace, short and long term, and that is the battle between the two people who want to control the country.
It was extremely disappointing that, in December last year, the United Nations Security Council was put in an impossible position by the Sudanese Government’s formal request to terminate the mandate of UNITAMS —the UN Integrated Transition Assistance Mission in Sudan. In the light of that, can the Minister say today what steps the Government are taking as penholder on Sudan to support the development of options for the deployment of a civilian protection mission in Sudan, in co-ordination with the African Union, the UN and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development? I know there have been discussions about this possibility. Sudanese people desperately need a respite from the warfare between those two leaders and the battle-hardened people behind them. As we know, the conflict has created this manmade humanitarian disaster.
In yesterday’s debate in Grand Committee and today, the Minister rightly referred to the increase in ODA payments—an uplift in contributions—to try to ease some of the humanitarian crisis there. I am, however, a little bit confused, because there has been a bit of a tangle about some of the announcements made over the summer and today. I do not see any problem with that; I think the Government are simply trying to make a series of announcements and that it is a case of where the money is and what it is going to do. I would be grateful if the Minister might untangle that, and if he is not in a position to do that today, I would of course be happy with a letter to me, which could be put in the Library.
For example, the Government announced on 22 August that they will provide
“£86 million in vital life-saving support for vulnerable people in South Sudan, Sudan and Chad to … Save lives … Tackle food shortages … Prevent gender-based violence … Assist displaced communities to adapt to the impact of flooding”.
Those are all vital and all huge efforts. How much of that is actually going to Sudan, considering that other countries are mentioned in that? In addition, does that £86 million include within it the £2 million in support for the 150,000 Sudanese refugees who are in eastern Libya? That extra uplift was announced by Minister Dodds on 12 July; is it part of it or in addition to it; where are we going on that? How does all that fit in with the Minister’s statement yesterday in Grand Committee about what the uplift was? I will not quote from it today—other noble Lords can look at it—but it does not quite fit in with what he was saying today and earlier announcements made this summer.
Last week, I attended the online launch of the report Beyond the Numbers: Hunger and Conflict in Sudan, published by the Norwegian Refugee Council, Mercy Corps and the Danish Refugee Council. The report is based on the testimonies from people in regions which include Darfur, Kordofan and Khartoum. It reveals the direct and indirect ways in which the conflict and widespread violations of international humanitarian law have led to suffering and starvation on a vast scale. Will Carter of the NRC made the point at the launch that not enough has been done by the international community to tap into local forms of resilience and the support from the private sector. Does the Minister agree with his view?
The report concludes with a series of significant recommendations, I shall just pick out two and ask the Minister whether the Government support them and will take action on them. First,
“the UN Security Council, the UN leadership and member states should engage in proactive diplomacy that highlights the connection between conflict and hunger, as per Resolution 2417 and the G7 Famine Prevention Compact”.
Secondly, providers of ODA should
“Support Farmers in Boosting Food Production … as the key to addressing urgent food needs and stabilising the food insecurity crisis”.
After all, the FCDO sets the strategic direction for much of the UK’s approach to agricultural development. What are the Government’s plans to take action on this when it is safe to do so?
The conflict in Sudan has received just a fraction of the media attention given to Gaza and Ukraine, yet it threatens to be deadlier than either conflict, and, as the noble Lord said, it risks undermining security in the whole region.
COP 26
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, the oceans play a unique role in regulating our climate. Unless we take unprecedented action to restore and protect the oceans, none of the shared goals announced at COP can be met. Can my noble friend give an indication of the progress made at COP 26 on ensuring that oceans play a stronger role than they are currently able to play in regulating our climate? It is essential.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I thank my noble friend. The UK presidency marked Ocean Action Day at COP, championing a call for action to protect and restore ocean health and resilience. For instance, more than 100 countries have now signed up to protect at least 30% of the global ocean by 2030. My noble friend Lord Goldsmith is obviously very heavily involved in this work and will continue to lead international action in this area.
Queen’s Speech
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts(5 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, it is my privilege, on behalf of all noble Lords, to thank Her Majesty for honouring our House with her presence to deliver the gracious Speech from the Throne. I am, as ever, grateful for all that she does for our nation and our Commonwealth of nations. Her Majesty’s exemplary attention to duty is her greatest gift to us all. It was also a great pleasure to have with us today Their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall.
I thank my noble friends on the Front Bench—the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip—for entrusting me with this duty. All Leaders of the House have a tough job, but the challenges since the State Opening in June 2017 have been particularly testing, and my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal has demonstrated her mettle in dealing with them. My noble friend the Chief Whip and Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms is fairly new to his post, but he has held ministerial office for the past five years, both in the Whips’ Office and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. He has consistently demonstrated his respect for this House and its Members.
The first time I attended the State Opening of Parliament was in October 1996, a couple of weeks before I took my seat. I was a guest of my dear and noble friend Lady Seccombe, who is in her place today. As I watched the afternoon debate, and listened to Lord Gray of Contin move the Motion for an humble Address, it never crossed my mind that, one day, I might be entrusted with that privilege. I sat in the Gallery, just above the Clock which measures the minutes, and now even the seconds, of our speeches. If at times my eyes stray heavenwards during a debate, it might—just might—be not that I am showing any impatience at the length of the speeches of others but that I am simply recalling that moment, all those years ago, and the swift passage of time.
The past month has witnessed extremely challenging times. The challenge for me now is to be mindful of the guidance in the Companion to the Standing Orders that it is customary for my speech to be uncontroversial. In the non-Prorogation—
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
In the non-Prorogation, I was part of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s UK delegation to attend the Commonwealth parliamentarians conference in Uganda. I flew overnight to Entebbe to join the other delegates from this House—the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Purvis of Tweed—and delegates from the House of Commons. I planned to stay for six days to take part in the women’s conference and the main conference. I was there six hours before flying back, overnight, to the UK. What had happened? The clue is in the date: it was Tuesday 24 September.
As soon as I arrived at the conference hotel by Lake Victoria, I registered as a delegate and sat patiently in a very large, busy room, waiting for my security pass to be issued. My chair faced a vast TV screen which was broadcasting the BBC’s live feed of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court—with the sound turned off.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
Not by me—the sound was turned off and there were no subtitles. It was a most bizarre experience. Suffice to say, as a consequence of the court’s decision, all three of us from this House decided we should return overnight to join the sitting of the House the next day, which we did. All but two of the MPs followed the “requests” of their Whips to return ASAP, and the two MPs who stayed to hold the fort at the conference were paired—at least, I hope they were.
I congratulate the UK branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and thank it for the work it does so admirably to support and strengthen parliamentary democracy throughout the Commonwealth; the head of which is, of course, Her Majesty. The UK’s role in promoting democracy and human rights, and in defending the rules-based international system, remains vital, not only within the Commonwealth but around the world. That is especially true at a time when we witness the suffering of civilians as they are killed, injured or driven from their homes in conflicts where there is little or no regard for international humanitarian law—places such as Syria and Yemen today. Diplomacy must be engaged steadfastly to resolve such disputes and bring an end to the misery suffered by the casualties of conflict. The UK has a vital part to play in that diplomatic work.
Whatever the pressures may be on our internal politics, it is crucial that the UK continues and strengthens its diplomatic work around the world. We can be proud of the expertise of Her Majesty’s ambassadors and high commissioners in their promoting of our values, which are inherent within the rules-based international system. They deserve our wholehearted support. I was therefore pleased to see that the gracious Speech stated that as we leave the EU the Government will continue to ensure that the UK continues to play a leading role in global affairs and promote its values. That commitment comes at the very end of the gracious Speech.
The Speech begins by making it clear that the Government’s priority has always been to secure the United Kingdom’s departure from the EU at the end of this month. Parliament continues to have the opportunity to consider the implications of this and of the Government’s wider proposals in the gracious Speech during our debates over the forthcoming week.
The gracious Speech sets out the broad swathe of the Government’s manifestly ambitious plans, which will have an impact on every department of government. For example, the proposals will: strengthen public services such as our National Health Service, with a welcome reference to mental health; reform adult social care; ensure that all young people have access to an excellent education; improve infrastructure and connectivity across the country; implement new regimes for fisheries, agriculture and trade; reform the immigration system; tackle crime while also enhancing the integrity of the criminal justice system; protect our natural environment for the long term; and focus on tackling climate change in our work alongside our international partners. To deliver those proposals, a new economic plan will be underpinned by a responsible fiscal strategy, investing in economic growth while maintaining the sustainability of the public finances. I wish my noble friend the Chief Whip—and he is a friend—every success in his task in securing enough time for the House to carry out its usual line-by-line scrutiny.
We will shortly hear from my noble friend Lord Dobbs, who will second this Motion. I have read many of his books over the years and I very much look forward to hearing from him today. I am always encouraged by the resilience of his fictional hero, Harry Jones. Whatever disasters fate or fist throws at him, he seems impervious to all and wins the day, just like my noble friend. At home, our bookshelves groan with the weight of books published by noble Lords of all parties and none—I can see them here today—and indeed those of our much-respected Lord Speaker.
I have three of the Lord Speaker’s books. I am currently rereading AIDS: Don’t Die of Prejudice. It is such an impressive investigative book. However, I am not planning to reread any time soon my copy of another of his books, entitled A Political Suicide. But I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench would like to borrow a copy of another of his books that I have to hand—it is upstairs if they want it. It is called Ministers Decide. They will find it useful for many years to come. In the meantime, I beg to move the Motion for an humble Address to Her Majesty.
Leader of the House of Lords
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the situation. When I invited the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, to open this debate, I made it clear that we expected to hear, first, from speakers from each of the four groups. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, is absolutely correct that my anticipation was that he would speak at this point, which is why he rose to his feet, as I think the rest of the House expected. After him, if a right reverend Prelate wishes to speak, we might hear from him next, and then we will return to the Conservative Benches.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster
My Lords, I am grateful to the Chief Whip for her intervention.
Despite the Ministerial and other Salaries Act, the present Cabinet consists of 22 members: the quad—the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Chief Secretary and the Lord President of the Council— and 18 Secretaries of State, but fortunately one of them is also Lord Chancellor, who is covered by a separate section of the Act. The Lord Privy Seal, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Paymaster-General and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, all of whom are allowed to qualify as Cabinet members under the Act, are not members of the present Cabinet and so are not entitled to be remunerated as Cabinet Ministers; they are remunerated only as second-tier Ministers, along with Ministers in charge of departments who are not in the Cabinet, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Ministers of State. These four Ministers are, however, invited regularly to attend meetings of the Cabinet, along with seven other Ministers who are not members of the Cabinet. I think that makes 33 people sitting round the Cabinet table, which is a large number for a discussion at that level.
I turn to the case of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. She is, as many of her predecessors have been, the Lord Privy Seal. Unlike any of her predecessors for the past 100 years or more, she is not a member of the Cabinet. We have a situation where there is no Member of the House of Lords in the Cabinet at all. During the whole of my time as a civil servant in the Government, there were at least two Members of the House of Lords in the Cabinet—the Leader of the House of Lords and the Lord Chancellor—and often more. We are told that the noble Baroness will attend all Cabinet meetings and will be able to represent the interests of the House as effectively as, or no less effectively than, her predecessor. She is not, however, a member of the Cabinet.
There seems to be no difference of view as to what the level of her remuneration should be. The Prime Minister generously intended that she should receive the same total remuneration as a Cabinet member but that was, in effect, to be in two parts: the salary of a second-tier Minister, paid out of public funds, and a top-up from Conservative Party funds to bring the total up to the equivalent of a Cabinet member’s salary.
Much has been said this evening about the need to recognise the importance of the House of Lords in the Cabinet by having a representative there. The Leader of the House has responsibilities beyond and separate from those she has as leader of the Conservative Party in this House. She has responsibilities to and for Members of the Liberal Democrat party, the Labour Party and, indeed, other parties, as well as independent Cross-Bench Members, who are Members of no party. She has responsibilities for the whole House, irrespective of parties. She also has responsibilities for the conduct and good order of the House of Lords, which are discharged in another place by the Speaker of the House of Commons, who is accepted as being above party.
The Leader of this House is the holder of a parliamentary public office which should be remunerated wholly out of public funds and ought not to receive any part of his or her remuneration out of party funds. We all respect and admire the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and I regret that this dispute and difference of opinion should circulate around her; she has done nothing to deserve it. She has accepted the force of the argument and has decided, extremely honourably in my view, to forgo the top-up from Conservative Party funds and to be paid as a second-tier Minister—a Minister of State—out of public funds alone.
The Prime Minister has written a letter to the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, in which he recognises that the Leader of the House ought to be in the Cabinet. He expresses regret about the present situation and promises to put it right at the earliest possible opportunity and certainly after the forthcoming general election, if he is still the Prime Minister. This is a profoundly unsatisfactory situation not just for the Leader of the House but for all of us in this House, for all who care about the place of the House of Lords in our constitutional arrangements and, seemingly, for the Prime Minister himself. The Leader of the House is now not only specifically declared by the Prime Minister not to be a member of the Cabinet but, by her own honourable self-sacrifice, she is also deprived of the level of remuneration that everyone, apparently including the Prime Minister, thinks she ought to receive. Not only is the House of Lords being treated with disdain, the noble Baroness is being treated shabbily and she ought not to have been put in this invidious position.
Your Lordships may agree that this simply is not good enough. The noble Baroness should be a member of the Cabinet and should receive a salary at the top tier as defined in a schedule to the Ministerial and other Salaries Act. If necessary, the Prime Minister should find another Minister now in the Cabinet who can be asked less inappropriately than the noble Baroness, to give up his or her membership of the Cabinet but be one of those who attends, to ensure that the Lord Privy Seal is able to take her rightful position as a member of the Cabinet. I do not say a full member of the Cabinet because I do not believe that that means anything very much.
It was wrong not to have the Lord Privy Seal in the Cabinet and it was wrong, and unmistakably an indication of an uneasy conscience, to try to make it up to the Lord Privy Seal by offering to top up her remuneration to the equivalent of a Cabinet salary by means of a supplement from Conservative Party funds. Two wrongs do not make a right. The Prime Minister should do the right thing without further ado by appointing the Lord Privy Seal to be a member of the Cabinet. That may mean asking someone else to stand down, but I believe that that would be less inappropriate.
The noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, referred to the possibility of amending the Act. I am not sufficiently expert to know whether that can be done for this purpose by delegated legislation or whether it would need new primary legislation. I remember, because I was around at the time, that the limits were introduced in the Act in order to reduce, or to keep a limit on, public expenditure. I suppose that that consideration is still relevant. If that course is not open to him, the Prime Minister should take the other course of making it possible for the Lord Privy Seal to be in the Cabinet. To paraphrase the old song: if you have a right thing, do it; do not dream it, do it now.
European Union (Referendum) Bill
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
The Question is that the House be resumed. Since this is a somewhat unusual situation, I should advise the Committee that this Question is debatable and, if necessary, divisible.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, clearly, I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said. My role as government Chief Whip is very clear. In scheduling Private Members’ Bills, it has always been the practice of all government Chief Whips in all parties to consult the sponsor of the relevant Bill in that scheduling. My role in the proceedings has been to facilitate the scrutiny of this Bill by this House. As ever, progress is in the hands of the House. We are a self-regulating House. Therefore, the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, is, indeed, a legitimate Motion. As he says, it is unusual for a Back-Bencher to move it, but it is by no means not available to him. That is a double negative, but I mean that his action in moving the Motion is legitimate.
The noble Lord referred to the House’s use of time and predicts that it will progress so slowly that it will not rise, at this rate, until the early hours of the morning. I do not like to predict; I like to go on what is and what has been. That is what I sought to do last week when I gave advice to the House. Last week, we got through 14 groups of amendments in reasonable time. Several of those debates involved big, important subjects. Indeed, the Committee amended the referendum question itself. This week, there are 15 groups of amendments, after about another 14 were tabled between the two stages. They are largely on second-order matters —some are important—but we have made rather less progress.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
It is clear that we have made less progress. Noble Lords may disagree with me on whether they are first-order or second-order matters; it will be a matter of opinion—I appreciate that.
It is, of course, for others, not me, to judge, but some Members of this House may believe that not everybody has focused entirely on the amendments in hand. Comments were made, particularly on the previous group of amendments, on why matters were not grouped. I am not expressing my view wearing any of my three hats. By the way, I do not like wearing hats—I am just straightforward; I get on with it.
I am certainly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for the way in which he put his Motion. He was very courteous. However, I would like my name to be pronounced properly once in this Chamber. It would be nice as I have been here since 1996, but there you go. The noble Lord has moved that the House be now resumed. That would mean that we would now abandon the Committee stage, if that is what the House wishes to do. The noble Lord has done the House a service because he has enabled every single Member present today to put on record whether or not they wish the Bill to pass.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, if the Motion is agreed, I will not be able to offer my noble friend Lord Dobbs more time for the Bill because the House itself will have collectively indicated that it no longer wishes to consider the Committee stage. If the House disagrees the Motion, I will take that as a desirable, clear indication that we should complete the remainder of the Committee stage today.
It is not a difficult question and I think we all know where we are so, after some consideration of our proper conduct, I beg to move that the Question be now put.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, I am instructed by order of the House to say that the Motion “That the Question be now put” is considered to be a most exceptional procedure and the House will not accept it save in circumstances where it is felt to be the only means of ensuring the proper conduct of the business of the House; further, if a Member who seeks to move it persists in his or her intention, the practice of the House is that the Question on the Motion is put without debate. Does the noble Baroness still wish to move the closure Motion?
Nelson Mandela
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Morris of Handsworth (Lab)
My Lords, today we have heard about Mandela the great world leader and Mandela the statesman. I take the opportunity to share my experience of Mandela the ordinary man, whom I had the privilege of meeting on four separate occasions.
On the first occasion, I was in my office and the telephone rang. It was the leader of the Labour Party, the late John Smith. He said, “Can you come to the office? There is someone here I would like you to meet”. I walked in, Mandela was sitting there and I did a double-take. The conversation developed around the question of how we could shape a political party on the basis of equity of all the constituents—the people who matter. At that time, my party was debating one person’s shortlist and how we could bring more women within the context of our party’s leadership. John Smith turned to Mandela and said, “Nelson, our research tells us that within the ANC constitution there is equity. But we also researched your office and we note that there is a preponderance of women against men in the presidential secretariat. How did you cope with all that?” Nelson said: “It was worse than being in Robben Island”.
My second experience was when I led a delegation on behalf of my union to South Africa. Naturally, we went to Johannesburg and it was all set up for me to meet Mandela. I met him on time and he signed a copy of his autobiography, The Long Walk To Freedom. After about 20 minutes or half an hour, he said, “I am very sorry but I must curtail this discussion, interesting as it is, because I have to get down to Cape Town. I have a very important statement to make to Parliament”. We said our goodbyes. I noted on the evening news that it was the day that he advised Parliament that the relationship with Winnie had come to an end and she would play no further official role within the spheres of government.
My last meeting was as a member of the receiving delegation at Brixton. I was standing in the line. He came up to me and said, “You are the man who nearly made me miss my plane”. He did not miss his plane, but the world will certainly miss him.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, we have had remarkable tributes, very much like the man himself. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, has been waiting to contribute for some time and has graciously given way to other Peers. I feel that the mood of the House is to wish to hear from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, and then perhaps to move on to the Orders of the Day.
Death of a Member: Baroness Thatcher
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I know that we have some marvellous speeches yet to come, and we will benefit from them all. I think the mood of the House is that my noble friend Lord Wakeham has been waiting for a while. I am certainly keen to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, after that, and I hope that others are, too.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I know that there is something of an enthusiasm for making contributions, which we all welcome, but having had a few sotto voce conversations, going round the groups, it now looks as though my noble friend Lord Waddington might go next, given his service to the Government. We will then hear from the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, on the Cross Benches and the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, who has been patiently waiting for some time. My noble friend Lord King, the noble Lord, Lord Birt, again for the Cross Benches, and then my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern will go next before we return to other Benches. I am most grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for giving me advance notice of some of those on her own Benches who yet hope to speak.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
Since we are almost at the half-way stage of the list of those who wish to speak, it might be helpful if I give an indication of where I think we are from now on and the number of speakers who remain. I should ask noble Lords who have indicated to me that they wish to speak please not to despair if they do not hear their name. It is just that they will be in the group after this. My noble friend Lady Trumpington may wish to speak next. Then we will return to the opposition Benches, to the noble Lord, Lord Bhattacharyya, who is ready to speak. Back on the Conservative Benches, my noble friends Lord Lamont, Lord Forsyth and Lord Waldegrave will speak. Returning to the Cross Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, who has been waiting for some time, will speak. Then from the opposition Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, will speak, followed by, from the Conservative Benches, the noble Lords, Lord Young of Graffham, Lord Deben and Lord Saatchi. Then from the opposition Benches, the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, will speak. Then from the Conservative Benches, the chairman of our Back-Bench committee, the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, will speak, followed by my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom. Returning to the opposition Privy Council Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, will speak, followed by my noble friends Lord Naseby and Lord Spicer. After that, I presently have about another eight names, including, of course, my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, and others who are very much considered.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde
My Lords, Mrs Thatcher, as she then was, was a truly remarkable woman. She was elected in 1975 as leader of the Conservative Party. We need to take into account the fact it was not just the fact that she was elected the first woman leader of the Conservative Party, and what she had to overcome, but her very humble background and beginnings. I can remember quite clearly the impact that had on women in Britain. Whatever your political views at that time, we realised that she had made a huge achievement in a party that we had always regarded as male-dominated: the old boys, public school and all the rest of it. From the side came this woman who succeeded in being elected as leader of the Conservative Party. At the time, one of my heroines, Barbara Castle, wrote—and I paraphrase—“Having listened to the lass, she deserves to be elected. She is head and shoulders above any of her opponents, but I don’t think they know what they’re getting”. How true that was.
However, 1975 also held another important landmark. It was the year that the United Nations declared International Women’s Year. It was also the year that Barbara Castle’s Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Act became effective. Many of the women in Britain, of all political parties and none, felt that this was a turning point for us: this really was good news and women would start to make their mark more than they had been able to in the past. It would be down to ability rather than a whole host of other criteria.
It is regrettable that the legacy of this quite remarkable woman, who was the dominant politician in the 1980s, did not much encourage the growth of women coming forward and taking positions of authority. I have heard today many warm stories that I have never heard before from Conservative Peers in this Chamber which, it seems to me, are stories of the family of conservatism. However, we must also remember that the public perception was not that. It was one of a Prime Minister who, whatever political party a Prime Minister comes from, has a responsibility to try to generate within the nation a feeling of one nation, consensus and being able to move forward together. Yet that public persona of conviction and confrontation held back much of what might otherwise have been achieved.
We have heard today about the trades unions. It has become a mantra, one of her huge achievements. It is just as dangerous to sweep all trades unions into one pocket of description, as it is to do so to any political party or group. There are trades unionists who recognise that change needed to take place. There are some sat on these Benches today, and I like to think that I was one of them; certainly, my noble friend Lord Young of Norwood was another, and my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe. We were trying to make changes. Unfortunately, that statement about “the enemy within” was probably one of the most polarising statements against any change that we would have been able to achieve, and made consensus difficult. Had Mrs Thatcher, as Prime Minister, taken the same view with a number of the trades unions in Britain as she had with the President of Poland, in suggesting that he should talk to Lech Walesa and his fellow workers, maybe the outcome would have been different.
The trades unions achievement of Lady Thatcher is something with which history will deal. It will also be for history to judge her, but I think that we can all agree today that none of us would either support or condone, whatever our political views, the small number—we need to keep it in perspective—of demonstrations against Mrs Thatcher, bizarrely celebrating her passing. That is not something with which any of us indentify or would condone.
One of the other strong memories I have of Mrs Thatcher was that many on the Conservative Benches in the Commons did not want her elected. She won. She deserved to win. Yet her last day in office as Prime Minister was marked by the brutality with which people in her own party treated her, somehow forgetting all that she had achieved for them. That was a disgraceful day, in my view, and did not recognise her achievements for the party. To hear all the support, warmth and memories that are being given today, there are some members of her party who have perhaps forgotten the role that they played in that very brutal downfall. It is something that my own party have never done to a leader in the past and I hope will never do in the future.
History will judge Mrs Thatcher—Lady Thatcher. In concluding, I join with those other Members in sending sincere condolences to her son and her daughter, and the other members of the family. It is a very sad time for them and our sincere wishes go to them.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
Since we are now beyond the two-thirds mark of contributions from the Back Benches around the House, it might be helpful at this stage if I give an indication of where we are as regards the remaining speeches, of which there are about 14. Naturally, others may yet indicate that they are to speak, while one or two have decided that they will hold back for the moment. I expect my noble friend Lord MacGregor—who of course was a Cabinet Minister with my late noble friend Lady Thatcher—to speak next. Then I expect to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom; then, from the opposition Privy Council Bench, from the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert; then, back to the Conservative Benches, from my noble friends Lord Naseby, Lord Spicer and Lord Selkirk; then to the Cross Benches, from the noble Lord, Lord Butler; and then back to the Conservative Benches, from my noble friends Lord Freeman, Lord Palumbo, Lord Marlesford, Lord Caithness, Lady O’Cathain, Lord Flight and, finally, from my noble friend Lady Buscombe.
Lord Freeman
My Lords, after that very powerful and moving speech by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, I want to talk very briefly about the late Baroness Thatcher’s relationship with Parliament and the Conservative Party in the country.
I have two reflections and two comments to make, the first as the present chairman of the Carlton Club, preceded by my noble friend Lord Wakeham a few years ago. Baroness Thatcher was elected an honorary member in 1975, at a time when women were not members to the club. Incidentally, the Carlton Club, in 1922, broke the coalition, although I am in no way indicating that history is going to repeat itself. The Carlton Club has as members 65 Members of your Lordships’ House and the other place, and has long revered and treasured Baroness Thatcher’s involvement with the club. I am quite certain that her quiet determination and conversations with many ultimately led to the club opening its doors to women members. She did not argue the case, she just quietly and consistently encouraged it, and I think that all members of the club are in her debt. In 1990, some colleagues will remember that our club was bombed by the IRA, and we lost one Member of Parliament and several other members. She came almost immediately to the club and spoke to those who were injured and to the families of those who were killed. That was very much appreciated.
The second aspect is the wider party in the country, and I speak with modest experience as someone who had responsibility for the selection of candidates to my party. Baroness Thatcher made a tremendous effort to tour the country and encourage candidates. She always took the trouble to write to the candidate afterwards. I think that many of those who were subsequently elected to the other place still keep those letters. They were not just two or three lines; they were complimentary and encouraging words, which I think made a tremendous difference.
I will finish with a very brief anecdote. In 1986, which seems a long time ago, I was summoned to Downing Street to become a junior Minister. I said to the Prime Minister, “Thank you very much. This is a great day. My wife has just had a baby daughter”. She said, “What’s the hospital? What’s the telephone number?”. Fortunately, I could remember it. She dialled the hospital, and the receptionist answered. The Prime Minister said, “This is the Prime Minister speaking”. I could hear the lady at the other end say, “Pull the other leg”. The Prime Minister said, “I don’t think I will, my dear. Just put me through”. That really was appreciated by my wife, who talks about it constantly.
I extend my condolences to the family. She was a great lady, and will be greatly missed.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I rise briefly to explain that we have been able to gain just two more speakers. We have just had the 35th Back-Bench speaker and we will conclude, I believe, with the 44th. Next will be my noble friend Lord Palumbo. We then turn to the Cross Benches for the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and back to the Conservative Benches for my noble friends Lord Marlesford, Lord Caithness and Lady O’Cathain, back to the Cross Benches for the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, and, finally, back to the Conservative Benches for my noble friends Lord Flight, Lord Bridgeman and Lady Buscombe.
Baroness O'Cathain
My Lords, this has been a remarkable day—one that none of us who has sat through it will ever forget. Of course, it is also a very sad day. It is a day of finality—a day when we know that we will never have Margaret Thatcher in our midst again.
Having said that, we of course send our condolences to the family. As I do that, I am convinced that once the raw effects of bereavement—and they can be pretty raw—lessen, they will realise just how blessed they have been to have had such a woman as a mother and grandmother. I think that in a few years’ time those grandchildren will read something and say, “Gosh, that was my grandmother. She was one of the most historic women of the second part of the 20th century”.
I am speaking because, of 49 speakers, only six are women. That is okay; it does not really matter and we should not feel that we have to speak. However, I want to speak especially for those who do not belong to the political Westminster village. I felt very honoured to come here. It was never on my radar. In fact, when I was asked to come to the House of Lords, I thought that I was being asked to have dinner here. What I mean is that I feel I should not be here, but I hope that I have contributed something.
I will not use the glass ceiling analogy but when Margaret Thatcher was elected as Prime Minister, there was a frisson among every woman in my peer group who, with qualifications, had been struggling to get up the ladder a bit, to do a bit more development study and to work that bit harder. We asked ourselves, “Will we ever get there?”. Suddenly we saw this lady who was perfect in every way. No human being is perfect but she seemed to be perfect in every way and she was a role model for many of us. I am now going back to the 1970s, when quite an interesting thing happened. Suddenly—I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, also experienced this—there was a burgeoning of women’s networks. I am referring not necessarily to networks in which it was said, “You know somebody in that company. Do you think I can get a job?”, but to networks in which women tried to see how they could, in turn, take their rightful place in this country.
I was president of the Women in Banking and Finance network for about four years. In fact, I took over from another Member of this House—my noble friend Lady Platt. She is the wonderful woman who, ever since the 1940s, always had a screwdriver in her bag. She was an aeronautical engineer and a role model for me—not that I could do engineering, physics or chemistry. She set up the Women in Banking and Finance network, whose members are remarkable people. A lot of them have senior positions in accountancy and consultancy firms, and they have done very well. How do they do it? They do it by meeting frequently, networking, going on development courses and playing golf together. It is not equivalent to a men’s club—it is nothing like that—nor is it a sorority, as they have in the States. There are groups in all sorts of industries. The retail sector has them, and there are professional groups such as lawyers. Just because the word “Women” is in the title, men say, “Oh, you’re off doing this”, but men have been doing it for years. We have a lot of catching up to do.
I have been listening avidly for the past four or five hours—I am not sure how long we have been speaking; time passes quickly when you are interested—and it has been a marvellous history lesson. I know that history is becoming more and more fashionable. In fact, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education is trying to highlight history as part of the curriculum, and that is very important. This is a zany idea but in about four or five weeks’ time, or perhaps in the new term in September, why can we not have a copy of today’s Hansard placed in every school so that they can learn from it? I have taken that idea from one put forward by Michael Gove—that of putting the King James Bible in every school. As I am a Bible follower, I do not want to suggest that there is an equivalence between the Bible and today’s Hansard and that your Lordships are all evangelists or prophets, but I think that it is an idea to bear in mind. We have history here today which is alive. It is compelling and I think that people out there of any age would be prepared to listen to it.
I am speaking in this debate from my personal experience outside the Westminster village. I believe that, following the election of Margaret Thatcher, women suddenly got more spring in their step. We have a lot more to do, and we have had several debates in this House about women on boards, women in industry and women in the political sector. All I am saying is that we will miss her. We should benefit from her. We are all so grateful to have known her.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I did explain a little earlier that there were two additions. I hesitate to call the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, an addition, but we now turn to the Cross Benches before we go to my noble friend.
Business of the House
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Thursday 21 March to allow the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill to be taken through all its remaining stages that day.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I hope that the House will not approve this Motion. Standing Orders are there for a purpose. At the very least, the Leader of the House, or in this case the Chief Whip, should give us reasons for dispensing with this Standing Order. In my view there is plenty of time for this Motion to be discussed and for the proper procedures to be followed, or there would have been had the Government not extended the Easter Recess at short notice and without any prior consultation. This is causing great problems for Members, for the House and for Committees of this House.
Moreover, there is a constitutional problem, because the Commons will be sitting when we are having the third week of our Easter Recess. This is creating problems with Joint Committees that have already evidenced themselves and with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, whose executive were due to meet all-party groups that week. Statements will be made in the other place and will not be able to be repeated here, and we will not be able to take part in debating them.
This will create administrative problems. Already a number of banqueting events have had to be cancelled as a result of this decision. There are legislative problems. A whole raft of Private Members’ Bills is waiting to be discussed, yet we are being sent away for an extra week during the Easter Recess. There are five reports from Select Committees on the Order Paper. There is a long list of Members seeking debates on a wide range of subjects, and Select Committees have deadlines for submitting reports. These are just a few of the problems caused by the unilateral and precipitate decision to extend the Easter Recess.
I mean no disrespect to the noble Baroness, for whom I have great respect, but I am slightly disappointed and surprised that the Leader of the House is not here to explain why we have to take the stages of the Bill together on one day. We could have done it, we could be here and we could be sitting, but we have now been told that we are to have an extra week’s holiday.
I hope the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing this Motion and reconsider the announcement that was made last week.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the noble Lord is being a little innovative in stretching his comments well beyond the matter on the Order Paper. However, because I am courteous, I will seek to address those in a moment.
First, I assure the House that the noble Lord is completely wrong in his allegation that even if the noble Lord, Lord Hill, were standing here instead of me, this Motion is in any way out of the ordinary. It is absolutely the normal procedure for these matters. The Motion itself simply states that Standing Order 46 should,
“allow the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill to be taken through all its remaining stages that day”.
This always happens, regardless of who are in Government. The Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill is a supply Bill, and it has been certified as a money Bill. The noble Lord, of course, was in another place, and he knows as well as anyone what the rules are with regard to that. He has been in this House a little time, so he will know that this happens every time a money Bill comes forward.
In all processes, all stages are taken formally and there is no substantive Second Reading. Even if we sat from now until kingdom come, the stages would not be taken separately. If noble Lords would like to look at the Companion at some stage—I am not suggesting a mass rush for the Printed Paper Office—they will see that the appropriate entry is at paragraph 8.198.
As I have said, the noble Lord has been a little cheeky, but it is his nature. He has kind of extended this to, “Ey up, why have you decided that we shall have an extra week off?”. Well, it is not quite like that. The job of the Government is to ensure that the time of this House is used to best effect, and it will be so. This House is different from another place. Indeed, it decided that it did not wish to be elected or to ape another place; it wishes to retain its strong independent character. We are going to use time to best advantage, and that can be achieved even by having one extra week after Easter. However, over a calendar year, as noble Lords will know, matters even out.
Motion agreed.
Business of the House
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Excerpts(11 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hill of Oareford
That Standing Order 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Monday 18 March to allow the Motion in the name of Baroness Tonge to be taken before the Motion in the name of Lord Inglewood.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Hill of Oareford on the Order Paper.