(11 months ago)
Lords ChamberI begin by paying tribute to the noble Lord for his work in this area, and to that of my noble friend Lord Lexden, too, for what has been done in this place. I also acknowledge the noble Lord, Lord Collins, on the Opposition Front Bench, because we have worked closely on this issue. Of course I will take the suggestion forward in working with other key partners. I have gone through the recommendations of the report, and I know that the MoD has already implemented just about half of them. I think the MoD is looking very much at, and is seized on, recommending the important financial reward element, which has been acknowledged as a principle. Of course, in the two departments we will want to see what can be learnt from that. There are different ways of working, and I am sure there are crossovers, which are being looked at actively as I speak.
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a distinct difference between the Ministry of Defence and the FCDO? Service records, and reasons for dismissal, were usually matters of public record, and known to friends and family. That is not always the case with employment in the FCDO and the intelligence services. Does he agree that there is, therefore, an increased onus on the department to actively seek out people who may have been victims of this policy, to ensure that they are aware of remedies and apologies to which they may be entitled.
My Lords, I note what the noble Baroness has said. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, also pointed out, it is important that we are proactive, but also sensitive, in our approach. I assure the noble Baroness that that is exactly the approach of the FCDO, led by the permanent under-secretary in this respect.
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, I arrived as a young boy in the United Kingdom from the Gold Coast in June 1952, as the country was preparing for the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. Today, 70 years later, we are preparing for her funeral.
I want to acknowledge the Queen’s leadership of and contribution to the Commonwealth, and to Ghana in particular. Ghana was the first British colony to gain independence, in 1957, and it invited the Queen in November 1961. She had been invited before but was pregnant with Princess Anne at the time. It was a time of political turmoil in Ghana, and a bomb had damaged a statue of Kwame Nkrumah. The Queen shrugged off advice to cancel the trip and made a successful tour of Ghana, steadying nerves and ensuring that Ghana, later to become a republic, remained in the Commonwealth.
At the state banquet, Nkrumah toasted the Queen, saying:
“The wind of change blowing through Africa has become a hurricane. Whatever else is blown into the limbo of history, the personal regard and affection which we have for Your Majesty will remain unaffected.”
When the Queen danced with Kwame Nkrumah, it was seen by many as a symbolic moment in the history of the Commonwealth. That visit was instrumental in keeping Ghana within the Commonwealth. The Queen’s admiration for Ghana continued and when President John Kufuor was invited to a state banquet at Buckingham Palace in 2007, I was privileged to be invited, as president of the Royal College of Surgeons.
After the formal dinner, I chanced to have a conversation with the Queen. I began, respectfully, “I suspect, Ma’am, that you have visited most of the countries in the Commonwealth.” She fixed me with a look, and said, “No. All of them.” That put me in my place. However, it was said with a knowing smile which quickly put me at ease—so much so that I was probably the last to leave that evening.
We have heard much today about the Queen’s contribution to these isles, but we should not forget the enormous contribution she made to the Commonwealth, keeping it together and relevant to Britain when others would have had it otherwise. The Queen will be remembered not only for her service to this country but for the service she gave to the Commonwealth.
My Lords, there was a conversation that took place many years ago among a group of neighbours. It happened in my grandma’s house, which was in Coronation Road in a mining village in Scotland. The discussion was about the Queen Mother; I think there had been a controversy of some kind in the newspaper. At one point my grandmother, who was part of the conversation, passed the comment, “Well, I don’t know. I only met her the once”. That phrase has passed into my family.
Lots of people have talked today about how they met the Queen, and I have greatly enjoyed the insights and anecdotes. I am different—I think I am glad I never met the Queen, because of a particular incident. Noble Lords will know that in what we will now have to call the King’s Robing Room—it will take us a little while to get around that—there are two brass figurines of the Queen and Prince Philip. Longer-serving Members of the House might remember when the Queen and Prince Philip came to unveil those artworks. For the first time, our then Black Rod did a very insightful and appropriate thing: he invited very long-standing members of staff, some of whom did jobs that were not particularly glamorous and had never really been up in this part of the building, to be part of the event. So it was that Her Majesty asked Peggy, who, longer-serving Members of the House will remember, was the person who ran the Peers’ Guest Room and had done so for more than 30 years, what she did. At that moment, Peggy had no idea; she could not say anything. This was clearly something that happened to the Queen all the time and she said, “I am sure your colleagues admire your work tremendously”, and walked on. If I had met the Queen, I might have found myself in the same position, so I am glad it never happened.
I am also glad to have the opportunity to register the fact that one of the Queen’s greatest achievements was her recognition of people who work for all sorts of charities. She recognised them in all sorts of different ways, not just bestowing honours or being a patron but inviting people who never imagined it would happen to them to go to a garden party and feel like a million dollars for a day. That was truly amazing. As someone who worked in charities, I have to say that it is something she has passed on to the rest of the family. If you are a charity, involvement with the Royal Family is not the easiest of things, because they have the most encyclopaedic historical knowledge of charities—so if you are going to talk to any member of the Royal Family, but particularly the Queen, about your charity, you need to know your stuff. She was a very exacting patron, tremendously thoughtful and I think the most famous member of the Sandringham WI. She knew charities from bottom to top.
Over the past 20 to 30 years, those of us who come from the LGBT community have really appreciated the way in which the Royal Family and Her Majesty have honoured our charities and leaders of our community. It has not always been easy, but the fact that the Royal Family, led by the Queen, King Charles and the Princes, have done that for us, as a somewhat marginalised group, is really important and means a lot to people who, like me, never met the Queen and may never meet a member of the Royal Family. But the fact that they recognise and honour us is very important, and a signal to all the other minority groups in this country that we are all important as her subjects. That is perhaps a little bit of her magic.
I just want to add one indiscretion. I used to work for Age Concern. There was a period of time when it was extremely cold, and there was a great deal of public debate about pensioners not being able to keep warm in the middle of a very cold winter; there were appeals and so on. One particular donation went to pensioners in a very poor part of London on the basis that they should never know who it came from or on what basis it was made. Some wonderful bed sheets and blankets went to people who really needed them. I do not imagine they knew where it came from but, for those of us who did, it told us that she understood charity to its absolute core.
My Lords, I pay tribute to all noble Lords’ speeches, particularly those of the Front Benches when they started this afternoon. I had the privilege of meeting Her Majesty the late Queen when I was made a Government Whip and became a Baroness in Waiting. For all of us who meet Her Majesty for the first time, it is one of the most daunting and frightening experiences, especially when you are asked to curtsy. I said to the then Chief Whip, my noble friend Lady Anelay, “I’m not sure my dodgy knee will allow me to get back up if I do that curtsy. May I just do a quick bow?” The Chief Whip said, “I’m sure that will be fine”. As all noble Lords know, I am constantly hurting my ankles and knees. In the Queen I met somebody who knew how to put you at ease straightaway. It was just fantastic to be able not to have to start our conversation about India—she obviously knew that I was of Indian origin—as she so warmly started it herself.
Last night, as we heard the news that Her Majesty was not well and then Chancellor the saddest of sad news, I was getting messages and phone calls from people across the world—from India, Africa and the Middle East—all saying how sad they were at hearing the news that we were all going to have to come to terms with. To me, that really demonstrated how far Her Majesty’s reach went. I could not imagine for one moment the hurt, grief and mourning that her family must be facing today. Not only do they have to mourn, they have duty to perform. My heart went out to them.
I picked up the phone to my mother, one of the biggest royalists ever, and said, “Mum, have you heard?” She said, “Just put the phone down. I need a few minutes to absorb what I’m listening to”. I think that was all of us last night. We were all just trying to absorb what of course we all knew was going to happen but—I do not know why—we all just felt that Her Majesty had this magic power and would always be with us.
Last night I was reminded by many community groups to make sure that I mentioned her visits to Leicester, how they all loved it when she visited and how she made each and every one of those who were involved, whether from the charity sector or from local communities, feel so special. I just hope that, if I can be even a tiny bit in the shadows of the public service that Her Majesty was able to deliver, that would be a great achievement over my lifetime.
We will all mourn her and of course will play our role in your Lordships’ House in making sure that we are the biggest support for King Charles III as we all come together to heal and offer strength to each other and to Her Majesty’s family. One of my community leaders asked me to end by saying “Shanti, shanti, shanti”. In Hindi that means “Peace, peace, peace”. May Her Majesty the Queen rest in peace.
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeMy Lords, I thank the Minister very much for her clear introduction to what are at first sight some rather technical and dry regulations. Technical and dry they may be, but they are very important. They deal with matters of considerable import, not least to agriculture, as well as to horticulture, which is also a significant part of our economy. The clear and consistent labelling of chemical products not only to people who import and export them but to consumers across the world is of increasing importance.
I take what the noble Baroness says—that these are simply technical changes consequent on our withdrawal from the EU—but I have a few questions. Do the regulations simply return GB law—I will come back to the difference between GB and UK law in a moment —to the point it was at when we exited the EU? Do they in any way impact on the future convergence of information exchange about labelling standards? The wording of the explanation of the role of the HSE and phrases such as “enabling there to be a pathway” for the HSE are somewhat general for such a tight and specific subject, and I did not find that particularly helpful. Are the regulations simply maintaining the status quo as it was when we exited the EU, or are they the basis for continuing monitoring of our diversions or convergence with EU legislation in this matter?
Secondly, there are specific references to Northern Ireland. The Explanatory Memorandum at paragraph 7 talks about the biocides regulation and makes particular reference to products that would be imported into Great Britain. I think it draws a distinction between products that will be imported into Great Britain and thence into Northern Ireland and, in similar fashion, the other way round. We are back to the vexed and as yet unresolved question of the Northern Ireland protocol and the Northern Ireland border. This is a really important subject because, as we know, agriculture is a significant part of the Northern Ireland economy. If we do not have clarity and consistency with other parts of the EU on biocidal products and chemicals, that must pose a significant risk.
Finally, towards the end of her introduction the Minister referred to cost. Can she say what the estimated cost to UK businesses will be in terms of the increased costs of maintaining regular exports to EEA and EFTA countries, and the estimated increase in import costs for products from those countries? I would be very much obliged if she answered some of those points.
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to these regulations and for explaining them. I confess that I read both the regulations and the Explanatory Memorandum more than once, and stopped only when I realised that every successive reading was adding nothing to my understanding or indeed knowledge of the subject in question. So, I appreciate her summary.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for some great questions. She is absolutely right that, while they seem dry, questions such as the easily comprehensible labelling of dangerous objects could hardly be more important in terms of protecting life and limb. I will ask some questions, and I apologise in advance if they are basic. However, I trust that the Minister has cavalry behind her who can assist should that be necessary.
As far as I can understand it—I know that the Minister will correct me when she responds if I have got it wrong—the instrument appears to do two main things. First, it provides for the creation of an information- sharing gateway so that the Health and Safety Executive can disclose information that it is required to disclose under the terms of the trade agreement between the UK and the EEA/EFTA. My first question is: what is it? What will the gateway look like? Is it a process or a piece of software? Is it online and is it secure?
The second question is fairly obvious: what will it do? The Explanatory Memorandum says:
“HSE needs a power in order to share information such as individual substance evaluations and risk assessments that it holds on chemicals to assist the UK in meeting its obligations on regulatory co-operation contained in the Chemicals Annex of this trade agreement.”
Can the Minister give me an example—I am a bear of very little brain—of some information that the UK is required to disclose as a result of this trade agreement which is in the gift of the HSE and which it currently does not have the power to disclose but, as a result of this regulation, will then be able to disclose?
Can the Minister also tell us where the information is coming from? She mentioned information coming from EFTA or EEA trade partners, but are we also talking about information that British firms have supplied to the HSE in the ordinary run of business? I am interested in the line of liability and the control of the data. Whose data is it, who controls it and where will it end up?
What are the limits on disclosure? Regulation 3 sets out three “permitted purposes” under which this information can be disclosed:
“to ensure health and safety … to ensure protection of consumers”
and
“to ensure protection of the environment.”
That is pretty broad. Given that it is that wide-reaching, can the Minister say what the boundaries are for disclosure and whether there will be any monitoring of the HSE’s decision-making in relation to it? Since the received information can be used only for a permitted purpose, what will be in place to monitor the use after the information has been disclosed?
There is a lot of amending and repealing going on here—amending the biocides regulation, amending and repealing two EU directives. How can you amend and repeal things? Do you amend them and then repeal them? I suppose it would not make any sense the other way around, but perhaps the Minister can shed some light on that. There was also amendment of the CLP regulation, the PIC regulation and related retained legislation
“to ensure the regulations continue to operate effectively.”
At this point I had completely lost any sense of which regulations were being enabled to operate effectively.
I am trying to get at what the end state is—the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, put it much more crisply. Where will we land once all this amending and repealing has happened? Are we back where we were before Brexit? Are we in a parallel space to where our EEA/EFTA trade partners are? Are we on some different diverging path? Where will we land? Also, can she assure us that, once all this amending and repealing has happened, the legislation—both retained and secondary—relating to health and safety in chemicals will be fit for purpose?
To give the Minister a bit of time, I will summarise the questions. What is the gateway? What information will go through it? Can we have an example of it? Where does the information come from? What are the limits on the information that can be disclosed, given the very wide-ranging parameters in the regulations? Where will we land once all this has happened? I am very excited to hear her reply.
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, I am sure the noble Lord acknowledges that, over many years, the United Kingdom has taken a strong and principled position on this. Indeed, the noble Lord and I have had exchanges on this matter, and I am sure he recalls when challenges were posed in the United Nations Security Council, when a resolution was passed on conflict-related sexual violence with an omission on sexual and reproductive health. At that time—I was there—we used the explanation of vote as an opportunity to, once again, restate the very rights articulated by the noble Lord.
I do not think there is a difference of perspective here between the Government and Her Majesty’s Opposition, and it is important that we stand up for the right for women to have access in this way. As I have said before, what is happening in the United States is a matter for the United States, but the United Kingdom will retain its strong and principled stand in this respect.
My Lords, the United States and the United Kingdom are recognised as global leaders in maternal healthcare and fully inclusive reproductive rights. Last year, the Government cut their pledge to the UN Population Fund by 85%. Given that an incoming US Government might reinstate a global gag at any time, could this Government pledge to reinstate some of that funding?
Secondly, could we strike a completely different note—one that sympathises with, rather than criminalises, women in desperate need of fully inclusive reproductive healthcare—and decriminalise abortion in this country?
My Lords, the noble Baroness’s final point is of course very much a matter of discussion. Various initiatives and discussions are currently under way to ensure, as I have stated before, the ability of every woman who so chooses to have rights and access to such facilities. The noble Baroness rightly raised the issue of access to the UN initiative in this regard. I can confirm that we have already allocated £60 million. When my right honourable friend the current Foreign Secretary took over office, the reduced funding on women and girls was restored.
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberI can say to the noble Baroness that a number of its members left, but I will write to her in this respect to allow for further questions.
My Lords, I am part of a charity that managed to facilitate the extraction of a number of LGBT people from Afghanistan. Fortunately, some of them came to Britain. However, others are stuck in neighbouring countries, where although not facing certain death they are still in grave danger. Can the Minister say what is being done to enable those people to come to the United Kingdom?
My Lords, as I have already said to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, we will continue to work with them. If the noble Baroness has any specific information to assist, I will of course be pleased to meet her.
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, I am grateful to the Lord Speaker for taking the first line of my speech. It is such a positive point, and right that he should make it from the chair to show the whole House’s support for such a wonderful first in your Lordships’ Chamber.
Standing here this morning, I am but a bridge—a conduit or messenger—for the British Sign Language Private Member’s Bill. All of the credit and plaudits should go to the honourable Lady, Rosie Cooper, who steered her Bill through the other place in such style. Similarly, credit should go to all the organisations which have supported and pushed for such a Private Member’s Bill, not least the BDA, the RNID and all other organisations and individuals, right across the country, who have spent so much time pushing for this measure.
I start with an apology. I would have liked to have practised a small amount of sign language to put into my speech this morning but, having consulted many people, because of the obvious difficulties for me in being able to have a conversation in BSL, it was advised that it would be inappropriate for me to do so. I hope that is okay with everybody out there and perfectly in order. Again, I underline the fantastic live signing on parliament.tv as I speak.
The purpose of the Bill is, in many ways, incredibly straightforward. It is simply this: to include BSL signers. I will give one example, to make the point. Imagine you are a BSL signer and you go to a hospital or GP appointment. The news might not be good, but whether good or bad, it is certainly personal—perhaps some of the most personal interaction you may have with the state. In those circumstances, it seems wholly appropriate that a BSL signer should not have to rely on a spouse, parent, child or sibling to enable that encounter to be accessible and inclusive. This seems a perfectly reasonable proposition and it is certainly well set out and delivered in other aspects of the public sector.
The Bill itself was unopposed through all of its stages in the other place. Again, that is great testament to the honourable Lady, Rosie Cooper. In many ways, if noble Lords and those beyond this House want to get to the entire purpose of the Bill, just read the Long Title, so brilliantly penned by her.
On the detail of the Bill, Clause 1 recognises BSL as a language of England, Scotland and Wales. The Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland, for two key reasons: first, to recognise and respect the usage of British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language in Northern Ireland; secondly, to note the limited extent of the Equality Act 2010 in Northern Ireland.
Clause 1 puts on a statutory footing what was set out in a ministerial Statement in 2003 on the recognition of BSL as a language. Clause 1(2) is a technical but important part of the Bill, which simply sets out to ensure that it does not cut across or stymie any existing legislation and legislative provisions, not least those set out in the Equality Act 2010, particularly pertaining to reasonable adjustments.
Clause 2 puts a duty on the Secretary of State to report on the promotion and facilitation of BSL across all the departments of state listed in the Schedule to the Bill. This could be plans, strategies, approaches to promotion or press releases—anything, in reality, which leads to the promotion and facilitation of BSL. In many ways, it is Clause 2 which will enable the deaf community to hold the Secretary of State and the Government to account on the provisions of this Private Member’s Bill.
Clause 3 sets out a duty on the Secretary of State for the production of guidance for the promotion and facilitation of BSL. Again, there is a real opportunity here to bring out best practice and set out case studies—in short, to drive up and improve right across the piece on BSL. One of the key elements of Clause 3 is that it will be supported by an advisory board of BSL signers to put in their views, experience and expertise to the Secretary of State in the creation and deployment of that guidance.
That brings me to the non-statutory provisions, which the Minister has set out alongside the Bill. I will not dwell too much on these because I would not want to take words from my noble friend the Minister this morning. First, however, that board of advisers, the BSL signers, is absolutely critical to so much of what will happen in this space. Secondly, there is a move to increase the number of signers across the country. Thirdly, it will ensure that all elements of access to work fit with the intent and purpose of this Bill.
This Private Member’s Bill is clear, concise, simple and straightforward. In the British Sign Language Bill, the honourable Lady, Rosie Cooper, has given us a barrel of a Bill, from which can flow forth the finest brew of all: inclusion. I beg to move.
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, is taking part remotely and I invite her to speak. For the middle section of her speech, the noble Baroness will be assisted by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie.
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeMy Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate on a subject to which I first had to pay attention in the run-up to the millennium, when the organisation for which I was quite a young worker at the time, Age Concern, held a “debate of the age”, looking strategically at big questions to do with an ageing society. One of the advisers to that was the then Ros Altmann, and the driving force and inspiration behind it was the then Sally Greengross. It is a delight, 20 years on, that they are still taking the fight on this subject.
I am glad that we had the very informative briefings from the Library and the Centre for Ageing Better. I found a paper that I think crystallised the issues and speaks in many ways to what the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, said. The Age Smart Employer network in New York produced a paper that came up with a number of lessons for employers in recruiting and retaining older workers. One is that older people have skills and experiences that cannot be readily taught, such as critical thinking. They retain business knowledge, knowledge about networks and the historical memory of the organisations for which they work. It is absolutely true that they tend to have, on average, more technology gaps, but those can be filled and taught. To take Zoom and the House of Lords three years ago as an example, we have moved light years in a short space of time. You can learn that.
But this paper really goes to the heart of what the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, was saying: the best teams are different. They do not have groupthink; they have different skills, and sometimes that comes from different generations. One thing that older people have is an insight into customers, which is particularly important. I have in fact been to Holkham Hall, as a paying customer, and I can testify to the teamwork and atmosphere that the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, talked about.
Perhaps I was having a particularly bad bout of insomnia, because, during Covid-19, I came across one of the most informative programmes, “Farming Today”—skip the “Today” programme and go straight to that. Long before anybody else was talking about shortages of HGV drivers, “Farming Today” was talking about problems with getting milk from farms and so on.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, is right: Covid has brought to the surface a whole load of things that many people have known about but that we have never approached in any kind of coherent fashion. There is a case for looking at sectors of work and the age profiles of people in them—and for not being afraid to take on and address some of the prejudices and what people might be shying away from in looking at that strategically.
This is a subject where we have broadly known for a long time what the causal factors are. Different Governments have brought to the table different initiatives, none of them very coherent or long term. There is a real problem, in that different Governments approach this issue differently: is it a matter of mitigating potential draws on the welfare benefits budget, is it about developing a future plan for work, is it about skills deficits or is it about the fact that we have never really—not for want of trying—got to the very heart of how we get apprenticeships to work, in terms not just of specific skills for specific jobs but of equipping young people for working life, which is something to which older people have quite a lot to contribute?
So I will go back to where I started, which was 20 years ago with the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, trying to take an informed and strategic view of this, listening to academics and doing foresight work with government, as far as was possible, to look at the changes in technology and medical science that were going to affect the health of the population. If we were to do that in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, suggested—not as a knee-jerk reaction but really looking at what has come to the surface post Covid and at the future of work over the next 20 years, when we will not have the influxes of short-term and seasonal labour that we have had in the past—we should have a thoroughgoing look into the demographics of ageing. Apart from anything else, the big tech companies and the people behind them will have something to say on this, because they have begun to look at this area of work because they appreciate that the market of young people, which they have traditionally relied on, is perhaps now changing, and they need to look at that in a different way.
So I very much welcome the contributions in this debate, and I hope that, with the enlightened Minister that we are lucky to have in this House on this subject, we might perhaps take a step towards a new strategy for multigenerational workforces.
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord for acknowledging the work that the UK Government are doing with international partners in what is, as the noble Lord rightly described it, a terrible and continuing perilous situation on the humanitarian front in Afghanistan. I assure the noble Lord that we remain fully committed. As he will be aware, I laid a Written Ministerial Statement in advance of Christmas detailing the agencies we are working with and the amounts we are giving in support, particularly targeting vulnerable groups. We will make additional announcements, particularly in light of the call to action and the new request from the United Nations.
I share with the noble Lord that the previous request was made for flash funding support for the UN. It is quite noticeable was that it was fully funded; indeed, funds are being distributed. He make a point about Gordon Brown calling for a meeting to be convened. We are, of course, working very closely with the United Nations in this respect. Any calls to action are welcome, and we will see how best we can mobilise further action. I will be speaking with key partners in the region to ensure that the call that has been made is also funded in the manner that is currently required.
On the British Council, I first pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, who has been meticulous and consistent in raising in particular the issues of the British Council, along with other noble Lords. Let me give the noble Lord this reassurance: with the opening of the ACR scheme now formally announced, the promised support to cohorts, including the Chevening scholars and the workers associated with the British Council, will be upheld.
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, is taking part remotely, and I invite her to speak.
My Lords, what are the Government doing to secure safe passage of food and essential supplies to the most vulnerable in Afghanistan?
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberI have received requests to speak after the Minister from two noble Lords. First, I call the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford.
My Lords, we have rightly heard much about the importance of protecting ancient woodland in Britain for global reasons. Is it not as important, and perhaps more urgent, to halt and prevent the loss of tropical rainforests, such as the Amazon? Has my noble friend considered the proposals that I made at Second Reading for the relief of national debt, both interest and capital repayment, equal to a multiple—possibly a high multiple—of the commercial value of the rainforest that we want to protect? Only if the rainforest were interfered with would the debt be reinstated.
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 260B. Anyone who wishes to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Clause 109: Use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity
Amendment 260B
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 160A. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Clause 77: Water resources management plans, drought plans and joint proposals
Amendment 160A
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 161. Anyone wishing this press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 161