Exchange of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information Agreement

Debate between Baroness Goldie and Lord Bilimoria

Monday 17th January 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

It would have been difficult for the noble Lord to corroborate it; I was doing it in the privacy of my bedroom.

AUKUS is a concrete demonstration of the commitment made by the UK in the integrated review to deepen co-operation, partnerships and engagement in the Indo-Pacific. We are committed to deepening relationships with countries in that region. By 2030, the region will represent more than 40% of global GDP, so the announcement is a clear demonstration of both our interest in and commitment to that area.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, “Well, this is all fine and well, and we understand what it means for the Indo-Pacific area, but what about everything else in defence?” I say to her that if we take in conjunction the integrated review and the recent defence Command Paper, not to mention the recent Future Soldier paper which was the subject of a Statement in the Chamber, we see in all of those, detailed information on how we meet threat, wherever that is coming from, whether it is directed at us within the UK or at our partners and allies. We have a clear plan as to how we think we should meet that, and it is a plan that will endure in the forthcoming decades.

This is an important agreement for Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom, as it is for the wider issues of stability in the region. The noble Lord, Lord West, commented both shrewdly and authoritatively on those issues. The agreement certainly reflects the importance we attach to the area in terms of the integrated review—that was also recognised by my noble friend Lord Lansley.

[Lord Bilimoria (CB)]

I earlier listed the countries that make up the Quad and said India, Australia, Japan and—by mistake—the UK. Of course, it is the US; the noble Lord, Lord Lansley pointed that out to me.

I cannot resist a serendipitous opportunity. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked me why the UK is not a member of the Quad. With the integrated review and our tilt to the Indo-Pacific, perhaps there is an opportunity for the UK to join the Quad in the future.

Defence and Security Industrial Strategy

Debate between Baroness Goldie and Lord Bilimoria

Wednesday 24th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for his interest in and continued focus on reserves. I also thank him for his report, the Reserve Forces 2030 review, which will be presented to Parliament soon, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in another place on Monday. As the Secretary of State also acknowledged, in previous decades there has been resistance within MoD to recognising the potential of reserves and using them properly. On sponsored reserves, which my noble friend highlights, they are indeed already playing a significant role. I know that the Armed Forces are looking at the options for developing their role, for example in growth areas like space, cyber and other applied digital skills.

[Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]]

My Lords, as president of the CBI, I can say that industry welcomes the new defence and security and industrial strategy, or DSIS, and the vision that lays out the defence sector’s strategic relationship with industry. The DSIS is ambitious regarding R&D and innovation, exportability and global Britain, and the creation of BARPA is an exciting opportunity. Will the Minister explain how the Government will ensure that innovation is rewarded fairly with a collaborative approach, with the management of intellectual property helping to crowd in private sector investment and MoD R&D activity? Also, does she agree that, by using its purchasing power to help pull developing technologies through to market at the leading edge of science and technology, it will drive prosperity and generate thousands of highly skilled jobs across the country?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

The last point the noble Lord alluded to is very important. Yes, I agree, and we hope that that indeed will be the consequence of the application of this strategy in practice.

On the other issues to which the noble Lord referred, again, early, close engagement between MoD and industry will go a long way to achieving the clarification he seeks. Certainly, introducing intellectual property strategies into the MoD’s acquisition processes for defence programmes to better incentivise and manage risk will also go a long way towards addressing some of the points he raises.

Amritsar Massacre: Centenary

Debate between Baroness Goldie and Lord Bilimoria

Tuesday 19th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, for tabling this timely debate, and recognise and thank him for his long-standing commitment to humanitarian causes in India. I am also grateful to all noble Lords for their helpful contributions.

The massacre of Jallianwala Bagh was an appalling tragedy for the Sikh community of Amritsar, and a deeply shameful episode in British history. The British Government of the day rightly condemned the incident. A number of your Lordships—the noble Lords, Lord Loomba and Lord Desai, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover—have referred to the remarks made at the time, particularly by Churchill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Desai, for directing me to his book The Rediscovery of India and the passage on Amritsar, which I found very interesting. I was struck by something else that Churchill said, which some of your Lordships referred to:

“Frightfulness is not a remedy known to the British pharmacopœia”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/7/1920; col. 1728.]


He also said this was not,

“the British way of doing business”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/7/1920; col. 1730.]

Churchill was right then, and these sentiments endure and are right now.

One hundred years later we, the current Government, recognise that people here and in India, in the Sikh community and elsewhere, continue to feel deeply about the issue. That is why what took place on 13 April 1919 should never be forgotten, and why it is right that we remember and pay our respects to those who lost their lives. My noble friend Lady Verma described movingly the significance of Jallianwala Bagh to her, her birth in Amritsar, the continuing influence that that holy place holds for her and the peace it gives her. We recognise how important it is that we mark this tragic, sombre anniversary in the most appropriate way. This debate has been helpful in bringing suggestions forward.

History cannot be undone, but we can learn from the past and take steps to avoid repeating the same mistakes. My noble friends Lady Verma and Lord Suri commented on that, as did the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. Indeed, that is what the UK is doing, in a number of different ways, in our work to address the root causes of conflict and the drivers of instability around the world. We support work to tackle corruption, promote good governance, improve access to security and justice, and promote inclusive economic development.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, said very poignantly that the best memorial to the victims of Jallianwala Bagh would be for Britain to fearlessly speak out for people who cannot do it themselves, vociferously insisting on the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. I totally agree and I add that the UK’s substantial development budget is a key component. More than 50% of the DfID budget is spent in fragile and conflict-affected states and our cross-government work on tackling insecurity and instability is supported by the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund, which is supporting and delivering programmes in more than 70 countries. We also have early warning mechanisms in place to identify countries at risk of instability. We invest billions of pounds in development aid to tackle poverty and to generate opportunity. We use our diplomatic network and our influence in multilateral organisations to help de-escalate tensions and resolve disputes wherever possible.

All this work fosters environments in which atrocities such as Jallianwala Bagh are less likely to take place. I have noted the number of noble Lords who have raised the matter of an apology from the Government. This was referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Loomba, Lord Desai, Lord Bilimoria, Lord Morgan and Lord Collins, my noble friend Lord Suri and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. I know how passionately that issue is felt. The Government at the time, as we know, roundly condemned the atrocity, but it is the case that no subsequent Government have apologised. I understand that the reason is that Governments have considered that history cannot be rewritten and it is important that we do not get trapped by the past. We must also look forward to the future and do all we can to prevent atrocities happening. Having said that, during oral evidence from the Foreign Secretary to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 31 October 2018, the chair of that committee argued that this year may constitute an appropriate moment for Her Majesty’s Government to formally apologise. The Foreign Secretary responded by saying:

“That is a very profound thought; let me reflect on that, but I can understand why that could be a potentially very significant gesture”.


The Foreign Secretary is currently doing that—reflecting on the situation—and I can say that the views expressed in this debate are certainly noted and will be conveyed back to the department.

[Lord Bilimoria]

Will the Minister confirm that she will say that we must make an apology on the centenary of this atrocity? I gave examples in my speech of British Prime Ministers—David Cameron and Gordon Brown—who have apologised for things in the past, so we really must this time.

[Baroness Goldie]

I hope I have made the current position clear to noble Lords and I hope they will understand that I am unable to go any further. Learning lessons from the past is vital. It is also important that the UK and India continue to look ahead to our shared future. Happily and positively, today our relationship is one of equals. We share a proud parliamentary tradition, a global outlook and a commitment to maintain the rules-based international system. The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, gave an interesting local illustration of that relationship.

Education: Treating Students Fairly (Economic Affairs Committee Report)

Debate between Baroness Goldie and Lord Bilimoria

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bilimoria (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and his Economic Affairs Committee on their excellent report, Treating Students Fairly: The Economics of Post-School Education. On Brexit, the noble Lord and I are at opposite ends of the spectrum, but in the 12 years that I have been here, on almost every other issue, we have been on the same page.

The report states right up front:

“Successive governments, over many decades, have pursued and encouraged the expansion of higher education. These efforts have succeeded: in the 1960s, five per cent of young people went into higher education; today, around half of young people do … By contrast, the number of students graduating with other higher education qualifications … have declined in recent years … with an 88 per cent reduction in enrolments at the Open University over that period for qualifications at Levels 4 and 5. There has also been a … decline in the number of qualifications awarded to adults at Level 3”.


So there is a problem here. On the other hand, the report continues:

“The UK does however produce more workers with undergraduate degrees than similar countries”.


The report states that the reforms to financing for university funding that happened after the 2010 election,

“failed in their aim to create an effective market amongst universities”.

I remember this clearly. When tuition fees were tripled in one go, from £3,000 to £9,000, the Government of the day said, “This will create a market and people will then be able to choose which degrees they want to do and which degrees are worth more”. What did they do at the same time? People did not notice it, but they withdrew teaching funding hugely. I was chancellor of Thames Valley University—or the University of West London—at the time. What did universities do? They had no option but to charge the maximum £9,000 to cover the lack in funding for tuition.

Loans have been a huge issue. The report looks into them in great detail, saying that the total student loan book will be worth £1.2 trillion in nominal terms. That is a huge figure. The report talks about reforms. Is it worth having student loans but then saying that in the long run they will not be repaid? The report’s analysis is very good. It then talks about maintenance support for students being inconsistent across different areas.

The report states that,

“the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggests that students from the poorest 40 per cent of families will graduate with an average debt of £57,000; their peers from the richest 30 per cent of families will owe £43,000. This £14,000 difference is entirely due to maintenance loan entitlement and the accrued interest”.

Other speakers have referred to the unfairness of this system, which continues after graduation. The report states:

“Data published by the Department for Education show that students entitled to free school meals have lower average earnings after graduation; five years after graduation those eligible for free school meals earned 13 per cent less than those not entitled”.


This does not seem fair. The University of Cambridge, where I am chair of the Cambridge Judge Business School and an honorary fellow of my college, Sidney Sussex, said that,

“no interest should accrue until graduation, with a sliding interest rate dependent on earnings afterwards that was capped at CPI plus one per cent”.

It pointed out that this would not cost the Government much in the long run, in light of the proportion of student loan lending that is written off under the present system. Does the Minister agree?

I am chancellor of the University of Birmingham, which again agrees with a lot in this report. We are concerned about the fact, which most people do not realise, that many students are significantly concerned about meeting their living costs while studying. For some students these problems are of far greater concern than the tuition fees. The Government’s switch from maintenance grants to loans had a more significant impact on those from more disadvantaged backgrounds, who need to take out higher loans for living costs, as I have just pointed out, and so have higher lifetime loan repayments. It just does not seem fair or right. The university is also concerned that the switch has deterred poorer local students from applying to study at the university in the first place. Does the Minister agree? The University of Birmingham would support the reinstatement of government maintenance grants, funded by new money, targeted to those students who need them the most. It is essential that this should not be at the cost of reducing funding for universities in other ways. Any reduction in income for universities would have an impact on the student experience. Universities would have to reduce investment in teaching or other educational activities that support high levels of employment.

My other point concerns this distinction between universities and further education. At the University of West London, I remember we used to have the saying “Further to higher”. At the University of Birmingham, we partner with University College Birmingham in delivering courses. We partner with industry—that should also be taken into account. The University of Cambridge is also worried and says that it already subsidises, on average, more than half the cost associated with the education of each home undergraduate. It is worried about any cuts and says that if there are cuts to domestic students, it may be forced to increase the number of international students. That is also a concern. If Britain leaves the European Union and focuses on delivering its industrial strategy, supporting growth and innovation productivity, it is essential that the UK’s unique asset of world- leading, university-based research is not threatened—for example, by disruptive changes to university funding. Research is also something that not many have spoken about.

Before I conclude, I want to mention two other points in the report. Spending on 16 to 19 education has been badly hit. Total expenditure has fallen by 17.5% between 2010 and 2017. What are we doing? This is a key stage, which we should be funding.

Turning to adult education, the report says that,

“adult education funding has seen significant reductions”.

Related to this decline, older students are more likely to study part-time. I mentioned that the effect on part- time education has been drastic. The number of part-time students aged over 30 has fallen by 41%. There is a growing consensus, nationally and internationally, that with the advance of machine learning, AI and robotics, post-school education will become of increasing importance to societies and economies. There will be an increasing need for lifelong learning, extending beyond school and, for those who go to university, beyond their university degree as well. Continuing education contributes positively to well-being and health, which, as well as being an intrinsic good, has positive consequences for the economy through the health of the population and the workforce. Some 60% of those entering primary school in 2018 will ultimately work in jobs and functions that do not currently exist. By 2030 there will be a talent deficit. Half the subject knowledge acquired by first-year undergraduates is out of date by the time they graduate.

Then there is the challenge of Brexit. Learning and improved life chances should not stop when you reach your 20s. This was recognised in 1919 in a report on adult education, and I am proud to be a member of the Centenary Commission on adult education, which has just been launched and had its first meeting. Dame Helen Ghosh, the master of Balliol College, is head of the commission and we will report later this year. I urge the Economic Affairs Committee to take heed of our report, because this needs to be at the heart of our endeavours to improve the prosperity of our country and the well-being of our people.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, we were doing pretty well, time-wise, but can we just keep an eye on the clock? We are beginning to slip a bit behind the estimated schedule.

Article 50 (Constitution Committee Report)

Debate between Baroness Goldie and Lord Bilimoria

Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bilimoria (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and his committee on their excellent report. We should acknowledge that this House has huge authority but also that, within it, one of its most reputed parts is the European Union Committee and its sub-committees. It is one of the most respected bodies not only in both Houses of Parliament but throughout Europe. The European Union Committee is held up as an authority to be listened to and respected. When it says that it believes that Parliament can play a vital role in offering constructive and timely comment on both the process and the substance of the negotiations and that such scrutiny will contribute to a greater sense of parliamentary ownership of the process, strengthening the Government’s negotiating position and increasing the likelihood that the final agreement will enjoy parliamentary and public support, I think that we should listen.

The committee has said that Parliament has a duty here, which is the crux of this whole matter. Let us go all the way back to Oliver Cromwell and what he did when King Charles went too far. The principle of parliamentary supremacy was then established once and for all. Cromwell was the most famous alumnus of my college at Cambridge, Sidney Sussex, and his statue still stands outside Parliament even though he was responsible for killing a King. The principle of parliamentary supremacy was established when things went too far. Let us fast forward to today. We are talking about a situation where we must ask: is it the will of the people that Brexit means Brexit, or is it for parliamentary democracy? Then it is all about the individual who is to sit on the Woolsack, where for centuries we had the legislature, the judiciary and the Executive all in one person—completely conflicted but not giving rise to a problem for centuries. There was no need to establish the Supreme Court because we had a perfectly good working system right here in the highest court in the land, the House of Lords.

Now, this is all about the balance and the wonderful unwritten constitution of ours, a delicate thread that has been woven through the centuries and has built the strength and foundation of this amazing country. That foundation lies in the rule of law, and respect for the fairness and independence of our judiciary is at its crux.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in his submission to the committee said:

“This is not the Montreux Convention or the Antarctic Treaty. We are talking about something that … will affect almost every area of public life in this country … Vast areas of domestic policy will be affected, and policy choices possibly foreclosed … by this negotiation. Therefore, it follows that this is a treaty where there absolutely needs to be very full parliamentary scrutiny”.

The committee said that:

“It would be constitutionally inappropriate, not to mention setting a disturbing precedent, for the Executive to act on an advisory referendum without explicit parliamentary approval—particularly one with such significant long-term consequences. The Government should not trigger Article 50 without consulting Parliament”.

That is the crux of it. What was the Prime Minister thinking? Why try to ride roughshod over Parliament? Why try to bully us and disturb our wonderful convention and history? Let us be honest: as I said earlier, this referendum result was democratically definitive, but the figures were 52% to 48%, representing 17 million people and 16 million people respectively. We keep talking about the will of the people, but what about the will of the 16 million? Any responsible constituency MP says, “I have been elected by the majority of my constituents but I look after the interests of every individual in my constituency whether they voted for my party or not”.

One of the recommendations is:

“We recommend that the new Committee appointed to scrutinise Brexit should incorporate the existing scrutiny functions of the European Union Committee”.

Does the Minister agree that that should happen? No one has mentioned so far the fact that the report talks about the wonderful concept of parliamentary diplomacy. Parliament should play an active diplomatic role throughout the Brexit process and the European Union Committee is perfectly placed to do that. Again, does the Minister agree with that?

In the speech she made yesterday to the CBI, the Prime Minister said:

“For this is a true national moment. The decision of the British people on 23rd June gives us a once-in-a-generation chance to shape a new future for our nation”.

But what about the generations ahead?

I turn to the legal ruling that has led to all this. Kenneth Armstrong, professor of European law at the University of Cambridge—and here I declare an interest as chairman of the advisory board of the Cambridge Judge Business School—has written an article entitled Victory for Parliamentary Democracy in which he states:

“However, while the outcome of the referendum has given the Government a political mandate to withdraw from the EU, the legal power to notify must be exercised within legal limits. The High Court has concluded that where an exercise of the Royal Prerogative would remove legal rights, derived from EU law but made available in domestic law by Parliament through the European Communities Act, only Parliament can legislate for such rights to be removed”.

It cannot be any clearer than that. Government lawyers argued that the prerogative powers were a legitimate way to give effect to the will of the people, but the summary of the judgment stated that,

“the Government does not have the power under the Crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50”.

Of course, this has scared Nigel Farage, who said that we were heading for a “half-Brexit.” The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, the author of Article 50, seemed to suggest that once we invoke Article 50, we may be able to retract from it during that process. This is a debatable issue.

Just recently, the Government decided not to implement the recommendations of the Strathclyde review, with the Leader of the House stating:

“We recognise the valuable role of the House of Lords … The Government are therefore reliant on the discipline and self-regulation that this House imposes upon itself”.

But then came the threat:

“Should that break down, we would have reflect on this decision”.—[Official Report, 17/11/16; col. 1539.]

How many times have I been told by people in the other place: “Watch it. Don’t go too far, otherwise that’ll be the end of you lot”? I have heard it outside as well: “You unelected Peers pushed this too far. Your days are numbered”. However, the House of Lords has killed only five statutory instruments supported by Governments since 1945. Let us get real: this House, when it boils down to it, does not filibuster; this House does not block for the sake of blocking; this House does not throw out legislation; we debate it in the best interests not of one party or another but of the country. Three senior members of the Conservative Party, including Dominic Grieve, the former Attorney-General, have said that the Government should withdraw their appeal to the Supreme Court and just get on with it.

We talk about a transitional deal. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said that Brexit would be a long-drawn-out process. It will take two to 10 years. The elements of it are not as simple as exiting the European Union. What about the treaties, whether it is staying in the single market or in the customs union or doing trade deals? The Prime Minister saw this in action in India—I was there when she was. She thought that she could go there with Liam Fox and come back with trade deals. Before she went out, it was announced that Indian IT workers’ minimum salaries would be increased by 50%. One of India’s main exports is its excellent IT services, from which our public services and private sector benefit. Suddenly, they are told that salaries will be 50% higher, which makes them less competitive. When the Prime Minister was there, she spoke about returning to India Indians who had overstayed—that has built a lot of friendship as well. Then, when she had 35 university leaders there with Jo Johnson, she did not mention higher education or universities once in her opening speech; she did not even meet the university leaders, whereas Prime Minister Modi, one of the most powerful people in the world, said humbly that the mobility of India’s youth in education was crucial. We send out negative messages about international students; we still treat them as immigrants and include them in our net immigration figures; and we think that we can do trade deals with India. Dream on.

Canada took eight years to do a trade deal with the EU—it was 1,600 pages. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, spoke about that. What do the Europeans think about all this? We know for a fact that the whole world thinks that we should not leave the European Union—I know that; India is a perfect example. Anyone I speak to in India—civil servants, government or business—says, “You shouldn’t leave the European Union”. The whole world except Donald Trump thinks that we should stay in the European Union. What about what the Europeans think? We talk about great negotiations—“They need us more than we need them”. What nonsense. Forty-five per cent of our exports go to the EU and 55% of our imports come from it. We are net importers from the EU; we are only 8% of its exports, and that is spread out between 27 countries. Get real. Twenty-seven countries, encompassing nearly 500 million people, will be negotiating against us. We are not in the strongest negotiating position here. According to the Dutch Finance Minister, Boris Johnson has said things which are “intellectually impossible”. The Home Affairs Committee heard that the Brexit campaign had created a dangerously toxic EU debate where facts did not matter.

I do not have the time to re-run the referendum, but the crux of it is that there was a definitive democratic vote to leave the European Union—but based on what? I have met people who said: “I voted to leave the European Union because I wanted to save the NHS”, because they believed the claim on the leave battle bus about £350 million a week being put back into the NHS, a claim in front of which Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson spoke on TV time and again. People voted for different reasons, based on lies.

As the EU Committee’s report states:

“The forthcoming negotiations … will be unprecedented in their complexity”.

The basis is highly complicated and the outcome is far from certain. Does the Minister agree, as many noble Lords have suggested, that there should be a Green Paper, let alone a White Paper, on this?

The Prime Minister wants to use the royal prerogative. One of the strongest areas in which such a prerogative can be used is in going to war—a Prime Minister does not need to consult us; they can go to war. Have they done that in recent history? In 2011, with Libya, the Government granted a vote. In 2013 and 2015, with Syria and Iraq, the Government granted a vote. The Government have not exercised the prerogative, yet here is something that will affect the whole of this country, including our security, and the Prime Minister thinks that she can just go ahead without such a vote. A headline to an article written by Vernon Bogdanor, previously of Oxford University and now at King’s College London, states:

“The EU referendum shows how the sovereignty of Britain’s people can now trump its Parliament”.

That is the big issue here. Is Parliament sovereign? Here is the irony of it all: “Vote leave and take back control. Take back control of our Parliament”. And then Parliament is just cut out of it, and that is convenient. That is hypocrisy. It is contradictory and hypocritical.

I said before the vote and straight after it that there would be repercussions. The first vote of no confidence in this country by the world was the devaluation of the pound—it fell by as much as 20% and is still 15% lower than its pre-vote value. That is the first sign of the uncertainty, which could then lead to higher interest rates, which could then lead to inflation, which could then lead to our economy not growing as quickly, which could then lead to problems for every citizen of this country.

I conclude by referring to the way in which our judges were attacked. I remember when I came as a student to this country and heard Lord Denning, then Master of the Rolls, speak. It was a speech that I will never forget. Then the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, was criticised, including by Iain Duncan Smith, who said that there would be a constitutional crisis. And then the judges were called “enemies of the people”. The noble and learned Baroness said in response:

“It is unfortunate that isn’t made clear to the British public, because it is very important they understand what the role of the judiciary is, which is to hear cases in a fair, neutral, and impartial way. You have to be independent and true to your judicial oath and cannot allow yourself to be swayed by extraneous considerations that have nothing to do with the law”.

When at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet last week the Lord Mayor, Andrew Parmley, praised the judges, he got the biggest ovation of the evening. Our judiciary are respected as the finest, the most just and the fairest in the world. They are independent. There is no way that we should ever dare to criticise them.

This House has the greatest depth and breadth of expertise of any parliamentary Chamber in the world. It would be a waste for it not to be consulted. The point being made by the committee is that this House and Parliament need to be consulted on Article 50 right at the beginning, right through the process and right after it. That is what is at stake here. We need to be part of this process throughout, because our role is that of the guardians of the nation. Whether or not it is smart Brexit, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, called it, what is at essence is that we will do our best for this country and nothing else.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I remind your Lordships that in a debate of this type, with the exception of those from the Front Benches, contributions are normally about 10 minutes. I think that that would help the conduct of proceedings.