Women, Peace and Security Bill [HL]

Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, on her Private Member’s Bill, which I heartily support. Over recent years I have had the privilege of working closely with the noble Baroness on issues concerning violence against women and girls both domestically and internationally. I draw attention to my own entry in the register of interests: I am the director of the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute. I am also on the task force on war crimes for Ukraine and co-chair the task force set up to recover the children who have been taken into Russia without consent.

IBAHRI has held a number of parliamentary inquiries, provided the secretariat and written the reports concerning a number of the most horrifying situations affecting women. Noble Lords have already heard about them from the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and I am not going to rehearse them again, but we need to have as a constant in this House the fact of what is happening in Afghanistan. It was a shameful business that we withdrew from Afghanistan, and many women who had taken up positions that were clearly an affront to the Taliban were placed in dire straits and mortal danger.

Afghanistan now is perhaps the most dangerous place in the world for women. They have been banned from public life and cannot receive an education, work or have recourse to justice. Healthcare is very limited. Recent decrees have banned women from speaking outside the home and singing even inside, if it can be heard outside. There is no singing, and basically no life.

Between 1 January 2022 and 30 January 2024, Afghan Witness, with which IBAHRI works closely, recorded 700 claims, all of gender-based violence suffered by hundreds of women and girls throughout the country. Those are the ones that have been reported. Of course, the shame and stigma associated with sexual violence and abuse are often a restraint on people making any kind of complaint to anybody. These complaints have been reported by social media users, journalists, activists and media outlets in touch with women there. At IBAHRI, we are one of those organisations.

We have held an inquiry here into what should be clearly described as gender apartheid. There is already the crime of gender persecution, and that is certainly going on in Afghanistan, but gender apartheid goes much further. It affects all women; it is institutionalised. That is one of the shameful and shocking things about it.

A similar sort of thing goes on in Iran. We looked closely at the problems facing Iranian women; noble Lords will know about the demonstrations of the many young women who took to the streets after the murder of a young woman. We have been working with the women lawyers who have acted on behalf of people seeking to exercise their rights, and the women lawyers—as well as their clients—end up in jail. We are seeing this happen worldwide.

I want to make a number of basic supportive comments with regard to the Bill. We need to resist and prevent these things happening, because it is now understood that there is invariably sexual violence in war. I can hear the Whip’s coughs, but I want to complete this thought. It is vital that we provide assistance. There is a global piece of work being done by the Global Survivors Fund—for example, in Ukraine—to provide supportive work and therapy for women who have suffered this, because you will never be able to take those cases to courts unless the women are able to have their trauma dealt with. I ask the Government to consider supporting the Global Survivors Fund.

Finally, we have to have women at the peace tables. I strongly urge that we do not have meetings with the Taliban where there is no woman present because the Taliban insist on it. It is unacceptable. It has already happened a number of times when our Government have done that, and it should not be taking place.

Human Rights Violations: Consular Assistance

Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I was just looking at the eligibility criteria and it is quite clear that we offer this service to British nationals overseas. They establish their rights through establishing evidence of their citizenship. I am not sure what further steps we might need to take. The important thing is that people who are resident abroad can rest assured that our consular services will be available to them.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, in 2019, the Media Freedom Coalition was created by the United Kingdom. It now involves 51 countries. It has a high-level legal panel, which I currently chair, following in the footsteps of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger. The coalition was very clear in its report on consular services that those services should be available to those who are at risk. That is particularly the case for journalists, who are often harassed. The murder of journalists has become a serious epidemic globally because of authoritarianism and wanting to get rid of critics, as has the murder of other human rights activists. Are we taking steps to provide visas for those at risk who need to get out? Sometimes they have family members who need to travel with them. How good are we at providing consular services.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I start by congratulating my noble friend on her appointment as chair of the high-level panel. As she knows, during the United Nations General Assembly, she and I were at the same event, hosted by Canada, on media freedom. That was a coalition between Canada and the UK, undertaken by the previous Government, and we are committed to continuing that work. Our manifesto commitment is quite clear in terms of establishing a right for human rights violations. One of the things we discussed at the Canada meeting was how media freedom was a particular human right. So I will take her points and hopefully we can meet to discuss this further, because there needs to be input into the discussions we are having at departmental level.

Coronavirus Bill

Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 25th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

I thank my noble friend very much for her support. I do not think I had tried to speak—maybe I gave the wrong signal in some way.

I very much agree with what my co-signatory to the amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, but I do not wish to add to it. I am perfectly content that she covered what needed to be said.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I too am very keen to support these amendments, particularly Amendment 1. Any form of monitoring has to be valued. It is important that we keep on top of those who might be suffering, particularly the most vulnerable. A new word in our dictionary is “intersectionality”. The situation is most problematic where people have multiple disadvantages and I want to mention a number of them.

I am particularly concerned about the healthcare that might be available in our prisons. I am concerned for staff and prisoners. Only this morning it was announced that a number of people in our prison system have the virus and are becoming ill. In many prisons they are being kept in isolation because of overcrowding. That means that there will be mental health issues, which many of our prisoners already have. Therefore, I strongly advise making mobile phones available to everyone in their cells, so that they can make contact with their relatives and have the opportunity to speak and get support.

I am also very keen that we think about releasing large numbers of prisoners. Those awaiting trial should be allowed to have bail and, if necessary, have ankle bracelets fitted. We should certainly let out the pregnant women in prison referred to this morning. We should also think about elderly prisoners—those over the age of 65—as well as those with underlying health issues.

This is a population invisible to us. Therefore, I ask that, in monitoring, we take account of that too. We have to find ways of making sure that our prisons do not erupt into a source of serious disease and serious unrest, as that makes for a double punishment.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, first, I strongly support the very sensible amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. As I think we all know, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said so eloquently yesterday, myriad people are very worried about what is going on and are concerned that things will happen to them but their voice will not be heard. The Government have enough to worry about, so, from their point of view, it seems very sensible to have a review process in which an organisation such as the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations acts as a sort of funnel, pulling together all the myriad concerns that many of us seek to represent today through a single forum which can communicate regularly with the Government —it would be a two-way process. It seems eminently sensible to make sure that the people who are most worried feel that they are being heard and that there is a dialogue.

Secondly, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. The variety of powers that local authorities will be required to have—particularly in relation to children in care, children going through adoption or fostering, and child carers—is incredibly important. If they are worried, think what that is doing to the people they are caring for. Therefore, I feel that clarification in that respect would be enormously helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and other noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment.

I will get straight to the point. The first thing that I ask the Committee to do is recognise the nature and scale of what the Government have done so far to protect the jobs and incomes of millions of people. The package of measures that we have already announced is unprecedented and is one of the most generous business and welfare packages by any Government so far in response to Covid-19. In the context of those measures, which have been broadly welcomed, the Government absolutely acknowledge the calls for more to be done in relation to the self-employed. I completely agree with what noble Lords have said about the vital role played by the self-employed in our economy and our national life. We have always said that we would go further where we could, and I can tell the Committee that we are actively considering further steps, which I will come back to.

We have already improved the welfare safety net to ensure that self-employed people and freelancers are better protected. We are temporarily relaxing the minimum income floor for all self-employed universal credit claimants affected by the economic impact of Covid-19 from 6 April for the duration of the outbreak. This means that a drop in earnings due to sickness or self-isolation or as a result of the economic impact of the outbreak will be reflected in claimants’ awards. It ensures that the self-employed are supported by the benefits system so that they can follow Public Health England guidance on social distancing and self-isolation.

Freelancers and the self-employed will also benefit from the changes announced to the benefits system such as the £20 increase in the universal credit standard allowance, which will mean that claimants are better off by £1,040 a year and will benefit from the increases to the local housing allowance. I add that we are already making sure that benefits are easily accessible and more supportive for those who need to make a claim. Other changes announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor, such as deferring income tax self-assessment payments due in July 2020, are designed to help self-employed people and freelancers through this period.

My right honourable friend the Chancellor has stated that he is committed to going further to support individuals and businesses, and will provide a further update on support for the self-employed in the coming days. That is an assurance that I can give today. I have taken full note of the careful way in which the amendment has been drafted and the points articulated by noble Lords in support of it; they have been well and truly registered. An amendment to the Bill is not required for the Chancellor to provide further support for the self-employed, support that I emphasise is already planned and due to be announced shortly.

I emphasise again that everything is being done to ensure that everyone is supported to do the right thing for the good of us all. It would be wonderful for everyone if I were able to go further today, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will understand why I cannot, but I hope I have provided sufficient reassurance to enable him to feel comfortable in withdrawing the amendment.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

Will agency staff be included in any thoughts that the Government are having about those who might be assisted but who are currently not covered? Many care workers and many people working in offices even here in London are supplied by agencies which do not consider themselves to be their employers but to be facilitators and mediators in creating opportunities to work. They are not able to claim those workers as people for whom they can have the special 80% arrangement. Might such employees be covered by the Government’s thoughts?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point and one that I was familiar with in my previous role as a Health Minister. She is absolutely right: agency workers form a key part of the health and social care network and in other areas of our economy. I can assure her that they will not be overlooked.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

I fully acknowledge the noble Lord’s point. I refer him to the various measures that my right honourable friend announced for businesses generally, but in particular for small and medium-sized businesses. They are more vulnerable generally than larger businesses. The job retention scheme was specifically designed to address this situation, as he rightly said, as were mortgage holidays. The business interruption loan scheme is available to small businesses, particularly on finance facilities up to £5 million. That will enable more businesses to access the finance they need to assist cash flow. If it proves necessary for my right honourable friend to look at further measures, I have no doubt that he will do so.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

Like the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, I regret if I too am being something of a nuisance, but I recognise that this amendment seeks to deal with gaps, where people being short of funds would then create greater risks for others. I want the Government to keep in mind that this is our last chance for several weeks to talk about this because of the Easter break. I am seizing the moment to say in this House that there are people who have no recourse to public funds: asylum seekers. The Government should suspend the relevant policy immediately, so that people who face hardship, who have no recourse to public funds, who are often living in cramped circumstances and who are perhaps most vulnerable to the virus have opportunities to access funds.

[Earl Howe]

All I can do is assure the noble Baroness that the points she has made will be taken back to the department and considered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, rightly said, we on these Benches support these provisions. I thoroughly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, just said and it would be of enormous importance if the Minister gave the assurances that the noble Lord seeks.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

My Lords, I too support the amendment and hope that the Minister will make appropriate noises about why this matters. Around the world, legislation is being passed in other countries that does not have these kinds of protections attached to it. We are seeing legislation going through in Hungary and, I am afraid, elsewhere, which will greatly erode the rights of the people living in those places. I strongly encourage the Government not only to say that the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act will be conformed to, but to ensure that those are firm instructions given to all those who will be exercising powers under this exceptional piece of legislation.

Earlier today, I sought to insinuate into this debate something about people in prison. I was surprised to find that there was no real reference to prisons in the legislation. But this morning it was mentioned that there is a problem inside the prisons—a number of people have already been diagnosed as having Covid-19—and so people are being confined to their cells. It was indicated that decisions might be made about releasing certain people from custody. Again, I ask that this is done in a way that conforms to the Equality Act and the Human Rights Act, and that real steps are taken with respect to fairness. I ask also that people in prison—who are not getting access to their families in the way that most people who are self-isolating can, through the internet and so on—are given the mechanisms to do that: to have virtual meetings and other mechanisms for contact with their families. At the moment, there is misinformation inside the prison system, and it is likely to cause a great deal of unrest. I urge the Government to be clear about the importance of conforming to human rights and equality standards.

[Lord Scriven]

My Lords, I am a signatory to this amendment. I shall say two things: first, it is pleasing that the powers within the Bill talk about applying them under human rights legislation; secondly, I am glad those rights are included, because giving two and a half hours of parliamentary scrutiny to a Bill with such wide powers, even though it is emergency legislation, is not the way to make good legislation.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

My Lords, I am very pleased to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy; I second what she said about the prisons and would add immigration detention centres to that. People who have been accused of no crime should not be being held in dangerous conditions that threaten their lives. Particularly with this amendment, we have been focusing a lot on the level of fear. We have heard a great deal of powerful testimony about how fearful many people are—people with disabilities, people who are already ill and sick, and people who are old and frail. Regarding the kinds of reassurances that have been asked for: people may not know the fine details of the rights legislation, but a simple reassurance from the Government that they will comply with something that guarantees people’s rights will be terribly important.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

My Lords, I am sorry to rise again and beg the indulgence of the Committee. One of the categories of people that I am concerned about are non-documented—essentially, illegal—immigrants. The idea that they might have Covid-19 but not seek medical help because they are fearful of what might happen with regard to their immigration status should be a matter of concern to us. I hope that the Government will make a statement to say that nobody will face detriment to their position by seeking help, and that deportation will not meet them at the end of recovery. Something like that has to be said, or we will see the virus spreading through this category of people.

[Baroness Uddin]

My Lords, I too beg the indulgence of the Committee. I have raised this point on a number of occasions; I am raising it now with respect to the powers within the Bill relating to necessity and proportionality, particularly as regards matters of dignity in death and what may happen in the unforeseen circumstances that thousands of deaths occur among the faith communities, and cremation may be decided upon due to the lack of burial spaces and storage facilities. I am suggesting that Schedule 28 affects our human rights obligations.

I am requesting, therefore, on behalf of the many hundreds of individuals who have written to me, including faith leaders and organisations, that the Government remove from paragraphs 13(1) and (2) in Part 4 of Schedule 28 the words

“have regard to the desirability of disposing”

and replace them with “dispose”, and then delete from paragraphs 13(1)(b) and 13(2)(b) the words

“in a way that appears”

so that the necessary guarantees are provided in the legislation, which will be required to provide assurance to the relevant faith communities.

Business of the House

Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

I do not normally like to use the H word, but it will be printed in Hansard and I will not be applying for it to be expunged.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

I have listened to repeated references to hypocrisy, but the greatest hypocrisy of all is taking place before our eyes. I have listened to the noble Lord all afternoon: you have repeated over and again the same matters. You are filibustering. You are preventing us reaching a Bill of importance to this country, and you are doing it because you want to waste time. You do not want us to reach that Bill, which is about preventing no deal. That is the shocking thing. You are not interested in following through on what the elected House has done. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, gave it away in a moment when someone asked, “Why are you making a Second Reading speech; you can make that on the Bill when it comes”, and she said, “If we reach it, I will make it”. She, you and many others are trying to prevent us reaching that Bill. That is disgraceful. It is a real disgrace, and you should be ashamed. I am ashamed watching this. This House has the respect of the country. You are bringing it into disrepute.

[Lord True]

I would like to think that the noble Baroness will reflect on the discourtesy of her words.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

The noble Lord accused noble Lords on these Benches of hypocrisy. In reply, I want to say that the greatest act of guillotine to take place was the introduction of a Prorogation to avoid debate. That was a fundamental guillotine that flew in the face of our democracy. That is why people up and down the country feel affronted by it. I regret to say so, but the noble Lord is carrying on that affront with what is happening in this House tonight. The continuation of this nonsense is an affront to our democracy.

[Lord Dobbs]

May I try to lower the temperature a little and smooth these choppy waters? I came into the House during the time of the coalition Government. I saw everything that I needed to know about filibustering from the Labour Benches when they tried to oppose so much of the then coalition Government’s constitutional programme. From an outside perspective, it appears that the general public look at us as Tweedledum and Tweedledumber. Can we back away from the idea that all fault lies on one side or the other and listen to my noble friend’s wise words?

Privileges and Conduct Committee

Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

My Lords, I did not speak during the debate on 15 November, nor did the leaders of the other main political groups, despite all of us being members of the Privileges and Conduct Committee who unanimously supported its conclusions. We felt then, as now, that whether or not to endorse the committee’s report is not a party-political decision but a House decision. However, as Leader of this House, I feel that today I should speak briefly.

As the Senior Deputy Speaker has said, to an extent the recommendations of the committee’s report have been overtaken by Lord Lester’s decision to retire from the House last Wednesday. But it remains important for us to come to a conclusion on the Motion before the House in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McFall. For my part, I fully support it. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is not intending to speak today, but he has asked me to make it clear that the report has his full support too.

I and my fellow members of the Privileges and Conduct Committee believe that the commissioner carefully and methodically followed the procedures set out for her by our Code of Conduct, which I am confident comply with the procedures of natural justice and fairness. Our commissioner is both impartial and independent. She sought and received instruction from the sub-committee in the way she approached the investigation. She ensured that Lord Lester was aware of all the points made by the complainant, and had time to respond to them, and she carefully evaluated all the evidence and explained why she reached her conclusions. A great deal of work went into the investigation of the complaint and into ensuring both parties were given a fair opportunity to comment, and that is only right: two people’s reputations were at stake.

During the debate on 15 November, much was said about the process followed by the commissioner not being fair, because it did not provide for cross-examination, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has repeated. The absence of cross-examination does not mean that the process followed was unfair. Our code provides for an inquisitorial rather than an adversarial system to determine breaches. What is necessary—and what our code provides—is an impartial adjudicator who takes full statements from all parties, gives each party notice of the case made by the others, gives all parties the opportunity to respond and carefully reaches decisions by thorough testing and evaluation of all available evidence. That is what our commissioner did.

As a House, we should show that we support the processes that we ourselves have put in place and that we are capable of regulating ourselves. I am sure that I am not alone in being very concerned at the letter sent by 74 well-esteemed staff of this House expressing their disappointment in the outcome of our previous debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, this has not been a happy experience for any of us, but I truly hope that following our further debate today, noble Lords will support the report of the committee.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I was not present at the previous debate. Ironically, I was in India speaking to a gathering of senior judges about the failure of justice systems to deliver justice for women and the underlying problems, sometimes with the law but more often with attitudes, that persist in our societies to the detriment of women.

Had I been here, I would not have voted. I would have recused myself because of my friendship with Anthony Lester. I have known him since I was a young barrister. I have huge admiration for him, and my fondness for him and his family is considerable, but we do not sit in judgment in cases involving a friend or a colleague. No juror would sit in a case where a friend was in the dock; no judge would sit in such a case. That is because friendships colour our judgment. We do not want to think ill of a friend. We see their pain and feel their humiliation. We hear their side of the story and want to believe it. That is in the nature of friendship; we are partisan.

That was why we created in this House an independent commissioner. It was because we recognised that the risks of partisanship were great. We recognised that institutions often protect their own, as we had seen the scandals around the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the BBC, the police and different aspects of the establishment. Reflecting on all that, we created the current rules.

I ask the same question as the Senior Deputy Speaker: when the previous debate took place, who was in the House to make the case for the complainant, to speak as her friends and to speak of her character and achievements? That was why, when I read the Hansard of the debate, I was covered in gloom: it was an ill judged and misconceived debate. Although it was presented as being about process, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others expressed views that implied they found such an accusation difficult to believe of their friend. That is how we all feel about our friends. The debate was presented as being about process, but it was not about justice.

All the tropes that imply that women are somehow not be to be relied on were presented to this House; for example, about delay. We have learned that delay is not a reason for not believing somebody, especially when they have experienced some transgression of a sexual kind. Things were said about writing something nice in a book about somebody who might have done something inappropriate to you, but probably every woman in this House will tell you how you get on with business after somebody has behaved inappropriately and try to normalise it so that your relationships can continue, especially if your promotion, your Bill, which you are trying to get through Parliament, or your pupillage might rely on the good will of the person who has crossed the line.

I want to remind the House of the terrible folly that has blighted this distressing business in the way that it has been discussed in the media and in this House: the confusion between criminal trial rules and disciplinary processes. This is not a criminal process—I want to emphasise that to many of the older lawyers in this House who do not seem to have kept up with the times and the disappointment that women feel about how legal processes fail them. This is a disciplinary process. Talk of proof beyond reasonable doubt, rigorous cross-examination and the need for counsel is wholly inappropriate.

Let us remember why: we are here dealing with an imbalance of power. That is the basis of the complaint. Women are complaining that their working lives and professional interactions are blighted by sexual harassment. There will be few women in this House who have not experienced it at some point in their careers. Many of us just learned to brush it off and get on with things but the young do not accept that any more; they want proper processes and they do not want it to be dealt with in the way that has been described by many of our older lawyers. Young women will not come forward to make complaints about powerful men if they are going to be subjected to Old Bailey-style quizzing in the presence of the very Lord they are complaining about.

Let us imagine that it is a young librarian in this House who has been groped by a Peer. Is she really expected to face him or his well-heeled lawyer? How do we create equality of arms when we have a Lord able to secure the professional services of a top QC and the young librarian can afford no such grandeur? Do we find some low-level lawyer and pay him or her out of the public purse when we are cutting legal aid so much to the bone that most people are having difficulty finding representation? Could we justify it? It was for all these reasons that Members of this House devised a system in keeping with most disciplinary procedures, using the inquisitorial method, not the traditional adversarial method. That means an independent assessor, arbitrator or commissioner investigating the complaint, sensitively testing its veracity, applying the same careful, probing attention to the account of the person complained of and then allowing each the opportunity to respond to the account of the other. The commissioner then reaches a conclusion on whether the complaint has probity.

I have sat in that role on a number of occasions. She has the advantage over any of us in that she has heard the live accounts of both parties. We invented this process without complaint at the time. I have no doubt that it could be improved and, as we go forward, I think it should be. Because of my own experience in these cases, sitting as the commissioner did, I suggest that it is better to sit with another assessor, as I usually do. I have always felt that I benefited from the help of others in evaluating credibility. The commissioner in this case has been subjected to wholly unjust criticism. She is a very experienced solicitor and we chose her carefully after a competitive process. She has dealt, in her 40 years’ experience, day in, day out, with the stuff of humankind, sitting as a judge in mental health matters. She is not an acquisitions and mergers lawyer, a commercial contracts lawyer, or someone dealing with fine points of law in the Supreme Court, but she has dealt, day in, day out, with the stuff of human frailty—human falls from grace and issues of dishonesty and honesty. We burdened her with the responsibility of judgment on our behalf and she deserves our respect, rather than what she was treated to.

I shall mention one area where I think she may have been wrong in law. She took the view that the allegations stood or fell together. While she may have felt handicapped by Lord Lester’s position that all the matters were fabricated, it was quite possible, for example, that there was inappropriate conduct and an unwelcome sexual pass but that the business of having a discussion about coming into this House, perhaps sitting on the Cross Benches—a discussion that many of us might have had with talented persons we thought might have contributed to this House—might have been misunderstood. The two may have become conflated, so to have felt that the allegations all stood or fell together seems to me a mistake. Evidence is not a seamless role: you can be absolutely truthful and right about one thing and mistaken about something else. The Privileges Committee, however, agreed with the commissioner’s decision and this House will have to make a decision too.

I suggest to the House that those who are friends of Lord Lester, like me, should not be voting. I will not vote. It would not be appropriate: I am conflicted between my friendship with Lord Lester and my desire to see greater justice for women. I believe that we still have not got the system for women right.

Before I finish, I want to say that I think the suspension of four years was too long, but that boat has sailed now that Lord Lester has resigned.

[Lord Pannick]

As a matter of information, it is not my intention to call a vote today.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

That is a source of relief to many of us. It would have been very inappropriate, as it was on the last occasion.

I feel very sad about this whole business. I am sad for the complainant. I am sad that the commissioner has had a tough time. I am sad for Lord Lester, his wife and his family. I want us to make a pledge to behave better. As men and women, we are trying to remake our world. We want an equal society. We will achieve that only when there is mutual respect between men and women. We can only do that together, as men and women. This House should see that we do that as we go forward. These processes have to be good enough for the job.

Brexit: Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration

Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, the strapline that has been used to sell Brexit is “bring back control”. I cannot help but think that it was probably cynically invented by advertising men on behalf of the masters of the universe who really do want control. I am afraid that the leading lights of the Brexit movement and the people behind them—I emphasise that—are in the business of breaking up Europe as a trading bloc because it sets standards too high for the maximisation of profit. It regulates for the protection of workers and the environment and for the maintenance of standards in commodities and products. It involves collaboration on tax avoidance and restrains corporate excesses. Its members collaborate in dealing with serious crime, with matters like the exploitation of workers, and with criminal matters such as trafficking and the laundering of money.

You can understand why there are people who might be interested in getting rid of some of those regulations. For fundamentalist free-marketeers, minimising regulation is a religion, and you have only to spend time with them to see that. That is what this is about: trading without constraint. That is the attraction of World Trade Organization rules: the idea that we do not have to live by, and set, the standards in the way that we do as part of the EU bloc.

So this is in fact an elite project being sold to people who are already suffering the consequences of globalisation. Those people are already victim to the removal of safety nets and protections—austerity was used for that—but Brexit is being sold as a project of liberation, and that is dishonest. The dishonesty is not only fraudulent, it is mindlessly cruel. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft: you cannot possibly know about the lives of ordinary people if you can be sanguine about the idea of us leaving Europe altogether and turning our back on it.

To be utterly careless of the consequences for many in our population is shocking. There is now recognition across the board of the financial damage to the economy and the lives of people in Britain—particularly the poorest, as some have suggested, but also the middle classes, the majority—that would be caused by no deal but also by the deal being offered by the Prime Minister. Even the wild elements of the Brexit leadership, who want out at any cost and, as we have heard, actually want no deal, admit that there will be detrimental financial consequences but claim that it will be worth it in the end. They will say that as they sit and eat cake like Marie Antoinette. They will happily throw the poorest to the wolves. They also claim to be devoted unionists but do not seem to care very much about our relationship with Scotland and are prepared to put Northern Ireland at risk. That claim of concern for peace in Ireland is phoney, as we can see from the way that the technological fix has been promoted when we know it cannot yet work. There has to be a customs union.

Their ideological position makes them blind to good argument. How can Jacob Rees-Mogg, with a bare face, move the headquarters of his own business to Ireland to ease his pain while the rest have no such option? How can the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, apply for a French passport to ease his travel arrangements to his house in France when no such convenience is available to most of our children who want the option of working in Europe? To the leading lights of the Brexit movement, freedom means every man for himself without restraint. I say “man” advisedly because it is poor women who will suffer the most. Some 90% of single parents struggling on low wages are women. You can be sure that employment protections will disappear if there is no deal. Part-time workers, who are mainly women, are protected—they have holiday pay, maternity rights and so on—yet we hear a constant moan about the burden of those employee protections on business. That is not a burden; it is what decent societies expect of good employers. As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday, there are moral issues at the heart of this debate, and we should not forget it.

On the issue of law, I am very concerned that the withdrawal agreement put forward by the Prime Minister still does not go far enough in protecting EU citizens living in this country. What happens to their voting rights in European elections? What happens if, for example, they are posted somewhere for five years? Do they lose their opportunity of being protected as citizens here in this country? Often they have homes and families here now.

There is little reassurance on the law front. The whole business of having put a red line around the European court means that we are now setting up arbitration panels. If you examine the report, you will see that it is not suggesting that they will be totally transparent and operate like proper courts, because of course we cannot admit to their being courts due to this nonsense about red lines.

I am very concerned about the loss of the European arrest warrant. It is really important in collaboratively dealing with crime that crosses borders. Extradition processes will be difficult with somewhere like Germany, which has provisions in its constitution saying that it will not hand over its citizens to anyone else. There are other countries in Europe in the same position. The Euro-warrant rose above all that, and now we are going to be outside it.

The hypocritical behaviour of some of the leading Brexiteers betrays deep cynicism. The purpose of this project is really deregulation. It is an elite project for extreme globalisation, and the people who will suffer the most are the majority of the citizens of this country. It will line the pockets of a few. This is ideology gone mad. It is ideology that is red in tooth and claw; it says the welfare state should be cut to the bare minimum, opposes trade unionism and wants the lowest of tax levels. It has no roots in one-nation conservatism or social democracy, and as far as I am concerned we are going to see our nation suffer as a result of this blind ideological move.

I believe that many people in this country have had the opportunity, as the discussions and negotiations have unfolded, to see what this is really going to mean. I will absolutely vote against the withdrawal deal that the Prime Minister has come back with because it is not in the interests of this country, and I will certainly want to see “no deal” taken off the table. We should be taking this back to the people, and if the Prime Minister were sensible she would initiate that by saying, “Are you in favour of my deal or do you want to remain?” I hope that is the course that is eventually taken.

Salisbury Incident Update

Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I thank my noble friend for his comments. This is of course an extremely serious situation. As the Prime Minister made clear, and as I did in repeating her Statement, we will return to the House as soon as further conversations have been had to make sure that the House is fully updated on these extremely important matters. We need to come together and make sure that we take action to defend this country and keep our citizens safe.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Prime Minister’s Statement and the strong language that she has used in deploring what has taken place. I know she must be basing that on intelligence and information she has received in the last days, which point towards it being “highly likely”—a high standard of proof—that Russia was responsible for these poisonings. We know that, even if this was not the work of Russian agents, there is evidence that Russia frequently outsources some of this kind of activity. Having watched closely the developments around Litvinenko, my concern is that we did not learn the lessons then and put in place a Magnitsky law. I want to challenge the idea that the pieces of law that we have managed to put together from different legislation that has gone through this House in recent years fill all the gaps; it is my suggestion that they do not. We had to fight very hard—

[The Countess of Mar (CB)]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness but is she aware that this is the time for Back-Bench questions, not for statements or discussion?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

I just wanted to put it to the House and the Minister that the Magnitsky law has not been fulfilled. For example, opposition is still being made to the Bill on visas that I put before the House just before Christmas. We are not seeing visas being refused to government officials travelling here from Russia. We know who many of them are—they own properties in Belgravia and apartments all over London—but we are not refusing them visas. The likelihood is that Putin would take really seriously our measures to prevent them coming here and taking part in activities here with impunity.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, we have a range of powers. For instance, we have a power to exclude from the UK non-EEA individuals whose presence is not conducive to the public good; EEA nationals may be excluded on the grounds of public policy or public security; and a person may be excluded for a range of reasons, including national security, criminality, involvement in war crimes, crimes against humanity, corruption and unacceptable behaviour. As the Prime Minister made clear in response to questions in the other place, we will continue to keep these matters in mind and, if we feel further action needs to be taken, we will consider doing so.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 31st January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, since the referendum this nation has been on a rather incredible journey. Our learning curve has been huge; at least for most of us in Parliament, certainly for me. There are ideologues who do not want to listen to the fine detail about anything, but there cannot be many of us who have not discovered through debate, conversation or the media that the strata of connections and collaborations between the nations of Europe run very deep and to the benefit of us all.

I find myself repeating, “if only”. If only the national debate before the referendum had been as rich in information. If only people had known just how much poorer this rupture will make them and their children. If only they had seen how it would diminish us as a nation and reduce our power in the world. If only people had known about the damage to our constitution that the referendum would unleash, with all the talk of “the will of the people”, forgetting that we live in a representative democracy and that that will is expressed through having representatives in Parliament, precisely because they immerse themselves in the complexity of issues.

If only there had been a proper debate about cross-border trading always requiring an overarching international court of some kind. All the bluster about wanting our own courts to decide everything that affects us did not deal with the fact that if you trade with Poland the Poles are not going to settle for a UK court deciding the outcome of a dispute. The World Trade Organization, out there in the great blue yonder to which Brexiteers aspire, also has its own court to deal with disputes. Norway and its little grouping in their semi-detached relationship with Europe had to invent the EFTA Court for precisely that reason.

If only people had been truly informed about the high level of medical and scientific advances—the creation of medicines and cancer remedies—that are made because of experts working closely together. There are the benefits to our universities in advancing knowledge and understanding. Defence and security collaborations prevent conflict and crime. There is consumer protection. There is the risk now to peace in Ireland. Was it ever fully explained that the customs union was key to a borderless Ireland?

If only we had not had a slanging match but instead had grown to understand the extent and benefits of the financial and trading relationships that flowed from our membership. If only we had spoken softly about how important it is to work with our closest neighbours because it stops wars and that together we can keep a check on the rise of extremism. With neighbours, there are inevitably aspects of the connection that grate on us and which we would like to change, but that should never be the reason for pulling up the drawbridge.

I am a lawyer, and because of the nature of my practice I am all too aware of the incredible advantages of Europe, Eurojust and a European arrest warrant. The underbelly of markets is black markets, and today they cross borders. We have trafficking in drugs, arms, fissile material, body parts, human eggs, babies, and women and children for sex and domestic servitude. You cannot deal with that kind of crime without close collaboration and developed mechanisms, and these require reciprocity and a level of legal harmony.

A few weeks ago, the House of Lords European Union sub-committee on justice issues, which I chair, heard from a very distinguished judge on the EFTA Court. He had been its president for 12 years and had sat on it for years beforehand. I asked him whether we could be part of the Euro-warrant system—EFTA is not part of that system—without the European Court of Justice. His answer was no.

So how are we going to collaborate on all these issues of crime? Legal processes affecting families, individuals and businesses are reliant on essential regulations that have been very successful and to whose creation we have been party: Brussels 1, Brussels 2 and the maintenance regulation. A woman married to an Italian can go to her local court and get an order if he shoves off back to Italy and is not paying maintenance for his children. A company that suddenly has a default from its trading partner in Poland can go to a court in Middlesbrough and get an order that will be effective over there. That is done because of mutuality, and it is reciprocal. I fear that bringing law in here, nailing it down and saying, “We are introducing it”, does not deal with that reciprocity. We are going to have to have 27 separate relationships in order to make it happen.

The Henry VIII powers still have not been adequately constrained in the amendments that passed in the Commons, and I am very concerned about what the implications will be for the rights of individuals in this country. We have been given an account that employment rights will not be eroded. I am afraid I do not have much confidence in those promises because we know that a section of the Conservative Party is very keen to deregulate and remove employment protections around the working time directive, the agency work directive, pregnancy protections and so on. Across the whole of Europe there is a European protection order to deal with violence against women and girls. Did your Lordships know that? Of course not; most people do not.

What about the promise of meaningful debate at the end of all this? There has to be a clarification about the options that will be available, because one of the options has to be to remain. I hope the amendments will nail down some of these problems. I am most concerned about the excision of the Charter of Fundamental Rights from the Bill. That should set alarm bells ringing because it is telling us that rights are not a high priority for this Government.

It is hard for people to change their minds, but with more complete information people do so. We do it in our daily lives. I will deeply regret it if we do not put information clearly in front of people. I am not going to settle for a bad deal, and if that means a second referendum then noble Lords can count on me being behind it.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to be in this House; we all know it. Many have expressed misgivings about the unelected nature of this part of the legislature, but the rationale is one I want to remind us about. The rational for our being here—appointed—is that we bring expertise from so many different walks of life. Expertise is an idea that is now derided. The strength of this House is that we have people from many walks of life and with great diversity. We have seen holes being plugged in recent times, with people coming from our different communities. That abundance of experience is to be brought to bear on the legislation that comes before us. I ask this question quite pointedly: are we supposed to abandon that experience when it really matters and when we are dealing with the most important issue of our lifetime?

We in this House have a higher duty. We are more than fine-tuners of legislation. The idea is that this House takes the long view, and that we have to consider the well-being of our kingdom—of our nations within this kingdom. We are the guardians, too, of hard-won rights and liberties. In the modern world that has included the ones that have come from our collaboration with our European neighbours. They are important ones—the rights to live, work, study and love across Europe, our rights around employment, our maternity rights, and our rights on the environment and on many other areas that enhance our lives.

We do not have to look over our shoulder in the way that our elected House does. We are also stewards of the constitution. We also do not have to worry about the threats that are made by the hectoring media, and we can ignore trolls on the internet because most of us are at an age when those things do not count. We in this House should be able to exercise independent judgment, and I believe that we have a duty to do so in this historic decision. The consequences may be dire for these islands. They may be dire for future generations. I say as a Scot that I am worried for Scotland. I say as someone of Irish heritage that I am worried about peace in Ireland. I am worried for our economy. As a person from a working-class background, I think that the ordinary folk of this country are going to suffer greatly. I am worried for a vast array of good law that has come from this alliance. I say that as a lawyer and as the chair of the EU Justice Sub-Committee.

While there is a myth that we are the victims of a wash of law that comes from Europe, in fact we have contributed greatly to the creation of that law: harmonising standards, ensuring that the judgments in our courts are enforced easily and speedily throughout the European Union and protecting small businesses doing business with other countries. We have created consumer rights, and the quality of goods that are being sold has to meet our standards. It means that we can easily sue through our courts and have the judgments made effective.

We have to think very seriously about our role. Membership of this trading bloc has protected us against the downsides of globalisation. I ask us to ask ourselves: “Do you think that this conjunction of Brexit with Trump is not perilous for the United Kingdom? Is it not dangerous to become more reliant on a nation led by a man who is temperamentally unsuited to high office and so unstable and irrational? Should we not be thinking about how that affects foreign affairs and why we are not better placed by being part of this Union?”

I want us to think about this business of, “The people have spoken”. I am tired of hearing this distortion. It is a degrading of our public discourse. It is a poisoning of honest debate, as 48% of our nation who voted, voted against leaving. It would be incredibly divisive if we ignored them. I want us to think very seriously about the implications of this process. Like others, I reject the triggering of Article 50 in the way that the Government have laid it out, telling us that the single market is already off the table. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby, telling us that the Prime Minister made a UKIP speech. What a shame.

The Government have now agreed that the final deal will come before both Houses, but I will ask a question. A statement like that has political force but does not have legal force. What does the promise mean if it is not in the Bill? I am concerned about what happens if our negotiators do not reach an agreement, or part of Parliament votes against the agreement. We have been told by Ministers such as David Jones that, if a deal is agreed and Parliament rejects it, we simply go off to the World Trade Organization’s trading rules. That should be a matter of serious concern, so I want to see that in the Bill so that we might have a proper opportunity to vote on those matters.

I am also concerned, as many are, about the position of people who have lived in this country for a number of years and whose rights are going to be trampled on. I hope that an amendment to protect them will be forthcoming and will be voted on by this House. This House has gained increasing public respect in recent years. The reason is that we protect the common good. We are expected by the public to bring the weight of our experience to bear and to say that, basically, that experience is worth something. If our consciences are telling us that Brexit is a folly, with potentially disastrous consequences for the country, we have to listen to that voice of conscience and instinct. History will record what each of us does and our children and grandchildren, and theirs in turn, will ask, “What did you do when this was decided? What did you do at this crucial juncture? Were you shackled by convention, fearful that the House was going to be abolished? Did you dance to the tune of the Daily Mail, or did you stand up for principle and posterity, for the values of tolerance and inclusion, for the interests of our young and for the neglected communities in our midst?”. I will support vital amendments and, if they are not accepted, I am going to vote against the Bill. This House should be urging a rethink on this whole project. This House should be saying, “Not in our name”.

Outcome of the European Union Referendum

Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, the British electorate have given the political, financial and business establishment a massive kick in the teeth by voting to leave the European Union. The vote will plunge Britain into uncertainty for years to come. It also reverses the solidarity on which the European continent’s stability was based—that great vision for peace and justice which excited so many of us when we were young, and which undoubtedly still excites so many of the young who have taken to the streets in recent days.

Warnings came from every quarter but, if anything, those warnings goaded a defiant mood in people. Europe's failings—undoubtedly there are many—were simply not sufficient to explain what Britain has done to itself. This was a revolt, as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and others have said, against global capitalism and neo-liberal economics. I say that as someone who firmly believes in pluralism and mixed economies, and that you cannot create the kind of chasm that we are creating between rich and poor in the world, but also here in Britain. We have left too many people behind. They know it, they feel it, and they are angry.

A majority of people showed their disdain for politicians who had embraced an economics that caused the 2008 financial meltdown, forced austerity upon them, gave them stagnant working-class wages, increased immigration, denied them decent housing, made them wait longer to see doctors, made them have difficulty in getting their children into schools, and allowed tax havens and tax-fiddling for the rich. They also knew that many of the people seeking to come here, wanting asylum because they are fleeing persecution or war, do so as a direct result of that disastrous war in Iraq, and what we have done to the Middle East. The fact that some of these issues had no direct link with the European Union did not matter. It was a convenient target in a febrile angry moment, much like the makings of Trump in the United States. We now may see Europe unravelling. Our vote got a hurrah from Geert Wilders in Holland and Marine Le Pen in France, who want to follow suit, and no doubt there also was applause from the right-wing party that is back in the running in Austria. We also know that Putin, Trump, Sarah Palin and a whole collection of people who do not bring down much admiration from me are also celebrating. We have leapt into the dark, and it is truly dark. Jettisoning the status quo for an unknown is full of risk of financial downturn, possible recession, higher unemployment and political turbulence.

I want to speak about law because it is my area. I have just come from a European Union Select Committee that met this afternoon in the later hours, and there heard from the Minister, David Lidington, and from Oliver Letwin, who is of course in charge of the Brexit unit. Mr Letwin described a review of law that began eight days ago—law in huge quantity. The whole of the Government Legal Service has been mobilised to map the statutes and the statutory instruments, the “by direct effect” instruments, the jurisprudence—all of it—and it will be kept to that work for a long time to come. Yet what we did not tell people was that many of those laws have greatly improved their lives, particularly in employment law, providing protections for part-time workers, agency workers’ rights and people who are in fixed-term work. Then there are the rights to holiday leave, collective redundancy, maternity and paternity leave, equal pay for women and anti-discrimination in employment. All those things, which would not have happened because of the Thatcher attacks on trade unions, were protected by our involvement in the European Union.

The European Union has given us environmental protections and climate change targets. I know that they are not attractive to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, a denier as he is of climate change, but they are very important to many of us and to future generations. Then think of the collaborative work that has been done on crime and security, terrorism and trafficking. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, suggests, we leave all that behind, we will be cut out of the Euro warrant, Eurojust and Europol, and out of the mutual legal assistance that is so important. The intergovernmental work on harmonising, for measures such as the Sale of Goods Act and protection for consumers, copyright law and digital commerce, is all to go out the window, along with data protection law. Then there is all the stuff that we know about in relation to education—the ways in which long-term research will be put in jeopardy.

Then there is the issue of sanctions. I chair the Justice Sub-Committee of the EU Select Committee, and sanctions is one of the issues that comes before us all the time. Think of how effective those have been in bringing Mr Putin to heel. It is all much more effective when done at the European level. Think of the contracts that have been entered into in trade relations, which reach beyond any leave-by date, and how we are going to have to revisit that. And now there are constitutional arguments about who gets to trigger Article 50, and so on. We are grieving; we are all going through that passion of grief, when people are told that they have a terminal illness, they start off in shock and are numb and then get angry and reach for other alternative possibilities that might keep them alive. That is what we are all going through—a terrible process of grief, for those of us who want to remain in Europe.

The Minister said today that the Government agree that there is a role for Parliament. There has to be one, because we have to repeal the European Communities Act 1972. There has to be one because of all this legislation. I am afraid that we have opened a door on turbulent times for our Parliament but also for our society and, I suspect, for the whole of Europe. I want to invoke to all noble Lords the Latin mantra of festina lente—to hasten slowly—and to be very careful of what we are doing, because we do not know where we are going. I echo something that my noble friend Lord Howarth said—that this may provide an opportunity for us to rethink where we went wrong, across our political parties. It is a responsibility that could be put at the doors of previous Governments of any colour. We failed to look after a whole section of our communities and now is the time to think again about where we went wrong.