Syria
Baroness Lawlor Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
We have had many debates in this House about the role of the BBC, and in particular the World Service. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that it can continue to function. The important thing about the BBC is its independence. It is a reliable voice. It is not for me to comment on it. We must ensure that it is able to continue broadcasting that reliable and truthful voice. All our actions in Syria are through NGOs and other civilian groups. We will continue to support them in humanitarian ways and in other ways; it is an inclusive process that we want to ensure for the future of Syria.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I thank the Minister for the Statement. Among regional partners, he identified Turkey. What exchanges are taking place with the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, who is involved in going to Turkey to discuss in Ankara the clashes between US forces in northern Syria and Turkish-backed rebels?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Both the Foreign Secretary and Minister Falconer have been trying to ensure the de-escalation of any potential conflicts. We want to see a process of transition that is inclusive. That is what Secretary of State Blinken is ensuring, that is what his discussions are doing and that is what Minister Falconer is trying to do. We are in a very fast-changing situation, but it needs calm heads to stay above it.
House of Lords Reform
Baroness Lawlor Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Lord Privy Seal for her introduction and for the opportunity to consider House of Lords reform. There are many matters to which a new Government might apply reformist zeal: the public services, the public finances and the UK immigration and asylum system could all do with structural reform, as people from across the political divide agree. But the arrangements for Britain’s separate constitutional powers are not of the same order. They have evolved over time, like a tapestry reworked and mended to fulfil a clear purpose—a function, as has been mentioned—and, in doing so, to protect the democratic freedoms of this country and the liberty of its people.
As we have heard today, there are three powers. There is the legislature, a Parliament of two Houses, of which this House is one and the other is a directly elected Chamber. There is a judiciary recognised for its independence and expertise. It, with this Chamber, is the watchdog of the third power, the Executive—the Government of the day, accountable to the electorate, through the ballot box, and indirectly through Parliament, under arrangements for each House, which, with their functions, have also evolved. Innocuous as they may seem, these arrangements ensure not only that people are governed under laws they have a say in making, by a Parliament and representatives they elect, but that those who govern are accountable and the laws are properly made. Changing the composition of this Chamber, removing certain categories of Peer without simultaneous plans for the alternative, opens the way for a House of Lords packed by the Government and unlikely to hold them to account. We would be back full circle to the cry of Lloyd George and the Liberals when they described the House of Lords as “Mr Balfour’s poodle” only this time it will be Sir Keir’s, and we have had a flavour of how executive power will be used.
This country has slipped into each century as if by accident, evolving gradually and, from the 18th century, without the violence, civil war or bloody revolutions to which our European neighbours have too often been victim. Nor has it suffered totalitarian rule, to which some neighbours have been subject in our own hundred years. The costs of that were great, not only to ordered government but in the assault on liberty and property rights. By contrast, this country, through its separate constitutional powers, extended the franchise, moved to religious and democratic arrangements and accommodated the replacement of the main opposition party, the Liberals, with the Labour Party as one of the main parties of government. When it came to govern, the Labour Party put country before ideology, accepted the arrangements under which it was governed and sought to work with the constitution, guaranteeing freedoms and liberty, not against it.
The Prime Minister has already mentioned regret at some of the failings evident in his first 100 days. Let him now turn the corner and be true to a better Labour tradition, rather than make an assault without due process on how we are governed and why. I hope he will think again before making this reckless move.