Women, Peace and Security Bill [HL]

Baroness Northover Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and her work over many years. Your Lordships have already passed an earlier version of her Bill, and I am sure we will do so again.

As the noble Baroness so cogently laid out, women and girls are disproportionately impacted by conflict, and conflicts are on the rise. Climate change and the migration that it is driving—which is likely to intensify —adds a further threat. Poverty has always rendered women and girls particularly vulnerable, and we know that rape is used as a weapon of war. Internationally, it has been recognised that women have too often not been involved in peace processes, which the UN has sought to address through Resolution 1325 and subsequent resolutions, and post-conflict measures to ensure that, as in Rwanda, women are well represented in parliament.

It is an ongoing struggle, as we have heard. The Bill seeks to ensure that the UK leads in promoting the participation of women in peacebuilding, conflict resolution and prevention efforts, and in protecting women and girls from violence. The United Kingdom is the penholder for women, peace and security at the UN Security Council, and it is therefore right that we take a leading role on this issue.

There has been some criticism of the UK’s efforts in this regard. The merger of DfID with the FCO was a major distraction, and NGOs report that short-term planning focuses on immediate relief rather than the long-term resilience needed to build sustainable peace. That reflects why it is worth putting the Bill into place.

We also see absolutely the lowest depths in Afghanistan, as we heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy and Lady Hodgson. We heard this morning about the treatment of a woman in Iran, who is in a clinic because she would not wear a hijab. We also face an escalating backlash against women’s rights and gender equality, as we saw in the American elections. We know about the right-wing push-back on sexual and reproductive rights, and the way in which such groups are actively curtailing women’s rights in Africa. What will now happen with the US programmes? Trump took them backwards in his previous Administration and looks set to do so again. Respecting the sexual and reproductive health and rights of women and girls is vital to their overall position.

Even the annual meeting of the UN Commission on the Status of Women has to battle every year not to go backwards. Can the Minister outline how SRHR is addressed in conflict situations? Can he assure us that the UK still adheres to the principle that abortion services should be offered in cases where international humanitarian law trumps local laws—for example, where a woman has been raped in conflict? We established that over a decade ago and I trust that our policy on this is unchanged. Can he update us on what support is being given to women and girls in Afghanistan? We also hear terrible stories from Sudan, so can he update us on what support is being provided there? What support, if any, is being offered to women and girls in the terrible conditions now pertaining in Gaza?

I wish the noble Baroness success with her Bill. I hope that she will see it speed through the Commons. As a result of what she said, I expect the Minister to say that the Government will now back this Bill. I look forward to his response.

UN Sustainable Development Goals

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for putting down this subject for debate and for his continuing advocacy for the SDGs. As he mentioned, the millennium development goals made significant progress by their end date of 2015, with the halving of extreme poverty. The sustainable development goals had the ambitious target of ending extreme poverty while leaving no one behind. It was not to be a matter of averages. There were 17 goals and ambitions within each; it was comprehensive.

The UK played a key role in the development of the SDGs. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, was one of the conveners, and Michael Anderson, from DfID, was the key person, turning the discussions and commitments into an agreement. At the time, the UK was meeting the UN commitment of 0.7% of GNI for development. It was part of the coalition agreement. The last piece of legislation that went through Parliament in the final days of the coalition put that into law. It was part of our soft power, and of the UK playing a global role.

What then happened? That commitment was abandoned, as we heard. Then, without warning or consultation, and clearly lacking awareness of what he was doing, damaging even the UK university sector, including the Jenner Institute at Oxford, Boris Johnson destroyed DfID, theoretically merging it with the FCO, despite their different aims and expertise. That merger has still not fully settled, but we have lost a lot of development expertise and lost our leading place on this in the world.

Where are we now, and where is the world in achieving those SDGs? As the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, pointed out, we are just a few years from 2030. The UN reports that escalating global conflicts and increasing climate-related crises have badly affected the world’s ability to achieve those SDGs.

We know that investment in development is not only right but in our interest. As Bill Gates wrote in the Times this week,

“we see every day … how events in one part of the world have ripple effects, whether that’s through food prices, migration, or the spread of a disease like mpox”.

As he rightly argues, assisting countries to develop lifts everyone. Think of the populist exploitation of migration and the division caused in western societies by this, let alone the benefit to all of us of growth in the global economy.

The UN puts the lack of progress, and even reversal in some areas, down to the pandemic, conflicts, climate shocks and economic turmoil. Climate change is surely the most fundamental of all these challenges. The UN’s Global Humanitarian Overview 2024 stated that climate-related disasters are rising sharply—we all know this. It noted that 2023 was the hottest year on record, with drought in the Horn of Africa, wildfires in Canada, floods in north Africa, Europe and China, and heatwaves across the world. It noted a significant increase in the number of displaced people as a result.

Climate change will increase threats through extreme weather, sea level rise and natural disasters, which are likely to result in mass migrations, social and economic disruption, hunger, the spread of disease, water and food insecurity, and conflict over land, water and other resources. The World Bank estimates that over 200 million people could be forced to move by 2050.

There is increasing awareness of the health threat of climate change. That is particularly so for older people, young children and vulnerable people, and, as we have heard, the risks increase for women and girls. The UNFPA notes that climate-related emergencies cause major disruptions in access to health services and life-saving commodity supply chains, including contraceptives. Additionally, it warns of displacement, resulting in an increased risk of gender-based violence and harmful practices, including child marriage. Heat also worsens maternal and neonatal health outcomes, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, just said.

Can the Minister spell out how developing countries facing the effects of climate change will be further assisted, and whether, in particular, the Government will increase funding to support women and girls, including supporting sexual and reproductive health and rights and combating gender-based violence, as well as looking at the insidious movement of right-wing organisations which are seeking to undermine in this area?

Children are particularly vulnerable, of course, due to climate change and conflict. Save the Children points out that children may not only face severe injury or death but are often deprived of their education, healthcare, family support networks and food. It reports that, globally, almost 800 million children are living in poverty and exposed to high climate risk—a situation magnified by rising conflict.

According to the World Food Programme, a quarter of a billion people are facing acute food insecurity or worse. Good nutrition is fundamental. The UK’s global nutrition budget was cut by 60% following the aid cuts in 2021, and yet malnutrition is the leading cause of death in children under five. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, used to rail against the previous Government on this. Could he update us on the actions he has now been able to take?

The Prime Minister recently addressed the UN General Assembly and emphasised the importance of conflict prevention and peacebuilding. He called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon, peace initiatives in Sudan, and support for Ukraine. He pledged to restore the UK’s 0.7% development commitment. He pledged to meet net-zero targets by 2030, increase climate finance, and support global adaptation efforts. That no doubt sounds very familiar to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell.

Where is the reality in this? The conflict in the Middle East is intensifying further. The loss of life and hope in the region is likely to foster even more conflict, which is in no one’s interests. Can the Minister update us on the actions that the Government are taking? Conflict in Sudan and the Horn of Africa is causing untold human suffering. What action are the Government taking to increase aid to this area? The Government urgently need to return to 0.7% and to reduce the amount of ODA being spent on in-country asylum costs; currently, as we have heard, it is a third of the aid budget. When will this happen?

Ahead of the Autumn Budget, there are reports that the aid budget will fall; we hear depressing accounts from within the department as to plans that might need to be made. Can the Minister confirm that the figure will not fall but will in fact rise, as the Prime Minister seemed to pledge? Surely the Government must recognise that it is both right and in our interests to play a key role in development and meeting the SDGs. We heard the warm words from the Prime Minister at the UN, but they are not enough if there is no action behind them.

Antimicrobial Resistance

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his position. It was wonderful to work with him when we were in opposition; it is his turn now, and we expect a lot from him. What percentage of ODA goes into research? It was vital in terms of support for, say, the Jenner Institute and the preparations that we made for the pandemic. Could he tell us what support for UK research is ODA money?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I may have to follow through in writing. By the way, when we first worked together the noble Baroness was in government and I was in opposition, but despite that we worked collaboratively then. ODA is spent on AMR. I mentioned the Fleming Fund, and I think the previous Government spent £400 million on that support. But broadening it out to other aspects of research—they are not exclusive, as other research can benefit the fight against AMR— I will write to the noble Baroness with more detailed information.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Lords Hansard _ Part 1 & Report stage
Wednesday 16th March 2022 Lords Chamber

I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that I understand that the Government are bringing forward their tobacco control proposals, and of course we will look at those carefully. However, as someone who comes from a medical household, I know that other parts of the health service urgently need attention. The whole of the GP practice situation in our country is in very deep trouble at the moment and that is where the money should be spent, not on trying to administer some marginal levy system which will not work and will cost Her Majesty’s Government a fortune.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, briefly, I support these amendments; my name was on an amendment at an earlier stage. I hope that the Minister will have managed to persuade other parts of government that they will not achieve a smoke-free 2030 in the UK unless they move further and faster on tackling an industry built on promoting ill health and death—the reverse of what the health service seeks to do.

The Department of Health has come a long way in this area, with much cross-party working, and I know that the noble Earl himself has been part of that cross-party support in tackling the terrible health consequences of smoking. I have a sense of déjà vu, as I think others might. Over the years, the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, has been a rather lone voice on the other side. From time to time FOREST, which makes it plain that it is funded by the tobacco industry, kindly sends me its brief, no doubt inadvertently, and I recognise some familiar phrases that have just been voiced. I noted the rueful expression of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, took apart what he had said about the levy.

The Government say that they are committed to delivering a smoke-free 2030, but keep putting off the action required. Not all parts of government are fully aligned to this in the actions taken. The steps proposed in the amendments are designed to help the Government achieve what they say they wish to do. I therefore commend them to the House.

[Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)]

My Lords, I want to make just a small factual supplement to the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. In fact, it was a Conservative Government in 1957 who introduced the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme or PPRS, and that scheme has been sustained ever since by Conservative, Labour and coalition Governments. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out, if it is deemed appropriate to have a form of price and profit regulation for the medicines industry, which delivers products that are essential and life-saving, it does not seem too far a stretch to think that an equivalent mechanism might be used for an industry whose products are discretionary and life-destroying.

Health and Care Bill

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 4th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has introduced Amendments 265 and 282 on this appalling subject extremely effectively and I wish to make clear the support for both those amendments from these Benches. I am also sympathetic to the different but separate Amendment 297H on tissue being retained for research, educational and audit purposes, which would bring legislation in England and Wales into line with that in Scotland and which I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, will address shortly.

To return to the issue of human abuse—it is more than the abuse of tissue—this subject has been much debated in your Lordships’ House and I pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Alton, and others for making sure that we do so and for ensuring that step by step we make progress. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, for listening and engaging, for her responsiveness when dealing with the issue and for helping to take it forward in earlier legislation. However, we all know that there is a distance to go.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, these amendments seek to protect UK citizens from complicity in forced organ harvesting and organ trafficking. Amendment 282 prohibits UK citizens from travelling to countries for the purpose of organ transplantation. The restrictions are based on ensuring appropriate consent, with no coercion and no financial gain. If appropriate consent is not given, the country supplying the organ must have a legitimate opt-out system in place and must not be considered to be committing genocide, as now determined, as the Government have moved to agree, by resolution of the House of Commons. This will be based on an annual assessment by the Secretary of State.

We cannot say that we do not now know about forced organ harvesting. We also have the reports of both the China Tribunal and Uyghur Tribunal and much other evidence. I pay tribute to the FCDO for engaging in relation to the Uyghur Tribunal. As the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, mentioned, UN human rights experts have called on the Chinese Government to allow independent monitoring by international human rights bodies. If China had nothing to hide, it would accede. We have previously debated the conclusions of the China Tribunal and referred briefly to the Uyghur Tribunal. In 2020, the China Tribunal reported:

“Forced organ harvesting has been committed for years throughout China on a significant scale”.


As I said, more recently we have had the Uyghur Tribunal reports, which give a lot more detail. A number of countries, including Spain, Italy, Belgium, Norway and Israel, have already taken action to prevent organ tourism to China. We surely must do the same.

Amendment 265 aims to put a stop to real human body exhibitions being put on display in the UK when the cadavers do not have proof of identity or consent, such as those sourced from China. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, laid this out clearly. Almost a decade and a half ago, exhibitors in New York were forced to add a disclaimer stating that these bodies came from China and could have come from prisons, which clearly rubbished the idea that people had willingly donated their bodies for such displays.

Once again, certain countries, including France and Israel, and certain US cities have banned such body exhibitions from coming into their territories. We have high standards for dealing with human tissue in this country, as noble Lords are aware. Various noble Lords here today, including the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, have played a part in producing those. We need to make sure that we do not become complicit in what happens elsewhere, particularly—as we speak—in China. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others have made it crystal clear that we know what happens. I therefore commend these amendments.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I am raising my voice to speak in favour of Amendments 265 and 282. Following the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and the noble Lords, Lord Ribeiro and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, I hope that it demonstrates to the Minister that there is widespread concern from all parts of your Lordships’ House, especially in support of these amendments. It also gives me the chance to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for the leadership that he has given on this issue. He has been dogged and focused, insisting that we ensure that this country never becomes complicit in one of the greatest crimes committed against humanity. I join the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Penn—like others, I am pleased to see her back in her usual place. During the course of the earlier legislation, she was not only receptive in dealing with the issues that we raised, but organised meetings for us at the department with officials. I thought that the attitude that was shown at that time was exemplary and I am grateful to her.

It disturbs me that, although the United Kingdom signed the Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Human Organs, unlike 11 other European countries the United Kingdom has not ratified it. I would be grateful if the Minister, when he comes to reply, could say why we have not and whether we have any intentions of doing so. In addition, though, the signature of the United Kingdom has the following reservation:

“In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3 of Article 10 and paragraph 1 of Article 30 of the Convention, the Government of the United Kingdom reserves the right not to apply the jurisdiction rules laid down in paragraph 1.d and e of Article 10 of the Convention.”


Given all that we now know and what has been said in your Lordships’ House this afternoon, I wonder whether we are going to persist with that reservation. The reservation means that the United Kingdom does not have to take legislative or other measures to establish jurisdiction over any offence established in accordance with the convention when the offence is committed by a UK national or a habitual resident of the United Kingdom, unless it is within our own territory. Therefore, in short, the reservation means that even if it were to be ratified, it would not prohibit citizens of the United Kingdom from partaking in unethical organ tourism.

Let us not forget why the Human Tissue Act was created in the first place. Thousands of families, some in my former constituency in the city of Liverpool, had devastatingly found their deceased family members, including children, had had their body parts and organs removed and kept in National Health Service facilities without consent. The Liverpool Alder Hey scandal created a public outcry and it was our parliamentary duty to respond and take appropriate legislative action, as we did.

Today, throughout China, forced organ harvesting of prisoners of conscience is taking place. What legislative action are we going to take concerning that? The predominant victims have been Falun Gong practitioners, the Buddhist spiritual meditation group that, at its peak in 1999, had an estimated 100 million adherents in China. The former CCP leader, Jiang Zemin, set up the 610 Office and gave the order to—his word—eradicate Falun Gong. It is believed by many experts that, while young Falun Gong organs gradually became less available over the years, the CCP—the Chinese Communist Party—began to also target Uighurs, as we have heard this afternoon, for forced organ harvesting, with the same torture methods, blood tests and organ scans happening in the Uighur camps as those in the Falun Gong camps. There are also some lines of evidence of Tibetans and Christians in China, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suffering the same fate. I should declare my interest as the vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Uyghurs and as a patron of the Coalition for Genocide Response.

For those who had any doubts about China’s state-sanctioned organ harvesting, it is worth noting that as early as 1994 Human Rights Watch reported that

“it has become increasingly evident that executed prisoners are the principal source of supply of body organs for medical transplantation purposes in China”,

and that

“executions are even deliberately mishandled to ensure that the prisoners are not yet dead when their organs are removed.”

Dr Enver Tohti, a Uighur doctor whom I have personally met and taken statements from, described to me that he had been required to remove organs and ordered to “cut deep and work fast” on a victim who was still alive. The theft of organs has been described as an almost perfect crime, because no one survives. Just this week Dr Tohti was interviewed by the London Evening Standard, from which I quote:

“Driven well out of town, he recalls: ‘There was a small hut and two surgeons there waiting. They said, “wait here and come around when you hear gun shots”. Time passed and I started to hear the noise of people shouting, chanting, whistles blowing, trucks running, then gun shots, many rifles shooting at the same time. So, we got in the van and came around the mountain to find 10 corpses in prisoners’ clothes with shaved heads on the left side slope of the mountains.’ He was called away from the corpses to the body of another man in civilian clothes and was told ‘that is yours’, and ordered to remove the liver and kidneys. The man was not dead. ‘I had no choice but to harvest the organs,’ he said.”


It is extraordinary, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that on this day of all days, when what are now known as the “Genocide Games” are beginning in Beijing, we should be having this timely debate in your Lordships’ House. Not since 1936, when the Nazi games were held in Berlin and the world saw Hitler use the Olympics to promote his hideous ideology, and most Jewish German athletes were barred from taking part in the Games, have we seen the Olympic ideal so scandalously debased.

However, forced organ harvesting is just one of many human rights abuses taking place in China. Other noble Lords have referred to Sir Geoffrey Nice’s Uyghur Tribunal, which met here in Westminster in Church House. I sat through many of its hearings and, during our recent debate on this Bill concerning genocide and the purchasing of equipment and medical supplies from places such as Xinjiang, I heard harrowing accounts from those who gave evidence to that tribunal. Sir Geoffrey Nice QC—the prosecutor in the Milosevic trials, who knows more about these issues than probably any other living person—and his panel came to the conclusion that what is happening in Xinjiang amounts to genocide. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, has said, so has the House of Commons—and, indeed, so has our Foreign Secretary, Liz Truss, who has said “it is a genocide”.

Uighurs and other ethnic minorities have suffered torture, rape and forced abortion and sterilisation by the CCP, but the crime does not end there. There is a further twist to this infamy. Anonymous plastinated corpses taken from Chinese prisons have been paraded, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, told us earlier, in a carnival of horrors at money-making exhibitions, a final sneering insult to these victims. In 2018, after the exhibition that the noble Lord referred to, I wrote to the Times, along with Professor Jo Martin, president of the Royal College of Pathologists, and 55 others. We said:

“We believe that the legislation requires reform.”


However, I would go further—here, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, who it is good to see in her place—and ask why on earth we allow these things at all. There should be a complete prohibition by law.

I conclude by returning to the opening ceremony of the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympic Games. The Olympic charter states:

“Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy of effort, the educational value of good example, social responsibility and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles.”


The irony of that is beyond belief. This simply should not be acceptable, at least to those corporations and companies that are sponsoring the Games in Beijing, such as Coca-Cola. The China Tribunal stated:

“Governments and any who interact in any substantial way with the”


People’s Republic of China

“should now recognise that they are, to the extent revealed above, interacting with a criminal state.”

We must do more to stop these human rights abuses. I wholeheartedly support the amendments, which are not country-specific but would serve to close the loopholes in the Human Tissue Act so that the United Kingdom could do its part in preventing collaboration in these appalling crimes.

--- Later in debate ---

The amendments are carefully drafted; we are not asking for the immediate introduction of a levy. They require the Government to consult on a statutory scheme and report back to Parliament within six months of the passage of this Act. Going ahead thereafter would reinforce the levelling up White Paper and help the Government secure their ambition for a smoke-free nation. I urge my noble friend to consider this very modest step.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 270, which requires the Government to consult on raising the age of sale for tobacco to 21, and which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has just introduced. I also express my support and that of these Benches for all the anti-smoking amendments in this group. My noble friend Lord Rennard will speak on them shortly. Together, these amendments seek to close loopholes, strengthen regulation and provide a mechanism to reinstate vital funding for tobacco control and smoking cessation. Tackling tobacco and the tobacco industry has strong cross-party support, as the noble Earl well knows, having been very much part of that himself over the last 20 years. He will note the number of us speaking to support these amendments, even though only four can sign each one. He will also note the contribution made by his noble friend Lord Young, not only here but in his Private Member’s Bill, and he will no doubt note that there are very few voices—possibly one—who tend to speak against such measures.

I welcome the progress that the Department of Health has made in this area, and that of local government, but other parts of government are not always totally aligned. We found that with pavement licences—the noble Earl will remember this—in the now-termed Department for Levelling Up, even though the new White Paper on levelling up has, rightly, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, pointed out, identified addressing health inequalities as vital, and addressing smoking as part of that. Two cities in the north have the highest smoking rates in the country: Kingston upon Hull, at over 22%, and Blackpool, at over 23%. The average in the south-east is just over 12%.

These amendments are designed to help the Government and the Department of Health take forward their very welcome apparent intention for the country to be smoke free by 2030. The Government say they are committed to delivering a smoke-free country by 2030 but keep putting off what they have themselves declared to be the “bold action”, promised in 2019, needed to deliver what they said was an “extremely challenging” ambition. The tobacco control plan promised in July 2021 has been delayed again. When will it be published? No doubt “in due course”.

Meanwhile, instead of those bold actions, according to a recent leak to the Sunday Times, the Secretary of State “plots vaping revolution”, by providing e-cigarettes on the NHS. I agree that vaping has a role to play in a comprehensive strategy to end smoking. Vaping doubles people’s ability to quit smoking compared with existing nicotine replacement therapy. However, as we know, smoking is highly addictive, and even doubling success means that only a small proportion of smokers who were trying to quit would remain quit at the end of one year. Vaping is not a magic bullet and, although it will increase quitting, it will not prevent youth uptake, as raising the age of sale would, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has indicated. He set out extremely cogently the evidence for why this measure would be highly effective. I will briefly focus on why it would be proportionate and justified.

The age of 18 is often considered to be the age at which someone acquires all the rights and obligations associated with adulthood. However, this is not the case, and there are several examples of rights or obligations which are acquired earlier or later than the age of 18. Raising the tobacco age of sale to 21 would be consistent with the flexible approach that we apply to other age-restricted activities: those prohibited to under-21s in England include adopting a child, driving a large passenger vehicle, and supervising a learner driver, for example. Thresholds change over time, as demonstrated by the Government’s support for a Private Member’s Bill, which I welcome, to raise the age of marriage from 16 to 18.

It is now accepted that the late teens through to the early 20s—ages approximately 18 to 26—are a distinct period of life: young adulthood, when young people may still need support and protection. It was the period during which I hoped that my sons would develop what I thought of as a judgment gene—a gene that my daughter seemed to have had from at least the age of four, but they noticeably lacked. For care leavers it was excellent, for example, when in recent years social care was extended from 18 to 25. That had long been needed.

As we know, smoking is highly addictive and uniquely harmful, and an addiction which, if not begun by the age of 21, is very unlikely to happen at all. Tobacco is the only legal consumer product which kills when used as intended, causing the death of more than 200 people a day in the UK. This means that a unique response is required to minimise the burden of preventable death and disease that smoking inflicts. The evidence is surely sufficient to proceed with raising the age of sale, therefore this amendment is simply a modest proposal requiring the Government to consult. I commend this proposal and the other amendments in this group.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, because I would like to pick up almost where she ended, on raising the age for the sale of tobacco. That measure has been successfully implemented in the United States, where smoking among 18 to 20 year-olds has been reduced by nearly a third as a result, so I support Amendment 270.

On Amendment 271, which affects the sale of nicotine products to children, it is rather horrifying to realise that it is not illegal for free samples of e-cigarettes to be given out to those under 18, even though it is illegal for them to be sold to those under 18. Amendment 271 would cover this. It would also cover the novel nicotine products, such as Japan Tobacco International’s widely advertised nicotine pouches—I do not particularly want to use their name because I do not want to advertise them. Unlike e-cigarettes, the marketing of these products is currently completely unregulated, despite the high levels of nicotine, which is an addictive substance. A quick search on the internet to look at the questions around them reveals that it is admitted that they are highly addictive, that they could affect the development of the brain and that they could result in mood changes in the user as well, possibly making them emotionally volatile. These are loopholes in the law, which can easily be fixed by our Amendment 271.

In Amendment 278, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, seeks to ban all flavours in smoked tobacco. Again, this is another gaping legislative loophole which has allowed tobacco manufacturers to flout the current flavour ban.

I have led on Amendment 279, which relates to the packaging and labelling of nicotine products such as e-cigarettes. A cursory search online for these reveals that widely available electronic cigarette e-liquids feature cartoon characters in garish, appealing colours, with child-friendly descriptors, including sweet names such as gummy bears. Such branding is clearly unacceptable; it is targeted at the young. It is therefore deeply disappointing to discover that an amendment giving the Government powers by regulation to prohibit child-friendly packaging was voted down by them in the other place. The Minister said then that the Government

“are committed to ensuring that our regulatory framework continues to protect young people and non-smokers from using e-cigarettes.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/21; col. 88.]

The Government can prove their commitment by supporting Amendment 279, which requires the Secretary of State to consult and report to Parliament on e-cigarette packaging, in particular the branding elements designed to be attractive to children.

Afghanistan

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover (LD) [V]]

My Lords, over 120 of your Lordships have spoken today. We have had passionate and well-informed speeches, including from those who have had long engagement with Afghanistan, whether in the forces, intelligence, diplomacy, development, or in other ways. There is overwhelming agreement that what has happened is a catastrophe, made all the worse because it was avoidable. Here are some terms used today: ignominious, embarrassing, betrayal, humiliation, failure, shame, defeat, disaster, dark days for western civilisation, human desperation.

Above all, this is a catastrophe for the people of Afghanistan. After all the investment in Afghan young people in particular—girls as well as boys—who should have been the very future of Afghanistan, their prospects, and possibly their lives, have been destroyed in a few short weeks. Women and girls have had their lives cast into the shadows. We already hear that women are no longer seen at work, in education, or in the street. They are being subjected to appalling attacks, whatever the Taliban leaders may be saying. As the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, pointed out, significantly the Taliban agreed to no provision for women’s rights in the so-called peace talks that President Trump initiated.

I too pay tribute to our own troops. Families and friends of the 457 young men and women who lost their lives in Afghanistan will be wondering what their terrible loss was all for. Who could not be moved by what Tom Tugendhat said in the Commons today? What distress and bitterness may be felt by those whose lives have been so damaged by physical and mental injuries? My noble friend Lady Brinton and others were right to highlight this.

Some 20 years ago, after the atrocity of 9/11, there was international agreement to go into Afghanistan. Yes, that was to tackle al-Qaeda, but it was also wider, as the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, said. It was engagement with a failed state that was a breeding ground for terrorism. I recall my much-lamented friend Lord Garden, with his military and strategic background, saying that engagement would need to be for at least 30 years, if not much more. Long engagement was required so that this was not a failed state, with the terrorism risk deriving from that. My noble friend Lord Newby points out that the US engagement in Europe after the Second World War still holds today.

Of course, we know that the West, and in particular President Bush, was deflected by the conflict in Iraq—as my noble friend Lord Bruce pointed out—and we also know that corruption undermined development. However, we have long known that development is immensely challenging, but also worth it—as we have seen in many parts of Africa, or even more recently across the Balkans—pulling people out of poverty but also reducing conflict.

This catastrophic decision, and the lack of planning to which my noble friend Lord Strasburger pointed, has resulted in the collapse of the fragile Government and the potential reversal of all that was achieved over those 20 years. We have cast Afghanistan back to being a failed state, as the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, with her deep experience, has warned.

Where was global Britain in all of this? What influence did we have or seek with our allies the Americans, to whom we have pivoted because of leaving the EU? I note what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said. What was it that the integrated review said? Apparently, we can

“shape the international order of the future”.

Is this an example? It also said that

“What Global Britain means in practice is best defined by actions rather than words.”


Indeed. It also stated that

“The UK will remain the leading European Ally in NATO.”


The PM failed to answer Theresa May in the Commons this morning when she asked how early he spoke to the Secretary-General of NATO. Can the Minister clarify? If he chooses not to do so, we should ask him to answer all unanswered questions in writing. He is a Minister we respect, and we expect that of him.

The integrated review states that the United States

“will remain the UK’s most important strategic ally and partner.”

What did we say to the Americans about this clearly catastrophic course of action—or did we not? Do we conclude, as my noble friend Lord Wallace said, that there is no special place for the United Kingdom in the US’s thinking? The Government actually seem to share that view, arguing that there was nothing they could do and that they were powerless.

This decision flowed from an ill-informed, populist president: President Trump. The decision was made in February 2020, as the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, mentioned, and, as with his other agreements, he sought settlements with those whom we hardly viewed as allies, securing little or nothing in return. How did we work through NATO to help shield President Biden from the domestic political effects of breaking with this policy or to muster support for a different approach? Can the Minister tell us what we advised and when we advised it? We know that we did not feel that our military leaders wanted to go down this route.

My noble friend Lord Purvis noted that the Government claimed that the United Kingdom was the lead country in NATO for Kabul’s defence and that the capital was regarded as vital to protect diplomatic presence there. Did the UK advise NATO to allow the capital to fall? Now, there are no embassies there except China, Pakistan and Russia, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, pointed out, you can see who has benefited here. The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, pointed out that China is likely to supply the Taliban with funds, reducing even further our leverage.

As my noble friend Lord Campbell said, we have lost influence, trust and reputation. As others have said, including my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham, we do indeed need an independent inquiry into our engagement in Afghanistan but surely, above all, into the manner of our abandoning the country. We are now rightly talking about how we assist people out of the country, as a number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Dholakia, Lady Jolly, Lord Jones, Lord Roberts, Lord Taylor and Lady Walmsley, have urged and explored. What a terrible indictment that is of what we now see as the future path of Afghanistan: that we have to help out of the country its best and brightest.

Noble Lords have been acerbic about the plan which, as my noble friend Lady Ludford pointed out, was announced only last night: that we should take 20,000 refugees but over five years, waiting for most of them to be at major risk first, it seems. As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said, this needs to be a moral issue, not a numbers issue. Safety from the Taliban should not be for just foreign nationals or the lucky few who made it in time to Kabul airport. How exactly, with an internet blackout, are people to fill out applications to leave? Do the Government recognise that anyone seeking to leave now puts themselves at risk because of Taliban control of all areas with their checkpoints?

There are so many who need to be helped: Afghan interpreters, to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and others referred; journalists, especially women journalists and those working for the BBC; parliamentarians, especially women parliamentarians. I think particularly here of those with whom I have engaged and praised for their returning to their country of birth, and feel so worried now for them, as is my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece. There are those who worked with the British Council; women judges, as mentioned by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Judge and Lord Goldsmith; those involved in teaching girls—this was an area that the Prime Minister said was a priority for him. There are Chevening scholars and others. It was astonishing that, at first, the Government were asking Chevening scholars to wait. What on earth were they thinking of? There are vulnerable UN workers and aid workers—so much of the economy was associated with reconstruction; so many will be at risk now.

The PM mentioned this morning that multitudes have appealed to him for help. What did he expect? But he wants most to stay in the region, so exactly what does this mean? As my noble friend Lady Sheehan said, we cannot have a “wait and see” policy here. We are on the UN Security Council; can the Minister fill us in on our role now with the UN? The Secretary-General says that UN workers are staying in country, yet we also hear that they feel unsafe and are leaving. Exactly how will the UK Government use their seat to ensure that the international community is working collectively to hold the Taliban to account on human rights and potentially to establish a safe passage to allow Afghans to escape? What engagement will be taken forward with the Taliban, as advocated by my noble friend Lord Alderdice, with his vast experience?

Others have noted the savage cuts in aid to Afghanistan, and the partial restoration here. Will the Minister guarantee that this does not come from another part of the aid budget? I note that, even so, it does not restore the aid budget to what it was before.

This has been a very important and sobering debate on a catastrophe of our own making. It shows up very clearly that the United Kingdom will need to assess again its place in the world and how it best secures its own as well as others’ peace and prosperity. That clearly requires working together and countering the populism and nationalism that underpinned this decision. There will be many in Afghanistan, and many others around the world and in our own country, who will right now feel far less safe than they did, and that is a terrible reflection on where we find ourselves today.

Integrated Review

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

As I said, the review makes quite clear that we are committed to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA as soon as the economic situation allows, and we believe that we are acting compatibly with the International Development Act. We believe that this review will once again put us at the forefront of global leadership in a whole array of areas. We will look forward to working with partners in Europe, around the globe and, obviously, in the Indo-Pacific region, which we have also pointed out, in order to advance open and fair democracies and societies.

[Baroness Northover (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the review puts science and technology front and centre. How does the noble Baroness square that with Universities UK stating today that the Government have failed to provide more than £1 billion for its membership of the Horizon programme? The UK’s national research funding agency—UKRI—is being forced to make cuts of £125 million because of ODA cuts. Is she aware that it was ODA money that helped to fund the Oxford Jenner Institute vaccine work?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

We certainly have an incredibly strong record on science and technology. We are ranked fourth in the Global Innovation Index, and we will invest £14.6 billion in R&D across government in 2021-22. We have reached agreement to take part in Horizon Europe, which is an excellent outcome. We are currently working through the details of the costs and where they fall, but we have always been clear that Horizon funding complements domestic programmes and have made a public commitment that there will be no loss of investment in R&D in the UK on leaving the EU.

Integrated Review

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I welcome the noble Lord’s welcoming of this announcement. He has been a vocal and consistent strong voice for the Navy within this House, and I am glad that he is pleased. He is right that the carrier strike group 21 is an ambitious global deployment. From 2023, it will be permanently available to be routinely deployed globally, and, in fact, HMS “Queen Elizabeth” will lead a British and allied task group on our most ambitious deployment for two decades, encompassing the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean and east Asia. We are currently finalising our plans for the deployment with regional partners.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, pandemic was on the 2015 review risk register. Does the noble Baroness recognise that failing to address that has resulted in costs to the economy which are multiples of this defence uplift? What is the point of an integrated review, dismantling DfID even before the review began and this announcement before it concludes if we do not know what challenges the Government think we face and how we might tackle them with our allies? Does she think that global Britain is enhanced or undermined by cutting the development budget?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

As I said, we have already worked through the main findings within government to inform this announcement and they are the first conclusions of the integrated review. The Government are working to ensure that we have an integrated strategy. As I have said to a number of noble Lords, that will be published in its entirety in the new year.

Business and Planning Bill

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport [V]]

My Lords, tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death in the world. Although fewer than one in five adults in the UK now smoke, the Government must do all in their power to aid this remaining population to quit. We are in a fortunate position, in that in recent months, a million people in Britain have stopped smoking. The Government would do well to consider the recommendations of Action on Smoking and Health for how this can be built on.

The health risks of smoking are, of course, not restricted to smokers. The House will clearly be aware of the dangers of second-hand smoke, including in outdoor areas of pubs, bars and other premises to which the Bill relates. The Bill, as introduced by the Government, was a missed opportunity. In creating new outdoor areas, there should have been provision from the outset for smoke-free areas. On this basis we tabled Amendment 11, which would create a power for local authorities to prohibit smoking in certain areas covered by pavement licences after due consultation.

I am pleased that the Government sought to rectify their omission by tabling Amendment 13 to allow for smoke-free areas. It has the support of these Benches, but the amendment alone is not enough. The Government must take a firmer line on public health and consider how they can reduce the dangers of second-hand smoke more widely. In future legislation, I hope they will focus on doing so from the outset, for if they do not, we will again.

The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, would create a condition that pavement licences can be granted only if smoking is prohibited. While I fully sympathise with her reason for tabling this effort, I am afraid that we cannot support the present draft. As it stands, it might have enormous unintended consequences. It does not clarify that the prohibition of smoking should apply to the area covered by pavement licences, and without the definition of smoking it might unintentionally ban e-cigarettes. I understand that there are also concerns that other errors might lead to judicial review. If not for these errors we could consider the amendment, but in its present iteration I am afraid we cannot.

The noble Baroness is right to press for the Government to consider the implications of second-hand smoke, but when the hospitality industry is already suffering as it is, this attempt at some form of blanket ban, attached in haste to emergency legislation, would have consequences that I am sure are unintended. I hope the noble Baroness will reflect on this, support the efforts to create smoke-free zones and join us in holding the Government to account on their widespread failures to reduce smoking.

Finally, I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government’s amendment will not be their only effort to eliminate the dangers of second-hand smoke during this crisis. The initial drafting of the legislation served as a missed opportunity to tackle smoking. I am afraid that that is somewhat characteristic of their attitude over the past decade. I will press the Government on three specific issues. Will they halt the planned cuts to smoking cessation services across England? Will they properly fund the devolved Governments, including the Labour-led Welsh Government, to support their efforts in stopping people smoking? Will they engage and equip local authorities to play their significant part in what remains an enormous challenge to public health? I beg to move.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 15 in my name and that of my colleagues, the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. There has been an anti-smoking cross-party coalition in the Lords for almost two decades. That cross-party approach reflects the House at its best. Since Sir Richard Doll’s report all those years ago, we have known that smoking kills, and in an appalling fashion. Nevertheless, as we know, it has been an uphill battle to set in place anti-smoking measures. The noble Earl, Lord Howe—I am glad to see that he is in his place, even if he is not on the Front Bench—has long been part of that coalition. This issue does and should arch over mere party concerns, though that is not always the case. It is extremely disappointing when that manifests, because our opponents are funded and united.

However, I was very glad that when we raised this as the sole amendment on this issue in Committee the Government responded. I was in the Chamber, and I admit that I directed much of what I said to the noble Earl, given his track record on this issue. I hugely commend those of other parties who have had the determination to stand against the pressure on them for the sake of public health.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Northover]

15: Clause 5, page 5, line 6, at end insert—
“( ) Pavement licences may only be granted by a local authority subject to the condition that smoking is prohibited.”

[Baroness Northover]

I thank the Minister for his response to the amendment. I remind the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, that the noble Lord, Lord Young, sits on her Benches, that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, sits on the Labour Benches, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, sits on the Cross Benches—this was a cross-party amendment. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and their overwhelming support. I am glad that the Government have taken on board the issue of smoking, which we raised at Second Reading and in Committee. I realise that it was late in the day to put something effective in place at this stage, despite the Government’s apparent commitment to England being smoke-free by 2030. I note that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has chosen not to move his amendments in person, even though he is here in the Chamber.

This amendment was about public health, and about encouraging people back to pubs and restaurants. I said that this issue was in Labour’s hands, and it is an open goal. It is utterly specious to say that this amendment is flawed. If it were to go through, the Government’s lawyers would help to iron out any deficiencies if they existed, as is absolutely usual. I am disappointed that Labour chose to put down their own, much weaker, amendment. I thank the numerous supporters on the Labour Benches, who have told me of their own disappointment about their party’s position today, which means that we cannot secure the cross-party amendment which would have been clear, simple and the right thing to do. Once a further 30 Peers are introduced, it may become even more difficult.

I am more than ready to work with others across the House, and with the Government, on making sure that their regulations are clear, simple, and encourage people back, making a clear situation for both proprietors and local authorities. But as we cannot win without Labour support, and as the Labour Front Bench has made its position clear, I will not put my co-signatories in a difficult position. This is, after all, a cross-party amendment. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

Intelligence and Security Committee

Baroness Northover Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I beg to move the fourth Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

The Intelligence and Security Committee is not a usual Select Committee governed by parliamentary rules. It has a wide-ranging role in overseeing MI5, MI6, GCHQ, Defence Intelligence, Joint Intelligence, the National Security Secretariat and the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism. It is supposed to be less partisan and more independently minded even than Select Committees. Yet the accusation is that not only have the Government packed it with willing supporters with no expertise in this area but that the Prime Minister has also made it clear that he wishes Chris Grayling to chair it. As Dominic Grieve, former chair of the committee and former Attorney-General, put it:

“The whole point about this committee is it is non-partisan.”


He made it clear that the Prime Minister should not

“be seeking to tell the committee who should be the chair.”

If Mr Grayling turns out to be the chair, the Government’s protestations that they played no part will ring hollow.

The SNP’s Ian Blackford stated:

“The likely nomination of Chris Grayling as chair—who has a distinct record in government as a jack of all trades and master of none—will deliver a blow to the effectiveness of the committee’s work.”


This committee usually has two members from the House of Lords. Why have the Government not nominated someone from their Benches? The Guardian reports:

“Normally the Tories would have nominated a peer as a member, but the concern was that any nominee might be less likely to support”


Chris Grayling. Even the Telegraph reports:

“Two senior Conservative MPs told The Telegraph that the fact a new committee has not been formed since December’s general election was a result of ‘the complete control freakery of the Cummings group within No 10 … They want total control of key appointments so they can appoint their own people.’”


Mr Grayling, whom the Guardian gently describes as “accident-prone”, has no previous experience in this area. Yet, as the Independent puts it, while we face

“a bewildering and frightening range of external and internal threats from rogue states, hostile powers such as China and Russia, and terrorists … the committee is about to be headed by someone thought of as a Downing Street stooge who is out of his depth.”

In that context, I welcome the nomination of the noble Lord, Lord West, by the Labour Party. He is supremely qualified for the position. If we are all allowed to nominate the chair, I propose that it is the noble Lord, Lord West.

Meanwhile, we have not yet seen the report on Russian influence on our politics. The previous chair and committee signed it off for publication almost a year ago. It must be published immediately so that it can be scrutinised before the Summer Recess, and not in a redacted and altered state. The delay in the release of the MPs’ report examining Russian influence on British politics is “not normal”, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the former Foreign Secretary and former chair, insisted. He also declared:

“It is an absurd position that No. 10 Downing Street have put themselves in.”


I therefore look forward to the noble Baroness’s response.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

First, I thank my noble friend Lord Lothian and the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, for their long-standing and excellent service on the committee.

In answer to the noble Baroness’s series of questions, the size of the committee and the process for nominating its members are clearly set out in Section 1 of the Justice and Security Act 2013. Both Houses agreed to the process in that Act, which is, as she rightly said, consciously different from that of appointing a conventional Select Committee. The nine members of the ISC have been proposed by the Prime Minister following consultation with the leader of the Opposition, and it is not unprecedented for this House to provide only one member of the committee. In the 2005 to 2010 Parliament, this House provided only one member. On this occasion, the Prime Minister has decided to nominate five Conservative MPs. As the noble Baroness will also be aware, selection of the chair is a matter for the committee itself.

Finally, the noble Baroness asked about the Russia report. The report is the property of the independent ISC and, as such, it is not for the Government to publish it but for the committee to lay its report before Parliament —and the sooner we get this Motion agreed, the sooner the committee will be able to get on with that work.