Afghanistan

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I am sure that the whole House would like to pay tribute to the more than 150,000 UK personnel who have served in Afghanistan during the past 20 years. Their bravery and professionalism have denied terrorists a safe haven and helped Afghanistan build its institutions; they have trained and advised Afghan forces and supported the advancement of the rights of women and education for girls.

Those crucial advances were made with huge sacrifices: 457 UK service men and women lost their lives, and many thousands more and their families continue to endure physical and mental injuries. More than 70,000 Afghan civilians lost their lives, and while progress has been made, there remain huge challenges. We owe a debt of gratitude to our Armed Forces and they should be proud of their work and achievements.

In his Statement—which I unfortunately did not get to hear under our current arrangements—although the Prime Minister confirmed that our presence in Afghanistan as part of the international military effort was never intended to be permanent, he rightly conceded that we cannot

“shrink from the hard reality of the situation today.”

Progress made is not necessarily the same as those gains being secured and irreversible. Given the sacrifices made, the Government need to be clear about their ongoing commitment to Afghanistan.

Most of the UK personnel have already left, following the decision of the US Government in April that all US forces would leave in September, when, according to the NATO summit decision, operations were coming to an end. Can the Leader of the House explain the engagement the UK Government had with the US prior to that decision being taken? Did the Prime Minister suggest a different course of action? Did he offer a different timescale, or did he discuss how we could contribute to a lasting settlement?

Many in your Lordships’ House with direct experience of military action engagement have concerns about what happens next. We share those concerns, both for the stability of Afghanistan and for the remaining potential security threat to the wider world, including the UK. It would be helpful if the Minister could say something about the Government’s assessment of the possible return of al-Qaeda. There is evidence that the Taliban is making gains on the ground, and hostile states are now exploring options to fill any military and diplomatic vacuum. Serious questions therefore remain about the future stability of the country. The Prime Minister said in his Statement, which we have not heard:

“We are not about to turn away, nor are we under any illusions about the perils of today’s situation and what may lie ahead.”


Therefore, when the Prime Minister says that he will use

“every diplomatic and humanitarian lever to support Afghanistan’s development and stability”,

what does that actually mean in practice on the ground?

Nobody wants to see British troops permanently stationed in Afghanistan, but we cannot simply just walk away without seeking to ensure that it will not lead to bloodier conflict and wider Taliban control. I do not know if the Minister heard the same BBC interview as I did, in which General Sir Nick Carter outlined three possible, credible outcomes from withdrawal. The first is that the Afghan Government remain in power, supported by what is now a well-trained army. The second, and the most worrying, is that the country fractures and the Government collapse, which would lead to the Taliban and others making advances. The third outcome, which he described as the most hopeful, is a political compromise, with talks, which chimes with the Government’s statement that there must be a peaceful and negotiated political settlement. How are our diplomats supporting that process?

Also, how are we supporting the Afghan Government? Actions have to follow words, and, as we withdraw troops, we are also withdrawing financial support—unlike the US, which is determined to boost development and military aid. We have to ask why. Afghanistan remains one of the poorest countries in the world, but our aid fund to the country is being cut by more than £100 million. Why are we out of step with our allies on this? Have the Government assessed the security impact, as well as the social impact, of those cuts?

I am sure that many in this House were relieved to hear the Prime Minister say that we owe an immense debt to the translators and other locally employed staff who risked their lives alongside British forces. The Minister will have heard that issue raised in your Lordships’ House many times over the past few years. The risk to those staff and translators does not disappear when we leave: the likelihood is that it increases. Some staff have already been forced to flee to neighbouring countries, and some have ended up in refugee camps.

Last week, an FT editorial commented: “It is a matter of days, not months, that are critical for the interpreters and their families. The UK has opened up relocation schemes, but it is not enough.” Since the Government launched the new Afghan relocation assistance policy in April, how many applications have they received and how many have now been processed? Will she give a commitment that that will be kept under review and updated if the situation on the ground changes?

The recent NATO summit communique said:

“Withdrawing our troops does not mean ending our relationship with Afghanistan. We will now open a new chapter.”


I have commented previously from this Dispatch Box that we want the UK to be a moral force for good in the world. What we do next in relation to Afghanistan will be a test of the Government’s commitment to that.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, when the UK first committed troops to Afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, the mission was clear. It was to destroy al-Qaeda’s ability to mount any further international terrorist attacks from the country. As the Statement makes clear, in this crucial respect the mission has been a success. However, while this is undoubtedly correct, it does not begin to give a balanced picture of the state of Afghanistan as the final British troops leave.

While the original mission was limited to destroying al-Qaeda, it rapidly became something more ambitious: to replace the Taliban regime with one which more closely fitted western norms of behaviour, not least in respect of the treatment of women and girls. At one level, this too has been a success: there has been a series of democratically elected Governments; there has been the education of millions of girls, and there has been a degree of economic development, particularly in and around Kabul, but there has not been stability. The Taliban never went away, and it is now rapidly filling the vacuum left by the departed NATO forces. However depressing this situation is, the Statement is undoubtedly correct that the UK on its own is not in a position to fill the void created as American troops return home. For the United Kingdom, the Statement reflects harsh reality.

Anyone who has heard recent testament of young professional women in Afghanistan who now fear for not only their livelihoods but their lives or who sees the pathetic attempts of thousands in Afghanistan to sell what little they have to leave the country before the Taliban returns cannot avoid the conclusion that the broader aims of the international intervention in the country are under real threat. The Statement says that the UK will not turn away from Afghanistan and that we will use

“every diplomatic and humanitarian lever”

to support the country. If true, this would be very welcome, but what is the commitment likely to mean in practice?

Let us start with aid. The Government are dramatically cutting the amount of development aid they are giving the country, including a 70% reduction in programmes for women and girls. This is harsh and perverse. Will they now reverse these cuts, or are they in reality breaking their promise to maximise their humanitarian response?

After much dither and delay, the Government have recently allowed Afghan interpreters who have worked with British forces to relocate directly to the UK. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, pointed out, and as we heard in Questions in your Lordships’ House last week, they are not automatically doing so for such interpreters currently in third countries. Will they now agree to do so not just as a matter of course but as a matter of conscience?

American intelligence currently believes that, as things stand, Kabul could fall to the Taliban within six months. Do the Government share this assessment, and are there any circumstances in which they would consider renewed military intervention to prevent it? The Taliban has claimed that it has changed and become less harsh, not least in its attitude towards women and girls, but such statements are widely mistrusted and not borne out by recent evidence. What diplomatic pressure is the UK seeking to bring to bear in association with its international allies and through the UN to ensure that the Taliban keeps to its commitments?

Today’s Statement reflects the fact that liberal interventionism, as expressed after the twin tower bombings, cannot succeed unless there is a broad consensus in the country where the intervention takes place to follow the norms set by western liberal democracies, but in countries where there is no history of democracy and where there remain deep tribal and regional fissures, and where no such consensus emerges, it is bound ultimately to fall short or fail.

The challenge now is to support those in Afghanistan who seek to promote democracy and tolerance and to put as much pressure as possible short of military intervention on the Taliban to moderate its policies. This will not be easy, but we owe it to the 457 British military personnel who have died in Afghanistan, to the thousands who still carry physical and mental scars and to those thousands of young Afghans, men and women, who are desperate for a brighter, tolerant future for their country to do whatever we can to prevent a return to the horrors of the past.

G7 and NATO Summits

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, had we heard the Prime Minister make his Statement in the other place, we would have heard the great joy with which he did so and how wonderful he thought the summit was, but we need to reflect on this. The Prime Minister hosted his first summit as the country basked in some much-needed sunshine and the England team delighted us all with their first group-stage win. The BBC reported that the US President raised Northern Ireland in a side meeting, and finance Ministers discussed global tax arrangements. That is not about 2021; the same issues were raised back at the G8, as it was then, in 1998, but the similarities end there. The differences between the Carbis Bay and Birmingham summits are stark, not just because it is now the G7 meeting.

The hope that we would see agreement on meaningful, concrete plans to tackle the biggest global challenges disappeared as the Prime Minister’s strained relationships with world leaders took centre stage. Not for the first time, the Government overpromised and underdelivered. There is no global vaccination plan and no action agreed on the climate crisis. At every step, Boris Johnson’s broken promises have cost us friends—but they also cost us our influence.

Bringing the pandemic to an end must be the priority. That means an effective, worldwide vaccination programme. While the virus circulates anywhere it is a threat to us all everywhere, so we welcomed and were optimistic about the Prime Minister’s promise to vaccinate the entire world, as he said, by the end of 2022—only to yet again be disappointed as that turned out to be unsubstantiated rhetoric, with no clear plan to deliver it. There is no funding formula, no operational strategy and no information on where the 11 billion doses of the vaccine would come from. We should have seen an immediate increase in global support for health services in developing countries for any plans to be truly effective.

The shadow Secretary of State for International Trade, Emily Thornberry, has written to the Prime Minister on those issues. I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has had an opportunity to see that letter to the Prime Minister and that he has read it. The 10-point plan my right honourable friend outlined addresses the fundamental problems about how we can produce the volume of vaccines needed, alongside making preparations for the infrastructure to deliver it. It would ensure we were better prepared for any future pandemic. Yes, it is expensive, but the human, social and economic costs of not doing so are far greater.

Ahead of COP 26, the G7 could have set the groundwork for an ambitious green recovery, leading global support across the world to tackle the climate crisis and finding common ground on climate finance. Again, the Prime Minister fell short: nothing was agreed on national determined contributions and there was nothing to support mitigation and adaptation in the world’s poorest countries. The complete failure of the green homes grant here at home and the impact of aid cuts on climate projects undermine our climate credibility and leave us recklessly out of step with our allies in the G7.

The noble Baroness the Leader of the House will be aware that I have repeatedly asked when, or indeed if, there will be a vote in Parliament on aid cuts. I have had no success, even though this is about the Government breaking their own legislation. This time I will be more specific about the effects of those cuts, because the Prime Minister’s Statement, made yesterday, refers to girls’ education. He clearly recognises the importance of the issue. Given that, and following the cut in the aid budget, will the Government now publish the full details of the cuts expected for such girls’ education programmes? This is just in the interests of transparency, so we know the exact impact they will have.

While Northern Ireland may have been missing from the communiqué and the Prime Minister’s Statement to Parliament, it was not missing from the meetings. Let us be clear: the protocol was not imposed on us but negotiated by this Government. Mr Johnson’s claim to

“do whatever it takes to protect the … integrity of the UK”

is meaningless unless the Government step up to find serious solutions to protect the precious Good Friday agreement. In refusing to do that, the Government are not only shirking their responsibility but damaging our reputation with our strongest allies. We have repeatedly suggested that a veterinary agreement which recognises the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland would remove the need for almost all the checks. Ministers must now show some leadership.

President Biden’s proposal for the global minimum corporation tax is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to stop tax avoidance and the undercutting of UK businesses which pay their fair share. This could provide us with billions of pounds in extra tax revenue, yet the Government have spent the last few weeks watering down proposals which could have put an extra £131 million a week into our NHS and other services for the public’s benefit. Can the noble Baroness tell the House why the Government stood in the way of this proposal?

Although Northern Ireland was not mentioned, the Australian trade deal was. We obviously want to see good trade deals, but we also need to see the details and not just the Government patting themselves on the back. I seek two points of clarification on that trade deal. First, there seems to be no mention in the Government’s agreement in principle of environmental or animal welfare standards. The noble Baroness will understand why it is so important to the farming community to ensure that our high production standards are not undermined. Can she provide any assurances on this? Secondly, can she also guarantee that, prior to ratification, Parliament will have full ratification well in advance and a clear and accurate impact assessment?

On a more optimistic note, the NATO summit in Brussels took some welcome steps towards future security in Europe and the north Atlantic. This underlines exactly why the alliance is so important to us. A collective understanding of new security threats, a recommitment to Article 5 deterrence and an emphasis on climate are each integral to global security and stability. We are also pleased that the leaders recognise the challenges that Beijing poses to global security and stability, so can the noble Baroness now detail and provide more information on what strategic actions NATO will agree in relation to China?

In a world of democracy under pressure, and as the US leads allies in facing the challenges posed by China in the Indo-Pacific, the UK’s military leadership in Europe is more important than ever. Having cut the British Army by a further 10,000, however, we are left not only unable to provide regional leadership but out of step with our allies. Again, the UK Government were unable to provide the necessary leadership or direction that we should be in a position to do. With that in mind, does the noble Baroness regret that the Government have broken their election pledge and are now cutting our Armed Forces by 10,000?

In conclusion, it has been 23 years since the Birmingham G8. International co-operation remains our most effective tool for global progress but the Government have to be ambitious, and that is what was really lacking from this summit. We could have enormous influence on the world stage, but that is a choice. We can do that only if we have the leadership to turn our values into action.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I suspect that, for many people, the sight of the G7 leaders going about their business in a professional and businesslike manner in Cornwall was a great relief after the chaos of the Trump years. The 25-page long White House communiqué, which covers most of the world’s most pressing problems is, at first sight, extremely impressive. Any lingering concerns are not so much to do with the institution—to coin a phrase, “the G7 is back”—but over whether the specific pledges made are substantial enough to meet the challenges the communiqué identifies.

Before coming to the G7, the Prime Minister made great play in his Statement of signing the New Atlantic Charter with President Biden. As noble Lords will be aware, the first Atlantic Charter, signed in 1941, led to the formation of the United Nations. Could the noble Baroness inform the House of any single, specific initiative—large or small—she believes or hopes will flow from the new charter? If she is unable to do so, could she explain why the charter should be seen as anything other than a mere PR stunt?

On the summit itself, the Government very sensibly chose to steer their deliberations by commissioning the noble Lord, Lord Stern of Brentford, to set out the scale of ambition they should adopt. His report, G7 Leadership for Sustainable, Resilient and Inclusive Economic Recovery and Growth, sets out a definitive agenda for action on all the key issues the summit addressed. The communiqué simply thanks the noble Lord, Lord Stern, for his efforts, but sadly fails to rise to the challenges he sets. Take just three examples.

First, on Covid vaccines, the noble Lord points to the urgent need to close the £20 billion funding gap for COVAX. The summit committed to only a small fraction of that. Will the UK Government not only redouble their commitment to make vaccines available to those in the rest of the world who need them most and can afford them least, but commit to diverting surplus vaccines in the UK, and do so in the speediest possible fashion?

Secondly, on climate change the noble Lord, Lord Stern, makes the case for a doubling of climate finance and for a commitment to go beyond the $100 billion target to help developing countries to decarbonise. Such a commitment is lacking in the communiqué. Does the noble Baroness accept that, by cutting overseas development assistance, the Government significantly undermined the prospect of getting the necessary funding into developing countries, and in doing so, have made it much less likely they will agree to ambitious decarbonisation targets at COP 26?

Thirdly, on girls’ education, the communiqué commits to the target of getting 40 million more girls into school by 2026, which is terrific. Can the noble Baroness therefore explain why the Government have cut their bilateral support for girls’ education in the poorest countries by 40%? Can she explain whether the funds the Government have announced for the Global Partnership for Education are new money or simply a new announcement of old money?

The communiqué covers an extremely wide range of issues, but one final issue leapt out of the page for me. The text praises the

“incredible contribution of caregivers in our societies … and the importance of improving decent working conditions for these caregivers”.

What improved provision do the Government have in mind? Will they, as a start, commit to improving the provision of respite care so that carers, who are increasingly at the end of their tether as Covid restrictions continue to affect them, will get at least some relief from the very onerous daily burdens they carry?

The Prime Minister includes in his Statement reference to the trade deal with Australia. Will the noble Baroness confirm that the absolute maximum benefit this trade deal could conceivably deliver equates to one penny per person per week? Does she accept that the cost of this derisory benefit will be overwhelmed by the damage the deal threatens to do to our livestock industry—particularly in upland areas—and that the potential increased access to Australia for young people is frankly risible compared to their reduced access to live, work and study in Europe as a result of Brexit?

The Statement very wisely ignores the unseemly row on the margins of the summit around the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol and perhaps that is a matter for another day. But may I remind the noble Baroness that the single most important ingredient for conducting summits and international affairs successfully is trust? Through his unwillingness to stick to international law and his track record of breaking his promises, this Prime Minister has squandered it. Until it is rebuilt, our influence on the world stage will remain seriously impaired.

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

I thank the noble Baroness and noble Lord for their comments and questions. They both rightly asked about vaccinations and, as they will know, G7 leaders committed to providing at least a further 1 billion doses to the poorest countries to help vaccinate the world by the end of 2022 through dose sharing and finance. The G7 will share at least half of these by the end of 2021. We have committed to providing at least 100 million surplus Covid vaccine doses to the rest of the world within the next year and 5 million will be shared by the end of September, with another 30 million by the end of 2021.

The noble Baroness is right that sharing supply, boosting manufacturing and funding the COVAX scheme all have critical roles. That is why G7 leaders talked about, and want to take concrete actions to overcome, bottlenecks and want to boost manufacturing so that we can increase the supply. The vaccines we will be providing will be across all our supply: AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Janssen and Moderna. We will be working with leaders to continue to ramp up that effort.

Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord rightly raised climate change and the work done on that. Commitments were made at the summit. Most G7 countries will be reducing emissions by more than half by 2030, compared to 2010 levels. All countries will formally commit to their specific reductions when submitting their nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement. Each country will also set up policy plans and milestones on how they plan to meet these, as we have done with our carbon budget.

Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness talked about the climate finance commitment and, of course, we were the first G7 member to substantially increase our commitment. At the summit, Canada committed to doubling its climate finance through to 2025 and France, Germany, Japan and the US also agreed to increase their commitments, so there was welcome progress.

Both the noble Baroness and noble Lord talked about girls’ education, which is a priority for this Government. At the G7 summit, the Prime Minister announced that we will be pledging £430 million to the Global Partnership for Education for the next five years, which is our largest pledge ever and an uplift of 15%. At the summit the G7 collectively pledged at least $2.7 billion towards the Global Partnership for Education and we will continue to encourage partners around the world to contribute to that fund.

Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about the Northern Ireland protocol. We are working to support the Good Friday agreement and urgently need to find solutions to support the peace process and minimise disruption. There was discussion of the protocol with our European partners at the summit. Those discussions will continue because we all want to ensure that we get to a satisfactory resolution.

The noble Baroness seemed to suggest that there had not been much movement on, for instance, global tax, over the last few years. But at the G7 we saw a major breakthrough on the issue that has been under discussion for over five years, particularly back in the historic two-pillar international agreement on global tax reform, to address the tax challenges we face. We are very hopeful that this agreement will provide a strong basis for securing a more detailed and comprehensive agreement among the G20 and OECD in July.

On the Australia trade deal, I am sure that the noble Lord will be delighted to know that the UK-Australia trade relationship was worth £13.9 billion last year and is set to grow under this deal. I assure him that British farmers will be protected by a cap on tariff-free imports for 15 years, using tariff-rate quotas and safeguards. To the noble Baroness I say that, when the agreement is published, there will be a chapter on animal welfare, because we have been very clear that we will not compromise on our high standards. I can also confirm that, of course, formal scrutiny of the ratification process will take place once we have laid the final agreement—this will be once we have undergone legal checks—and the impact assessment will be published with it.

The noble Lord asked about the Atlantic charter. It recognises that the values that the US and UK share remain the same as they were in 1941, including defending democracy, reaffirming the importance of collective security and building a fair and sustainable global trading system. There was a very constructive relationship between the Prime Minister and President Biden, and it was a very successful summit.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Perhaps there is just time to say to the noble Baroness that there were a number of specific questions that she did not answer. Can she look through the notes and respond in writing if possible?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

If there are questions that I have not answered, I will.

Covid-19 Update

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 13th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister’s confirmation of a statutory inquiry into the Government’s initial and ongoing handling of the pandemic is welcome. I think that all of us, especially the bereaved families of the almost 130,000 people who have died and those suffering physical and mental health consequences, need answers, as well as assurances that, where there have been mistakes, everything that can be done will be done to ensure they are not repeated.

Yet the language in the Statement about when this process will even start could have come straight from the mouth of Sir Humphrey Appleby in a “Yes Minister” script. I quote: “when the time is right”, “in due course”. All that is missing is “in the fullness of time”. I appreciate that the terms of reference need to be agreed and the appointments made to conduct the inquiry and support its work, but why on earth would there be such a long delay even to start the process? I do not understand the logic in delaying for at least a year until—a very imprecise timescale—“spring 2022”. We have all watched Ministers squirm at the Dispatch Box as they try to explain what they really meant when they said that something would be ready by spring and it is not ready even though it is August.

The Prime Minister embraced a new watchword in his Statement. He said “caution”—which we do not often hear in statements from him and which we know is not a word that comes easily to him, but he is clearly very aware of the dangers of new variants mutating and of a third wave of infections next winter. Given that, why not start the inquiry process as soon as possible in order to learn the lessons as soon as possible? If it is the case that delays in implementing lockdowns or other measures meant that the virus spread or mutated more quickly, leading to more lives being lost and more restrictions being imposed for longer, including lockdowns, and if that will help avoid a third wave this autumn or at least help us understand how better to respond, surely the work of the inquiry must be undertaken as quickly as possible. The last thing we need now is a further pause in learning from any mistakes.

I hope that the noble Baroness does not repeat the reasons given in the Statement for this delay. The Prime Minister basically says that it because of the burdens that the inquiry would place on the National Health Service. I can understand that, but surely it applies more accurately to the wholesale NHS and public health reorganisation that the Government are about to embark on than to an inquiry which so many in the National Health Service support.

I hope that I am wrong on this—I have said that I want to be proved wrong—but can she give me an assurance that there is no attempt to delay the report beyond a general election, given that, at the same time, plans have been announced to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act? If the noble Baroness is able to give an assurance on that, that would be really helpful and would give a lot of reassurance to colleagues.

The noble Baroness knows that there is increasing concern about a rise in cases of the so-called Indian variant of Covid within the UK, including the highly transmissible B.1.617.2, which has now spread rapidly in areas of the north-west of England and elsewhere. Can she tell the House something about the impact that this is likely to have on the Government’s road map out of lockdown, including the national restrictions that are due to be lifted next Monday?

Are Ministers considering a return to tiers and maintaining or increasing restrictions in Covid hotspots? She will understand why I am asking—it is deeply concerning to people living in these communities, many of whom, in the north-west at least, have remained subject to restrictions throughout most of the past 14 months.

Will she also say something tonight about the latest increases in surge testing and surge vaccinations? Are there now plans to extend this further than Bolton and, more recently, Blackburn? Until now, we have seen vaccines rolled out at the same pace across the whole of England, on the advice of the JCVI, but extra doses of the vaccines have now been given to Blackburn with Darwen in Lancashire to extend the vaccine rollout to all over-18s in the area. Is this part of a new surge vaccination programme to deal with the rise of the Indian variant, and will that be rolled out in other areas where the variant may crop up?

Could she also tell the House what assessment the Government have made of the impact that not adding India to the red list for international travel has had on the arrival of this variant in the UK? Why did the Government not implement a comprehensive hotel quarantine policy when the variant was evident in other countries that were transporting visitors to the UK?

The Government have repeatedly pledged to be driven by data, not dates—yet we do not yet know the full extent to which many variants, including those identified in Brazil, South Africa and India, impact on vaccine effectiveness. A lot of the information is very positive and encouraging, but it would be helpful to know what research the Government are doing and how accurate some of that information is. Is she also able to say what information and advice the Government have received regarding the potential risk? Can she update the House on the rollout of booster doses that will be available later this year?

On a related matter—she may want to write to me about this; I am quite happy with that—it would be helpful to have an update on the Government’s plans for addressing the persisting disparities in vaccination uptake among different ethnic groups. She will share our concern on this issue. It has particularly affected the social care workforce, which has had a lower take-up.

More broadly, with the World Health Organization referring to the shocking disparity in vaccination rates between countries, and Chris Whitty saying that the prevention of new variants involves the need to get on top of the pandemic, I ask what role the UK is playing in leading the global response? One Minister said very early on that none of us is safe until all of us are safe, and we obviously want to see an international rollout of the vaccine.

All of us are desperate to get to a place where the virus is behind us and we can accelerate the return to living and working more normally. However, we need to do this safely, and our understanding of what did and did not work at the start of this pandemic is an urgent and essential part of that process. So we welcome the inquiry and think that it is the right decision to take, but it needs to be started sooner than next spring.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I begin by apologising to the House that, in order for me to get home tonight, I have to be on a train at King’s Cross at 8.03 pm. Therefore, I may have to leave before the end of all the supplementary questions, for which I apologise. I will undertake to watch them tomorrow morning.

For some time, we on these Benches have been calling for a committee of inquiry to be established to examine the actions of the Government in handling the Covid crisis and to consider what lessons can be learned for the future, so the fact that the Government are now setting one up is very much to be welcomed. However, I am somewhat dismayed at the proposed timescale. In response to the Prime Minister’s Statement, the relatives of Covid victims have strongly argued that we need to be learning lessons now, not at some distant future date—and they are surely right.

The Government’s argument in favour of delay until next year is that we should not distract people who are

“in the heat of our struggle against this disease”.

However, without being complacent, by the autumn, unless the vaccines prove ineffective against any new variants that might by then emerge, we will not be in the heat of the struggle as we have seen it in recent months. In any event, there are many aspects of the inquiry—such as the planning, procurement or decision-making processes within government—that could easily be investigated now, without jeopardising the NHS’s ability to manage a further wave. To delay starting the inquiry by a year is simply unjustified.

The lengths of public inquiries vary; the 69 held since 1990 have varied between 45 days and 13 years. The average was two and a half years. It is therefore highly unlikely that this inquiry will be conducted and concluded before the next election. This will mean that the Government will avoid any accountability for their actions, for by the time we get around to the following general election, people and events will have moved on. More importantly, such a long timetable will enable the Government to hide behind the fact that the inquiry is ongoing, and delay making the changes needed to avoid repeating some of the errors of the past 15 months.

The Government’s mind is clearly made up on the timescale, but I wonder whether the noble Baroness the Leader of the House could be a bit more specific about some aspects of it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked, when the Government say “spring 2022”, what is their definition of “spring”? Also, can the Minister specifically deny rumours from within Whitehall that civil servants working on the inquiry have been told to expect it to start next July? Have the Government any thoughts on how long the inquiry might last? Will they set even an indicative deadline for it to report?

Will they encourage the inquiry to produce interim reports on specific aspects of its work that could be completed first—an approach adopted in some other, analogous inquiries? For example, it would be sensible to know at the earliest possible moment what went wrong in the planning for the pandemic. We need those lessons to be learned before the next one arrives. It would also be sensible, and possible, to have an early report on procurement practices to ensure that the excesses of the last 15 months are never repeated. Can the noble Baroness give any indication of who might lead it? If she cannot, can she give us any indication of when we might know? Yesterday, it emerged that the Department of Health and Social Care has already concluded an internal inquiry which the Government are refusing to publish. Why is this, and will they now do so?

The urgency of the inquiry might not be so great if we felt confident that the Government had already learned the lessons of the past 15 months, but I am afraid that we do not. I will take just two examples. First, the delay in implementing the stricter measures that were urgently required in the autumn has been replicated by the delay in adding India to the red list. This has led to a large number of travellers from India entering the UK while the virus was rampant in that country, and to its inevitable importation here. We need a timelier approach to dealing with such new threats. The inquiry could explain why that has been lacking until now.

Secondly, the central test and trace system is now being disbanded, with most of the central PHE staff having been sacked, leaving open how any future surges will be managed. We need an ongoing, effective test and trace system to deal with new variants and localised outbreaks. The inquiry could shine a light on how that might be achieved.

Finally, on the creation of a UK commission on Covid commemoration, I completely agree that a national memorial in St Paul’s Cathedral is a good idea, but I gently suggest to the Government that the best memorial of this crisis would be a commitment to paying properly those staff working in the NHS and social care, whose dedication has been phenomenal and without whose efforts the effects of the pandemic would have been even more destructive.

Tributes: Lord Fowler

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is my great pleasure on behalf of these Benches to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for the service he has given to this House as our third elected Lord Speaker and as the first man ever to hold that office, as he broke through the glass ceiling on being elected in 2016. To echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, I think we all regard him as our noble friend.

But what a five year-period this has been. Our website declares that the role of the Lord Speaker is to chair proceedings and be an ambassador for your Lordships’ House. Our proceedings have not only had to change temporarily in the past year, quickly and dramatically, but in the time that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has been the Speaker we have had a few constitutional moments, for which we have to go back decades or even centuries to find precedents. There were some for which there are none. We had an unlawful Prorogation, the first Saturday sitting since 1982 and the first Christmas sitting since the English Civil War. There is a Chinese saying, “May you live in interesting times”, but there is some uncertainty over whether that is a curse or a blessing.

Interesting times need wise heads, wise counsel and calmness, all qualities that can be attributed to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. As an ambassador for your Lordships’ House, he has done us proud. When promoting the need for change, particularly on the size of the House, he has been a positive advocate for the benefits of our work. He has also been scrupulously fair in accepting justified criticism and rejecting the unjustified. The noble Lord now wishes to return to his role as a campaigner. In announcing his retirement, he said:

“I am only 83, and unless I am careful, I will not have time to start my next career. The career I wish to start is that of an entirely independent Back-Bencher”—


as if he was not independent before—

“able to speak out on political issues that concern me, such as the size of the House, and to have the freedom to campaign, particularly in the area of HIV and AIDS.”—[Official Report, 25/2/21; col. 891.].

It is nearly 34 years since the noble Lord, as Secretary of State for Health, launched the “Don’t Die of Ignorance” campaign to raise awareness of HIV and AIDS, in the face of opposition from Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. But he insisted that the only answer when tackling this issue was to educate people about the risks and to alter behaviour. I am not sure that I agree with the noble Baroness the Leader of the House: I do not think that he changed Mrs Thatcher’s mind, but he proved that he was right on this. His work in this field has both saved and changed lives. It is to his enormous credit that he will now continue that campaigning, including the combating of stigma and prejudice.

On a personal note, I have valued the noble Lord’s counsel and friendship. I have greatly enjoyed working with him. I have enjoyed our many discussions and debates, and I suspect that we have both been a bit surprised, given our respective political backgrounds, at how often we agreed and how little we disagreed. He has the interests of this House, its Members, our work and our public-facing role at the forefront of his thinking at all times. I hope he will get to spend a little more time in his beloved Isle of Wight with Fiona—I look forward to perhaps visiting him there again—but we look forward to working with him in his new role as a Cross-Bench Peer and, as we know, a dedicated campaigner.

It also gives me great pleasure to welcome the noble Lord, Lord McFall, who has been a friend of mine for many years since we first fought an election. He will remember a weekend in Lytham St Annes before the general election of 1987, or perhaps 1992, when we were campaigning for the Labour and Co-op parties. He has now embraced the independence of the Lord Speaker’s chair, and I am sure that he will follow in the fine tradition of other Lord Speakers in conducting our proceedings. We wish him well and he has our full support in doing so.

It is with great pleasure that we pay our tributes to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, today. We shall miss him, but I know that he considers the noble Lord, Lord McFall, a worthy successor to him, as the House does.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th May 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That this debate be adjourned till tomorrow.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be adjourned until Wednesday 12 May. I first concur with the comments, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Bates, thanking Her Majesty the Queen for opening our proceedings today. In her long reign she has seen this country weather many peaks and troughs: peace, war, economic highs and lows, national optimism and pessimism. Through it all she has remained steadfast and discreet. In doing so, she has earned the gratitude and affection of the entire nation.

As is tradition, the proposers and seconders—as we have heard—are usually a noble Lord I would call a “respected long-serving colleague” but whom the noble Lord, Lord Bates, called a “genial old codger”, and a “rising star”. I have to admit I am not entirely happy today that the “genial old codger” is younger than I am.

As a proposer of the humble Address, the noble Lord, Lord Bates, showed why he is held in such high regard in your Lordships’ House. He once told me—he is going to get nervous here—that he thought he was boring. As his friends know, and as he has shown today, nothing could be further from the truth. I think his generosity in his opening comments about your Lordships’ House and those who have seen us through the pandemic shows his generosity of spirit.

He is, as we have heard, perhaps best known for two things. First, walking—but not a gentle stroll for the noble Lord; it is usually a few thousand miles at a time to promote good causes. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, he has raised over £1 million for charity—and indeed, he told me that on one of those walks he met his wife.

Secondly, he is well known for having resigned from the Government four times—each time, it must be said, with honour and dignity. On one occasion it was because he considered he had insulted your Lordships’ House by being just one minute late to respond to a Question. I can understand why he is not a Member of Mr Johnson’s Government, where nobody ever seems to step up and take that kind of responsibility.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson of Welton, is relatively new to your Lordships’ House but has played a full and active role since she joined. She has clearly been in training as the up-and-coming rising star for the Government Whips Office because, while I was reading her contributions in Hansard, I found several along the lines of—it is a sign of the times—“May I remind the noble Lord that the advisory speaking time is just three minutes?”

She made her mark, as she said, in debates on the then Domestic Abuse Bill, with thoughtful contributions showing her genuine commitment to the issue. Her comments today show her willingness to work cross-party, which is how this House does its best work. Also, she showed her pride in being a Member of your Lordships’ House and her respect for the work we do. I hope she can convey that to some Members of her Government who are not quite as enthusiastic. She is clearly a welcome addition to this House and will greatly help our proceedings.

Generally, when a Government lay out their programme for the Queen’s Speech, they set the tone as well as the policies and proposed legislation for the forthcoming Session. That is not always the case, as we saw in the Queen’s Speech of October 2019, when the Government’s programme lasted only a few days before—following the unlawful attempt—Parliament could be prorogued for the election, which led to a further Queen’s Speech in December 2019.

When we look back at previous Queens’ and Kings’ Speeches—I have gone back roughly to Queen Victoria’s time—we see that many have been made at times of great change and following momentous events in our nation’s history. In outlining their forthcoming legislative programme, a Government define their values and vision. In fact, they define their moral purpose.

On 15 August 1945, VJ Day, the State Opening was very different from today’s scaled-back proceedings. The King and the Queen, buoyed by massive, cheering crowds, arrived at Westminster in an open carriage. The UK had emerged from the horror of war virtually bankrupt and with a massive financial debt to the United States. So much of our national infrastructure, including homes, factories and schools, was rubble and ruins.

The King’s Speech on that day was hopeful, ambitious and visionary, and, despite some of the most difficult challenges and obstacles imaginable, the Government’s vision was courageous, optimistic and determined. Our country could not just go back as if time had stood still since 1939: too many people had paid too high a price for life to return to what it had been before. As the nation prepared for peace, there was a sharp focus on the need to build—not just rebuilding what had been but building what should be. It created homes and jobs, and our National Health Service was born.

That Government were also confident and ambitious about our relationships with other countries across the world. They knew that peace was to be treasured and nurtured and that collaborative relationships were essential. Outward looking, those leaders were committed to playing a positive, leading role on the international stage. That speech remains inspirational to read, not just in relation to the scale of ambition and achievement against the backdrop of the greatest challenge that our country has ever faced, but for providing the confidence that politics was a force for good.

The greatest challenge leading up to this Queen’s Speech has of course been the Covid-19 pandemic. Although less violent and shorter than the war that preceded the 1945 speech, it has also had a profound effect on our nation. Next week will mark the first time in over a year that many of us will be able to hug family members and friends outside our own household. We have had to adjust—drastically—to the new behavioural norms of social distancing, mask wearing and a daily diet of meetings on Zoom and Teams. At the worst end of the scale, almost 130,000 of our fellow citizens have died. Many others are suffering from ongoing physical and/or mental health conditions, and there have been huge economic consequences for both businesses and the workforce alike. It has been a really tough year.

The parallel with 1945 is that the courage, ambition and preparation for the future that was shown then are the step change that is needed today. There has to be a post-pandemic vision that does not lead to political apathy or cynicism but again sees the value of political engagement and offers an optimism grounded in providing the jobs, services and opportunities that our country needs.

If there are two significant lessons for this generation of leaders, they are these: first, as the noble Lord, Lord Bates, commented, the world is now more interconnected than ever before. My grandparents left the UK only once in their lives, and their parents never left these shores. My great-grandfather never travelled on the ships that he worked on in the east London docks, but—until the pandemic—their descendants would fly the Atlantic with the same ease with which their great-grandparents took the bus into central London. So when the virus struck, it swiftly travelled the world and changed our lives.

Part of this lesson comes back to the moral purpose of government. The global co-dependency of nations increases rather than reduces our international responsibilities. I welcome the fact that the Queen’s Speech appears to recognise this in relation to our commitment on defence matters—although, as I am sure my noble friend Lord West would point out, some of the promised funding for our Armed Forces makes up lost ground from the past. But the recent proposals to cut UK aid to some of the poorest countries is so misjudged—in relation not just to their interests but to ours.

The Queen’s Speech says that the Government “will continue to provide aid where it has the greatest impact”, but the noble Baroness the Leader will recall the concerns of your Lordships’ House about the Government reneging on their own legislative commitment to 0.7% of GNI. There does not seem to be a Bill mentioned in the Queen’s Speech to legalise that cut, so can we take this absence as a recognition, finally, that the Government will stick by their own legally binding commitments?

The second lesson for today’s leaders is one that must have challenged those in government who are ideologically wedded to the notion of a small state. It is that, in order to effectively tackle a national crisis, major state intervention is essential, and the foundations for that must be in place before the crisis actually happens. The UK was woefully underprepared for the pandemic, so, in building for the future, we must develop national resilience to threats both known and as yet unknown.

I turn to some specific proposals in the Queen’s Speech. The year in which the Queen came to the Throne, 1952, saw London’s worst ever pollution. That December, a combination of weather, coal-fired heating and exhaust fumes caused a thick smog over London which led to the deaths of thousands. It took four years for the new Clean Air Act to be passed and the decades since have seen massive improvements. Continued consideration of the Environment Bill therefore gives us an opportunity to revisit an issue which the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, has described as

“the single greatest environmental risk to human health”.

Ministers will, I am sure, be aware of the recommendations of the coroner following the death of nine year-old Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah after finding that air pollution was a significant factor in her death.

I welcome the plans to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, a consequence of the 2010 coalition agreement which has been honoured more in the breach and lost any value it might have had, but other legislation affecting our democracy and constitution will have to be examined carefully.

The proposed electoral integrity Bill feels more like a voter suppression Bill of which the state of Georgia would be proud. There is no evidence that this legislation will be proportionate or even necessary. I have checked with the Electoral Commission, which clearly states that the evidence of proven electoral fraud is low. In fact, overwhelmingly, most complaints appear to relate to false allegations against candidates or—horror of horrors—inaccurate imprints on leaflets. Insisting on photo ID and making it harder to vote will not enhance our democracy. I had hoped that the Trump playbook was no longer required reading at No. 10.

Who can be anything but suspicious when the Government say that they want to

“restore the balance of power between the executive, legislature and the courts”?

We know what is behind this. It looks, sounds and smells like a power grab. Obviously, all Governments have the right to get their legislative programme through. We in this House play a useful role in scrutiny and revision, but the House of Commons has primacy and MPs, rightly, get the final say. Similarly, the courts, when asked, have a role in upholding the law and the constitution. At times—it is why I was so pleased to hear the noble Baroness’s comments—the Government have had an almost hysterical reaction to anything that suggests that absolute power should not lie exclusively with the Executive. Back in 2015, in my first week as Leader of the Opposition, the now Leader of the House in the other place threatened 1,000 new Peers to stop the Lords taking a different view from the Commons. Our unwritten constitution is based on a system of checks and balances, so we will examine these proposals with care, as any significant constitutional change merits.

I hope that the procurement Bill, to give SMEs greater opportunities to secure government contracts, will provide for greater examination of how contracts were awarded during the pandemic to ensure that better protections are in place in the future. Time and again, noble Lords across the House have raised concerns about how some contracts were awarded—fast-tracked or agreed on the back of a fag packet with the pub landlord next door. Time and again, we were told that this was just responding to a moment of national crisis. At times, that could have been true, and it is why inquiries into the handling of the pandemic are essential to ensure proper transparency regarding the roles of Ministers and advisers, if only to learn the lessons for the future and to inform policy. It will also be an opportunity to reflect on whether the relevant ministerial and advisers’ codes are fit for purpose.

The NHS reform Bill appears to be another top-down reorganisation, this time to undo much of the coalition Government’s so-called Lansley reforms. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Thornton will have more to say about this tomorrow, but surely the greatest priority, as outlined today by the noble Baroness, should be to build up our NHS following the pandemic and to bring to social care the reforms needed. On the latter, I am not sure I really understand what the Government are committing to—if anything. All those involved, including providers and users, have called for something as ambitious as the 1945 Government’s establishment of the NHS. In a nutshell, social care needs its post-1945 moment now; it should not be back-heeled into the long grass when no one is looking.

Professor Wessely and his team reported on modernising the Mental Health Act in 2018 and the Government have now committed to implementing many of the recommendations, but, even with this being Mental Health Awareness Week, it is not clear how and when. We want to work closely with Ministers to ensure essential and urgent improvements in this area.

The Government also say that they want to promote the “integrity of the union”. As someone who is half-Scottish and committed to our union of nations, I have to say to the Leader that I have not seen enough evidence of that to date. Too often, the Prime Minister has made belligerent attacks on those from other parties and shown a lack of interest in the whole of the UK. That shows little respect for the union. He needs to embrace better engagement and to value the differences and strengths of the UK nations within the union. As the noble Lord, Lord Bates, said, we hope that the meetings about to start between the four nations will lead to progress in that area.

The commitment to strengthen devolved government in Northern Ireland is welcome, but it means that Mr Johnson and his Ministers really do need to up their game. Both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown would meet Northern Ireland’s political leaders and travel there, particularly when times were difficult, and we would like to see that same commitment from the Prime Minister.

I hope that the commitment to enhance renters’ rights means that Ministers will finally act on their promise to ban unfair evictions, which we will support, as they cause enormous distress to thousands of tenants. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness could confirm that this means primary legislation and pre-legislative scrutiny to ensure that the Bill is fit for purpose.

The proposals on animal welfare are welcome, although I am concerned about a story that was leaked to a press on a proposal on importing so-called trophies, which may have a loophole through which a herd of elephants could escape. We would be very grateful if the noble Baroness could look at that.

We welcome the online safety Bill, despite the long delay since it was first promised. The noble Baroness understands that this House is impatient for progress on that issue.

The Government make much of their lifelong learning and training Bill, and we on these Benches share the belief that first-class education, training and skills are the foundations on which our economy is built and in themselves bring huge benefits to society. Those commitments must come in parallel with measures necessary to create the economic climate and investment in future jobs that are open to all.

When reading the previous King’s and Queen’s Speeches, I was struck by how important it was to successive Governments that our relations with other countries were cordial and positive. As an outward-looking, forward-facing nation, that was important to us, so I had hoped to see something in this first post-Brexit speech about our relationship with our nearest neighbours. It is disappointing that references to our role overseas were so limited to the embrace of an interconnected world and what that means for us at home.

That brings me back to the scale of ambition needed for a post-Brexit, post-pandemic UK. I welcome the words in the speech about delivering a national recovery, but it really has to be more than political rhetoric, with politics and legislation that really deliver. We have heard a lot about levelling-up, but it needs the powers and funding to make it happen.

Within all the promised legislation, there were measures that we will support, some that we will not and others that we will work with the Government to improve. Over the coming days and weeks, we will debate this speech, embark on the process of scrutinising legislation and fulfil our responsibilities with care and diligence. But judgments on this Queen’s Speech will not be in tomorrow’s newspaper headlines or in interviews but in the months and years to come, on whether the Government have met the challenge and test and been ambitious enough to ensure that our country is offered a greater opportunity and the optimism that genuinely saves lives.

Election of Lord Speaker

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, on behalf of the whole House I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McFall of Alcluith, on being elected Lord Speaker, and I look forward to working with him in his new role. I also offer our thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, for standing in this election. As with everything else over the last year, this election was impacted by Covid, but all three candidates rose admirably to the challenge of remote campaigning.

I also take the opportunity on behalf of the House to thank all members of staff, and the Hansard Society, who made the election possible and ran the process so smoothly. There will be a proper occasion for tributes to be made to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, after he retires as Lord Speaker, so I will save mine until that time. But on behalf of the House, I would like to thank him for all his service to this House.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I concur with the comments of the Lord Privy Seal and offer our congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord McFall, on his election as the next Lord Speaker of your Lordships’ House.

Noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, may recall that, when he was newly elected, we congratulated the Lord Speaker on breaking through the glass ceiling as the first male occupant of that post —there are very few times that us women can say that. There will be time later to pay proper tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, but at this stage I want to thank him for his service to this House. We look forward to the opportunity to pay tribute to his work.

This was an unusual election and I think that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, said, the whole House will want to thank the officials of the House, the Hansard Society, and Mark D’Arcy and Jackie Ashley for hosting the hustings. I also want to thank the other candidates; I am sure the noble Lord, Lord McFall, will join me in this and has probably been in touch already. It was a difficult election and all the candidates showed the best of your Lordships’ House. As those of us who have done so in other lives know, standing for election is always difficult; you want to win and need to be prepared to lose. They all showed this House at its best and showed themselves at their best. They gave us an excellent and difficult choice, but from these Benches we send our warm congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord McFall. I have worked with him for many years already, but look forward to working with him in his new role.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

My Lords, if I may add this briefly, I first met the noble Lord, Lord McFall, in the House of Commons when he came up to congratulate me on a political book that I had written. I of course immediately recognised him as a man of sound judgment and discernment. But over almost the last five years, I have recognised him as a man of action who brings forward his plans to completion and success. No Lord Speaker could have had a better or more loyal deputy, and no Lord Speaker has ever had a better preparation for the Woolsack as the noble Lord, Lord McFall. I congratulate all three candidates on the way that they have conducted their campaigns but, today, I congratulate him most sincerely and wish him the very best of luck for the future.

Tributes: Baroness Williams of Crosby

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, despite being made a life Peer in 1993, Baroness Williams of Crosby was nearly always publicly referred to as Shirley Williams—not in ignorance, but in affection. She was of that generation of multi-skilled intellectual politicians who could easily have taken a different path in life from politics. Perhaps if Elizabeth Taylor had not pipped her at the post for the lead human role in the 1944 film “National Velvet”, she might never have returned home to the UK and a life of public service. But, like many others of her generation, she managed to combine her other interests with a passion for politics, always believing in it as a force for good and a route to social, political and economic advances.

She proudly described herself as a feminist. Her grandmother had been a suffragist, and she said that her feminism was instilled in her by her mother, Vera Brittain, supported by her father. In a 2015 interview for the book 100 Leading Ladies, she recalled that until she became a teenager she had never encountered anything that made her feel inferior to her brother and simply took that for granted. Her feminism was a constant throughout her life, especially in her politics.

She was pretty dismissive at having been tipped, as a Labour Minister, to be the first female Prime Minister, saying that

“there were then … so few women in politics that if you were quite good at your job and were a good speaker, you were almost inevitably going to be tipped for the job”.

But the feminist in her also claimed that she had

“learnt that politicians, especially male ones, tend to overestimate their own capacities, and so I am careful not to overestimate mine”.

Instead, she described her character as “tremendously involved and energetic”. She felt that whatever you had to do, you had to “throw yourself into it”—and she certainly did.

Having been raised in a strongly political and intellectual home, she brought an academic rigour and energy to all she took on. She was the first woman to chair the Oxford University Labour Club, and her degree in PPE and Fulbright scholarship led to a career first in journalism and then as general secretary of the Fabian Society. She was radical, pragmatic, articulate and enthusiastic. As a Labour MP and Minister in the 1960s and 1970s, she would energise debates in the House of Commons and, in the days of well-attended public meetings, delight audiences around the country. She was a passionate supporter of European integration in the days when it was a divisive issue in the Labour Party.

In 1979 she earned the admiration of many as throughout the election campaign she travelled the country supporting colleagues in marginal seats. As many of us witnessed in this House, she was a naturally engaging, authentic speaker who drew in audiences. On the eve of poll, she was miles away from her own constituency, supporting one of the youngest members of the Government, Ann Taylor—now my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton—who was defending a majority of just 900. Although Ann was returned to Parliament, unfortunately Shirley lost her seat. Some attributed her defeat to the overly hostile press coverage of her visit to the Grunwick picket line to hear from those who were on strike.

However, she remained one of the country’s most popular characters and returned to Parliament, as we have heard, in the 1981 by-election, but this time as one of the leaders of the newly created SDP. Splits in political parties are painful for all and, while the Labour Party suffered as a result, the SDP never achieved the success that some predicted. I had not long been politically active, but I recall that time vividly. Whatever the views of individual Labour Party members, the loss they felt most sadly was that of Shirley, for whom they had enormous affection.

Despite those differences, the warmth of the tributes paid to Baroness Williams by her former colleagues is testimony to her character. She was always generous with her time and passionate about her beliefs. Her commitment to the issues she cared about never wavered. As a Member of your Lordships’ House and leader of the Liberal Democrats, she was a force to be reckoned with. She never stopped working and hoping for a better world. My colleague and noble friend Lady Royall—now principal of Somerville College, which Baroness Williams attended—said:

“She was a … feminist, a woman of great intellect who cared deeply and worked tirelessly to bring about greater social and economic justice … I never spent a moment in her company which I did not appreciate or enjoy.”


Shirley Williams lived a long, eventful and productive life. On behalf of these Benches, I send our condolences to her daughter, her family, her friends and her party.

Clerk of the Parliaments

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 13th April 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am delighted to move this Motion to give the House an opportunity to pay tribute to the outgoing Clerk of the Parliaments, Ed Ollard.

From 1983, when he joined as a fast-stream clerk, Ed served this House with distinction. He provided outstanding service in a variety of senior roles within the House, including as Private Secretary to the Leader and Chief Whip, Finance Director and the Clerk of Committees. Before he became the 64th Clerk of the Parliaments, he served as Clerk Assistant to Sir David Beamish for six years.

In these varied roles, Ed provided Members across the House, and its political leadership, with courteous and professional procedural advice and was a source of authoritative leadership to the staff of the House. He was generous and resourceful, often going way beyond the call of duty. On one such occasion, he went so far as to provide clothing to the Government Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Ashton. I am happy to confirm to noble Lords that this did not involve Lycra, but my noble friend did borrow a white bow-tie from Ed to save his blushes at a reception in Buckingham Palace.

Between 1992 and 1994 Ed served as Private Secretary to the then Leader of the House, my noble friend Lord Wakeham, and Viscount Cranborne. Some noble Lords will recall this as a particularly demanding parliamentary Session, as the Maastricht Bill was passing through the House. Ed must have had a strong sense of déjà vu over the last few years as we worked through legislating for our exit from the European Union.

Across the various posts he held, Ed oversaw a number of significant changes which helped modernise our processes for the benefit of the whole House, including overhauling the clerks’ Table with modern equipment, overseeing the transformation of House publishing and printing, and playing a central role in implementing the recommendations of the Ellenbogen report on bullying and harassment—an issue he was deeply committed to addressing as the senior officer responsible for the staff of the House.

But by far the most significant changes Ed presided over have been those implemented since March 2020 in response to Covid. These changes will be familiar to noble Lords across the House, but what may be less well known is the vast amount of work he did behind the scenes to bring our hybrid proceedings to life. Over Easter last year, Ed helped develop and oversee the initial setting up of our virtual proceedings, in less than three weeks, and then our move to hybrid proceedings. It was a huge but critical task that ensured that this House has been able to undertake its business during these unprecedented times, and while we all may have had our frustrations with the hybrid way of working, none of us can deny how essential the changes Ed helped deliver have been in allowing us to continue our important function during this pandemic. For that, we all owe Ed an immense debt of gratitude.

Ed has left the House as we undergo a significant period of change. Over the next few weeks, we will have a new Speaker and a new Chief Operating Officer, and we will, I hope, be taking further steps forward as we slowly return to the normal way of doing business. I look forward to working with the new Clerk of the Parliaments, Simon Burton, as we navigate the future and welcome him to his role.

As he leaves this role, I am sure Ed will find more time to enjoy his favourite pastimes of watching Charlton Athletic—I could not say so myself, but I am sure some will think that only a Clerk of the Parliaments who has served over the last few years in this House can enjoy such a thing, but that is up to Ed—and, of course, following the Tour de France and cycling himself. I suspect the sightings of Lycra on the West Front Corridor will decrease quite significantly now Ed has left us. On a more serious note, I am sure the whole House will join me in thanking Ed for his distinguished service and we wish him, his wife Mary and their family all the best for the future. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is an honour to have the opportunity to pay tribute to Ed Ollard as the outgoing Clerk of the Parliaments on his retirement. I admit that this is something of a first for me: it is not the first time that I have spoken to recognise somebody’s service on retirement, but it is the first time I have ever done so for somebody who is younger than I am.

Ed started his career in the House of Lords in 1983. Noble Lords might be aware that this was the year in which it was first decided to televise proceedings in your Lordships’ House. We cannot hold him responsible for that, but I refer to it to illustrate that he started his career here at a time of great change, and his career here has ended at a time of great change, although I know he shares our optimism that many of the current changes will be temporary.

When Ed announced his retirement last September, we knew that his choice of date was for our convenience, not his. As I said at the time, for a man who cycled into the office each day—hence the Lycra—the choice to continue to do so in the wet and cold winter months could have been only through a sense of duty. Those of us who saw his Lycra-clad arrival, and then his appearance in the Chamber, could only marvel at his Superman-style changes as he swapped one pair of tights for another.

As we heard from the noble Baroness, his career has been one of diligent and resourceful service. Taking account of Queen’s Speeches, royal visits, addresses from Heads of State, restoration and renewal, security issues and the pandemic, it is true to say that there is never been a quiet moment. He has seen many challenges, not least over the past year. The hybrid way of working, despite its necessity, is frustrating to us all. Ed’s guidance, advice and suggestions, as we navigated our way through the difficulties to ensure that we could continue our work, were always thoughtful and considered.

On many occasions, I have been grateful for his advice. I say “grateful,” but it was not always what I wanted to hear. However, I was never in any doubt that he had the interests of your Lordships’ House, its Members and its staff at heart. It is to his credit that he has never been precious about the issues that I raised with him. I can remember calls from sunnier climes during recesses, including one occasion when I had to seek advice about the House being recalled. On another occasion, I was locked in the car park and the police could not find the key to the barrier. Ed was on call with good humour, courtesy and advice at all times—and he found the key.

His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 12th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, when a life spans almost a century, each generation will have a different perception and different memories of that person. Since the announcement of the death of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh and the press coverage of his extraordinary life, so many have said, in some admiration, “I didn’t know that”. For a man who lived most his life in the full glare of public interest and attention, that is unusual. It illustrates not just the longevity of his life or his position, but his interests, contribution and personality, and the range and depth of his public service.

Across the world, he is of course best known for being the person Her Majesty the Queen described as “my strength and stay”. That statement, in its simplicity, captures the essence and significance of his role as her consort. For anyone in public life, but especially in the role and for the work expected of Her Majesty, the need for someone whom you can trust, love, admire and rely on without reservation is essential.

Over the past few days, it has been very clear that the nation, and, indeed, the world, has nothing but respect, admiration and affection for his unfailing support and unstinting loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen. It is a role for which there is no blueprint, but the integrity, honesty and character of His Royal Highness made it a role for which he has now perhaps written that blueprint. But to see the Duke’s life through only that lens is not enough.

Many, after reading about his life for the first time, will not have known of his unconventional start in life or the challenges and complexities of his family. They may not have been aware of his impressive naval career, which he would have expected to continue, had he not fallen in love with the young Princess Elizabeth. Theirs was not an 18th-century arranged marriage to cement political alliances but a genuine love that endured. And perhaps—because each generation thinks it is the first to discover innovation and modernisation—some would not have been aware of how progressive he was in so many areas. When we are young, we seek to force the pace of change and, as we get older, we get more irritable at those behind us, pushing to go faster and further. Those reading about the young Prince Philip for the first time would not have been aware of his fascination and enthusiasm for, and knowledge of, science and technology.

Looking back at those early speeches, they were at times controversial but they were also very forward-looking, which is perhaps why they were sometimes controversial. They were also very prescient, particularly regarding environmental impacts. When chairing the commission for the 1953 coronation, he proposed that cameras be allowed inside Westminster Abbey for the coronation for the very first time. Many, including the Prime Minister, were horrified and opposed; some even considered him to be a dangerous radical. But it went ahead and, for the first time ever in the UK, the 20 million people who watched—many crowded around the small black and white sets they had rented for the day—outnumbered radio listeners. It was the first major world event to be broadcast live on TV, and we saw TV starting to take over from cinema newsreels as the mainstream media.

Prince Philip’s relationship with the press and politicians was not always easy. A mixture of quick wit and impatience led to some interesting headlines. But too many one-dimensional and partial reports offered an incomplete picture of an essentially private man. Yet across the country, many are now retelling stories—some real, some embellished, some no doubt apocryphal—of meetings and conversations that he had, and they are doing so with great affection. Many in your Lordships’ House will have known and met His Royal Highness. Some will want to share those memories; others will cherish them in private. I have my own memories, and I recall them with a smile.

No reflection on His Royal Highness’s life can possibly be complete without recognition of the remarkable Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, which for decades has transformed the lives of millions of young people from all walks of life. It was pioneering and has stood the test of time, continuing to challenge, reward and enrich both individuals and communities.

His Royal Highness was clear, in both life and death, that he did not want, in his words, “a fuss”. Yet we want to pay our respects and recognise the importance of his role in our nation’s history. The humble Address today is to Her Majesty the Queen. Even with all the press coverage and the thousands of conversations about his life across the whole country today, the great loss is of a much-loved husband, father, grandfather, great-grandfather, family member and friend. From these Benches, we offer our sincere condolences to Her Majesty the Queen and the Royal Family.

Integrated Review

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I start with my usual caveat about what a shame it is we are not hearing the Statement in full. It might be a relief to the Leader, but it would be good to hear Statements as important as prime ministerial ones repeated.

Two significant developments since the last Statement on the integrated review provide a new optimism: first, the success of vaccines against Covid-19; and secondly, the election of the new US President. President Biden’s recent speech on America’s place in the world highlighted that his Administration are different in style, values and substance from that of his predecessor. In redefining how the US views its place in the world, he said:

“we must start with diplomacy rooted in America’s most cherished democratic values: defending freedom, championing opportunity, upholding universal rights, respecting the rule of law, and treating every person with dignity.”

At a time when challenges have never seemed so complex or diverse, the power of this change of approach should not be underestimated. Now, our Prime Minister has to decide how the UK will meet those same challenges.

We need the integrated review to succeed to keep our citizens safe and to secure Britain as a moral force for good in the world. But it is against a backdrop whereby the two previous reviews, as well as recent actions taken by the Government, have weakened the foundations. There has been an £8 billion cut to the defence budget and a reduction of 45,000 in Armed Forces personnel. Our reputation as a defender of the rule of law has been damaged by the Internal Market Bill, and now, there is the decision to break the legal commitment on international aid. After an “era of retreat,” as Boris Johnson previously described the last 10 years of Conservative Governments, this review cannot repeat the mistakes of the lost decade for Britain’s foreign and security policy.

The number one priority for any Government is national security, and security has to begin at home, as we have seen during the pandemic. That is why announcements of a national resilience strategy, a counterterrorism operations centre and greater partnership with business are all encouraging.

The threats to our national security are proliferating and the traditional certainties are less stable; while we welcome that the review recognises the threats of space and cyber, the conventional risks have not gone away. Our commitment to NATO must be unshakable, our support for nuclear deterrence must be non-negotiable and our obligations to international law, human rights, multilateral treaties and organisations must be enshrined in policy and practice.

Today’s review accepts that the events of March 2018 in Salisbury indicate that the threat from Russia remains acute. Yet the recommendations of the Russia review 18 months ago remain just that—recommendations. I hope the Leader can today assure us that the legislation to counter state threats will address this and the Government will now set about implementing the outstanding recommendations with some sense of urgency.

Ambiguity in relation to China must also be addressed. Given the importance of security to our national infrastructure, can the Leader explain why the Government have spent years encouraging Chinese Government-backed companies to invest in sensitive areas such as nuclear power and 5G?

Our ambition must be to enhance Britain’s reputation abroad with a foreign policy that appreciates that our values and the national interest are indivisible. We need to build deeper political and economic ties with new and emerging powers, including, as referenced in the review, within the Asia-Pacific. But we also need the anchor of strong, effective relationships with Europe and the US and a defined role in the global institutions we helped to establish. This means providing leadership at NATO to counter threats and aggression, including from Russia. It means being a competent and coherent voice at the G7, leading the global economic recovery—as we did in 2008 with Gordon Brown—and using our position on the UN Security Council to call out human rights violations, even if it is inconvenient.

To realise those ambitions, we have to be consistent and we have to earn trust. It is not enough to refer to Yemen as the worst humanitarian situation in the world, and then continue to sell arms that can be used in the conflict there. It is not enough to host COP 26 if plans to open a new coal mine are then pushed through. It is not enough to talk about a value-driven trade policy, but then reject human rights protections in the Trade Bill.

The decision to cut £5 billion from foreign aid and abandon our commitment to 0.7% of GNI undermines that ambition. The Government say that cut is temporary, but it was this Government who enshrined that commitment in legislation. Why do that if, at the first challenge, that commitment is just abandoned? When will Parliament be able to vote on this? Because the Government need to find a way to make their own actions lawful. On a not unrelated matter, if the Government are serious about our role as a soft power superpower, as the review suggests, surely they could not even contemplate ending funding for VSO. I hope the noble Baroness will address these issues.

I also raise a specific matter about the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, which the review talks up as expanding our science and technology base for strategic advantage. The Government’s press release says that the Business Secretary will have powers for

“directing the agency to cease collaboration with certain hostile actors”.

I am genuinely puzzled about this. Why would the agency be collaborating with hostile powers in the first place? Perhaps the Minister will shed some light on what this actually means.

Despite this being billed as the “strategic defence review”, there are many questions that will have to be addressed in the defence Command Paper. It has been reported that the Army will be cut by 10,000 personnel and armoured vehicles scrapped. If the strategy wants to

“deploy more of our Armed Forces overseas more often and for longer periods of time”,

how will these cuts assist in achieving that?

While our support for the nuclear deterrent is non-negotiable, serious questions remain about the hike in warhead numbers, which breaks the commitments of successive Governments, both Labour and Conservative. Since the Prime Minister was unable to address this when he was asked in the other place, can the noble Baroness explain something about the strategic purpose of this decision? In his Statement, Mr Johnson describes the US as “our closest ally” and “a uniquely close partner”. Given that President Biden has expressed a different approach, was this decision discussed with the US?

In the past year, we have all witnessed the resilience of the British public, particularly but not exclusively those working in our health and care services. The pandemic was a threat that few expected and that, for a whole host of reasons, we were inadequately prepared for. It has brought home how, in future, our preparation against threats and risk has to cover many bases. To effectively prepare for such risks, it is not a question of using headline-friendly rhetoric, getting through the latest crisis or finding warm words for each occasion; it is about careful, strategic planning, listening to wise counsel, diplomacy based on principles and values and delivering the resources that our military, our agencies and our public services need. The test of that is not for today, but it will be judged in the months and years ahead.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the integrated review is an extremely sobering document. In part, this is because of the new and changing security threats it outlines, but it is also because the Government’s policy is riddled with flaws and inconsistencies, which means that it does not offer a credible basis for achieving its aims. These are, as the Prime Minister, said,

“to make the United Kingdom stronger, safer and more prosperous, while standing up for our values.”

Will the review do so? Take its central strategic tenet. According to the Statement:

“Our approach will place diplomacy first.”


For a nation of our size, military capabilities and history, this is a very sensible priority. But what have the Government done to demonstrate that they understand what such an approach requires?

The first requirement is that the UK should be a trusted partner. Here, the Government’s track record is dire. They have twice in the past year broken their pledges under the EU withdrawal Act and Irish protocol and find themselves being taken to court by our most important trading and security partner for breaking the law. Other countries are watching and asking how much our word is now really worth.

The Government cannot be trusted either on their legal commitments to development assistance. They have cut development aid, and with it our ability to wield soft power, at a time when such assistance was never more needed. The Prime Minister says that the cut will be restored when the fiscal situation allows. Is it not the truth, however, that the Government used the pandemic as a convenient pretext to make the cut and have no intention whatsoever of reversing it any time soon?

Another aspect of wielding soft power is to stand up for the values that we wish to promulgate. These include the promotion of human rights. Yet the Government make it pretty clear in the document that trade will trump human rights, not least in our dealings with China. The Foreign Secretary admitted as much yesterday, saying that the UK would be willing to strike trade deals with countries that violate international standards and human rights. Will the Minister tell us whether that is really the Government’s position? If so, what does their alleged commitment to human rights actually amount to?

Throughout the review, the Government largely airbrush out the importance to the UK in every possible respect of the EU. They fail to admit that Brexit will make us poorer, less secure and less influential internationally. Instead, they blandly state that,

“we will enjoy constructive and productive relationships with our neighbours in the European Union.”

I wonder if anybody has told the noble Lord, Lord Frost.

When it comes to military spending, the additional £16 billion promised last autumn does not even fill the black hole in the procurement budget. Our Armed Forces will remain short of armed vehicles, fighter planes, submarines and frigates. Yet the Prime Minister is proposing a tilt to the Indo-Pacific that does not just involve diplomacy and trade but the sending of an aircraft carrier, wholly dependent on US escorts and planes, to the South China Sea. This is but one example of our being increasingly dependent on the United States. It is certainly not the action of a sovereign global power.

The one area where the review sets out a wholly new commitment is the proposed increase in nuclear warheads to 260, some 45% more than the number planned for the mid-2020s by the coalition Government. The review says that this is necessary,

“in recognition of the evolving security environment”.

What on earth does that mean? The review states that the Government might consider using nuclear weapons against chemical or biological attacks or cyberattacks, even by non-nuclear states. This is a massive expansion of the potential role of nuclear weapons and appears to be in breach of our obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. How can the Government possibly justify such a reckless, dangerous and potentially illegal policy shift?

When it comes to trade, the review repeats the Government’s commitment to have a trade agreement in place to cover 80% of our trade by 2022. Surely, this is completely unrealistic. Our combined trade with the US, India and China comes to more than 20%, and there is no chance of reaching a trade agreement with any of them in the foreseeable future. Why, then, is the completely unachievable 80% target repeated? It is simply pie in the sky.

The document is suffused with such fanciful and misleading assertions. To pick one from many: it trumpets the support the Government have given to our creative and cultural sectors, yet their failure to maintain the ability of our creative and cultural sectors to perform in the EU is decimating them. Try telling a young musician, facing the cancellation of all her European work, to pivot to the east. It would be a joke if it were not so serious.

This review demonstrates the Prime Minister’s trademark policy of trying to have your cake and eating it. It avoids hard choices, particularly in relation to China, instead of making them. By pivoting away from Europe, it ignores both history and the basic rule that security, defence and foreign policy should start, not finish, with your neighbours. It is a truly depressing document from a truly depressing Government.