NATO Brussels Summit 2018

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, but while I appreciate the pressures that the Government are under it has been the norm that we would get early sight of a Statement before it is made. Today, we received it shortly before the Prime Minister started speaking in the other place at 3.24 pm.

If reports of the summit are accurate, this appears to be one of the most divisive summits NATO has had, despite common agreement on a number of key issues. We welcome indications that the NATO alliance is responding positively to changing warfare and future threats. The declaration from the summit concluded that countries can invoke Article 5 on collective defence response for hybrid warfare. That starts to open up what an Article 5 response might look like, ensuring that a wider range of potential options are available. It might not be military. It can also be, for example, diplomatic—perhaps not too dissimilar from what happened following the Skripal attack. This is a crucial issue, which could redefine a NATO Article 5 response. Were there any further discussions about what it might look like in the future, including the process of determining how it would be co-ordinated?

I note that the summit also highlighted the importance of working in tandem with other international organisations, including the UN and the EU. Was there any discussion about the role of both these organisations in co-ordinating an Article 5 response? Was there any discussion about promoting collaboration between NATO and the UN in conflict prevention and peacekeeping in terms of the wider security issues in the NATO alliance area?

As the noble Baroness and others in your Lordships’ House will know, the founding principle of NATO was about guaranteeing security across Europe and the North Atlantic. Bearing this in mind, and events in Salisbury, have the Government held any bilateral discussions with the US, including with President Trump at the summit before he left to meet President Putin, about our response to Russian aggression? The NATO summit declaration rightly condemned the illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea. This was in some doubt beforehand, because of comments made by President Trump. What steps are our Government taking to support the Government of Ukraine?

On NATO spending, I have been reading the statement from the summit, while at the same time looking at comments and tweets from President Trump. My understanding is that nothing has really changed in terms of the 2014 aim for all countries to reach 2% of GDP on defence spending by 2024. This has been quite a slow process, but it is ongoing and there is continual progress. On the UK’s commitment, does the noble Baroness consider it appropriate that the UK now includes spending on military MoD pensions as contributing towards the UK target, when it had not been included under previous Governments? What consideration has been given to the assessment by the International Institute for Strategic Studies that we have fallen short of meeting that 2%, even with pensions included? As well as the commitment for NATO to spend 2% on defence, what is the current thinking on the Government’s own modernising defence programme? Will that require additional funding over and above that 2%?

The noble Baroness and others may have seen the comments from President Trump on this issue. I do not know whether she has spoken to the Prime Minister yet as to whether the Prime Minister agrees with the description of the meeting as, “two days of mayhem”. It could be that after President Trump’s visit to the UK she has become inured to his extraordinary behaviour. Press reports, and the President’s Twitter account, indicate that the US President did not moderate his claims or his actions as he flew to Brussels, as we saw when he arrived in the UK.

On the issue of defence spending across NATO countries, the Prime Minister’s Statement says:

“This summit included an additional session in response to the challenge posed by President Trump”.


Does the noble Baroness know when that additional session was held? Can she comment on the accuracy of reports that the scheduled meeting on Thursday morning with Georgia and Afghanistan, two crucial issues that she mentioned in the Statement, had to be halted and the two countries asked to leave after President Trump arrived late and insisted on discussing NATO spending there and then, even though it was not on the agenda and had not been scheduled?

President Trump announced that the EU leaders had caved in to his demands, had agreed to meet the 2% target by next January—2019—and that they would then go further and had “upped their commitment”. That is not in the Statement, so is that the understanding of the UK Government, or is it, perhaps, fake news? President Trump also issued what some regarded as an ultimatum, suggesting that without these commitments the US could leave the NATO alliance. The expression was that America would “do its own thing”. That is not borne out by the decision of the US Senate last week, which, showing very strong bipartisanship, voted 97 to 2 in support of NATO.

It seems there is very little that is new from this summit, although the importance of the NATO alliance countries reaffirming shared commitments and values must be recognised, alongside our ongoing shared commitment to meet the challenges of the future. There is much to be gained by our working together, but it is clear that much more needs to be done to maintain and achieve commitments that have already been made.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, this NATO summit, despite an extraordinarily long communiqué, was essentially about only one thing: the future relationship of the US, and particularly its President, with Europe. President Trump says many worrying and extraordinary things, but when he describes the EU as one of America’s foes we are clearly in extremely challenging times. His statement is all the more remarkable because NATO faces more external threats—from Russia on the one hand and international terrorism on the other—than for several decades. At least President Trump’s performance in Brussels and subsequently in the UK has succeeded in one respect in which the Government have conspicuously failed—he has brought the country together, albeit in opposition to him and many of the policies he is now promoting. In these circumstances, it is vital that the UK speaks with a clear and firm voice and that it works ever more closely with its European allies.

There is only one reference in the Prime Minister’s Statement to the discussions that she held with President Trump on Russia. It says:

“But as I agreed with President Trump in our discussions last week, we must engage from a position of unity and strength”.


I think many are concerned that there is now no such unity with the US on relations with Russia. As the Prime Minister talks of unity, did she seek and gain an absolute assurance from President Trump that he would indeed continue to support the NATO policy of opposition to the Russian annexation of Crimea? Did she gain any assurances about continuing US presence in the vulnerable Baltic states? More generally, did she gain any assurance that the President continues to see NATO as the best mechanism for addressing the whole range of our shared security challenges?

On every issue on which President Trump has challenged mainstream thinking—climate change, Iran and trade, for example—the UK has found itself on the same side as our EU partners and not with him. We may find after today’s meeting in Helsinki that the same applies to some security issues. So was the Prime Minister able to have discussions with any of our European partners while she was in Brussels about the form of foreign policy and defence relationship which might exist were we to leave the EU? The White Paper on our future relationship with the EU says that we must ensure that,

“there is no drop off in mutual efforts to support European security”,

and that the proposed mechanism for achieving this is to include,

“provisions for discussion between EU27 leaders and the UK Prime Minister”.

Did the Prime Minister discuss what such provisions might look like with the principal military powers in the EU, particularly France? What response did she get?

The Prime Minister’s Statement ranges over a number of areas—for example, Afghanistan and cybersecurity—where it is clear that we can be secure only if we work in the closest co-operation with our allies. A combination of President Trump and Brexit is putting a strain on these relationships. It is vital that the Government, with their new Foreign Secretary, bring greater clarity to our strategic foreign policy priorities. It has been lacking for far too long.

Death of a Member: Lord Carrington

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, it is my sad duty to lead the tributes to one of my predecessors as Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who passed away yesterday. Lord Carrington’s contribution to the public life of this country is unsurpassed in modern times. He was by far the longest-serving member of this House, having held the position of Leader here more than 50 years ago. Over that time he turned his hand to many high levels of public office. To those offices and to this place he brought the depth of political understanding and experience of a truly great statesman. He was the last surviving member not just of Sir Alec Douglas-Home’s Cabinet but those of Harold Macmillan and Sir Winston Churchill. The House and the country at large have lost a wonderful man and an outstanding public servant, who experienced at first hand many of the pivotal events of the previous century.

Lord Carrington was born in the shadow of the Great War and, like so many of his generation, as a young man his life was shaped by conflict. Although he became eligible to take his seat in the House of Lords in 1938 following the death of his father, service in the Grenadier Guards during the Second World War meant that he was unable to do so until October 1945. He never forgot his wartime experience. It was to frame his personal and political convictions, and his sense of duty to this country, for the rest of his life. During the war he achieved the rank of acting major, as well as being awarded the Military Cross—a distinction he was characteristically reluctant to mention. When pressed by a journalist later in life, he put his award down to “pot luck” rather than his own bravery and selflessness.

His ministerial career began in 1951, which made him the last surviving member of Sir Winston Churchill’s Government. He served initially as a junior Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food before becoming the Minister of Defence from 1954 to 1956, during the transition to Anthony Eden’s Government. He was then appointed as the High Commissioner to Australia and served in that role until 1959. Until recently, he was still swapping stories with the other former high commissioners to Australia in this House.

Lord Carrington was cabled by Harold Macmillan while sailing back to England, asking him to be the First Lord of the Admiralty, a post he held until 1963, when he became Leader of this House under Sir Alec Douglas-Home. He was leader here until Harold Wilson formed a Labour Government in 1964. He returned to government in 1970 under Sir Edward Heath as Secretary of State for Defence until 1974, followed by a brief spell as Secretary of State for Energy. During this period, he also served as chairman of the Conservative Party. Between 1974 and 1979, he served as the shadow Leader of this House before being appointed as Foreign Secretary by Margaret Thatcher—the last Member of this House to hold the position. I have been told that on one occasion he interjected on a conversation that Margaret Thatcher was having with a foreign visitor, saying: “The poor chap’s come 600 miles. Do let him say something.”

Many noble Lords will have appreciated Lord Carrington’s great capacity to advise and persuade, which was perhaps most evident when he played a pivotal role in bringing an end to the civil war in what was then Rhodesia. As your Lordships will be aware, he left office at the outset of the Falklands conflict because he held himself to an exceptionally high standard of personal responsibility and put his country first—before everything else. The Foreign Office was held in great esteem under his stewardship and his resignation was received with deep regret but respect by those who worked with him.

In 1984, Lord Carrington became the sixth Secretary-General of NATO and his extensive experience of defence and foreign affairs allowed him to fulfil that role with great distinction until 1988. During this time, he was instrumental in averting hostilities between Greece and Turkey. He was an unfalteringly courteous man who was respected across the political divide and internationally. Only a few years ago, the then Labour Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, hosted an intimate gathering at the Foreign Office to celebrate the birthday of his much-loved predecessor. The remarks from those who knew him tell the same story: of a charming individual who commanded enormous respect for the selfless way he served this country.

At this sad time, all sides of your Lordships’ House will want to send their good wishes to his children and wider family. As we mark the end of his life, we should pause to reflect on an extraordinary career of outstanding public service and a great statesman who leaves a lasting legacy in the United Kingdom and internationally. He humbles us all.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, as the last surviving member of Sir Winston Churchill’s Government, to say that Lord Carrington had a long and distinguished career really understates his longevity, the importance of the positions he held and the respect and affection he commanded. He had a truly remarkable life and career as a genuine public servant, and over 70 years in your Lordships’ House. His was a lifetime that saw enormous social and cultural changes. As we heard from the noble Baroness, when he inherited his title in 1938 he was under 21 and so was unable to take his seat. As he was on active military service, he did not take his seat until after the war, in which, as we have heard, he received a Military Cross that he did not even mention in his biography, later claiming that it was a “rough raffle” and, as the noble Baroness said, “pot luck”.

He made his first major speech in your Lordships’ House in 1946, when he spoke mainly on agriculture with particular reference to the post-war housing crisis, labour shortages and supporting an agricultural training scheme for ex-servicemen. He regularly returned to these issues in debates and Questions. In 1951, Prime Minister Churchill appointed him to his first ministerial post at the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. In a later interview on changes in politics and how we communicate, he recalled that in those days before pagers and mobile phones he was out shooting partridges when a man cycled up to him with a message: “Mr Churchill wants to speak to you”. He said, “I thought he’d gone mad. Why would Churchill want to speak to me? I thought I’d better cycle back home, so I did. I rang Downing Street and there he was on the telephone. All he said to me was ‘Would you like to join my shoot?’ I replied ‘Yes, I would’”. His ministerial career had begun.

Among the high offices he held, as outlined by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, were Leader and shadow Leader of your Lordships’ House as well as Defence Secretary and Energy Secretary. In 1979 Margaret Thatcher appointed him as her Foreign Secretary and, with great skill, he chaired the Lancaster House constitutional conference in which all the factions in Rhodesia agreed to a new constitution and free elections, which led to Zimbabwe gaining independence in 1980. Many in your Lordships’ House recall the dignity with which he resigned as Foreign Secretary when Argentina invaded the Falklands, despite the support of the Prime Minister, who considered it a devastating blow and who tried to persuade him to stay. As the noble Baroness said, he considered it a matter of personal honour that he should take personal responsibility. The then shadow Leader of your Lordships’ House, Lord Peart, in paying tribute to Lord Carrington, remarked that it was a sad day for your Lordships’ House and said:

“We hope we shall see him here in the future. He can be sure of a most genuine welcome from all of us, whatever Benches we occupy”.—[Official Report, 5/4/82; col. 1.]


Few Ministers who resign receive such warmth and respect in doing so. His work as NATO Secretary-General only enhanced his reputation for wisdom and diplomatic skills.

In later years, Lord Carrington was not able to attend that often, but he never lost his commitment to the national interest or his interest in national and international issues, as his interviews illustrate. He was a politician and public servant to his core. He had intellect, integrity, experience and great ability. When he spoke in your Lordships’ House in later years his wisdom was valued and welcomed. On behalf of our Benches, I add our condolences to his family and his many friends. I hope that they can take some comfort and pride in his achievements and his legacy.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, Lord Carrington was, for people of my generation, a somewhat distant figure but someone who one knew embodied the highest values of public life: honour, integrity and a very strong sense of public duty and public service. As we have heard, he had a most remarkable and lengthy period of public and parliamentary service, and he had to cope with those elements of luck and chance which characterise all public life. He was arguably lucky to be moved from the Ministry of Defence to become High Commissioner to Australia just before the Suez crisis, but he was even more unlucky to be Foreign Secretary at the time of the Falklands invasion. Despite having warned of the danger of possible invasion, he took the blame when it happened and resigned. It was a rare case of a ministerial resignation on a matter of principle and an even rarer one in that it enhanced, rather than soured, his reputation. In his memoirs, he set out the principal reason for aspiring to ministerial office:

“It is office which gives the chance to do things, to steer things perhaps very slightly, almost certainly very gradually and, sadly, often most impermanently, towards what a person believes right”.


These seem like old-fashioned sentiments today, but they mark Lord Carrington out as a man of remarkable character and principle. He will be sadly missed by his family and friends, and we send them all our good wishes.

Exiting the EU

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I concur with the noble Baroness’s statements on Salisbury. I thank her for repeating the Statement today. It was Harold Wilson who reportedly remarked:

“A week is a long time in politics”.


How the Prime Minister must wish that were true. We have to picture the scene on Saturday afternoon. Having achieved an agreement at Chequers, the Prime Minister can enjoy the fine weather and the positive mood that was, at that point, sweeping the nation. England have booked their place in the World Cup semi-final; Lewis Hamilton has qualified in pole for the British Grand Prix; and a plucky Kyle Edmund takes the lead, albeit temporarily, at Wimbledon. All is well. This is the high point of Theresa May’s premiership.

Fast forward to Sunday evening, when David Davis informs the Prime Minister that he is now unpersuaded by the Chequers position and is unwilling to play the role of what he calls a “reluctant conscript”. He resigns. Steve Baker follows and, just in case there was any doubt as to the dissatisfaction in the Brexiteer camp, Boris Johnson has also, after getting others to test the water first, taken the apparently principled decision to resign. With just 264 days until we leave the EU, we have a brand new Brexit Secretary and will soon have a new Foreign Secretary.

David Cameron as Prime Minister was so sure that he would get his own way in the referendum that he did not even plan for a leave vote. That was arrogant and irresponsible. Theresa May as Prime Minister, confident that she had a plan, promised the country,

“strong and stable government in the national interest”,

in an unnecessary general election; and we are being asked to believe that the Government are delivering a “smooth and orderly Brexit”, even though no one can agree what this means and nobody believes it. Following the June summit, the President of the European Council issued a last call to the UK, pleading for progress to be made ahead of the October summit. Last Friday— 464 days after the triggering of Article 50—the Cabinet met, debated and apparently reached a decision. For a brief moment in time, the Cabinet was united. There was radio silence from the usual suspects, for a time, and now we have chaos at the heart of government when we most need stability. There are rumours of letters being submitted to the 1922 Committee. One Conservative MP dared to declare: “I think Theresa May’s premiership is over”.

Far from offering answers, this melodrama raises only questions. Luckily for your Lordships, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House was at the Cabinet meeting at Chequers. Can she comment on reports that the advice of the Commons Chief Whip was that the Cabinet had to back this facilitated customs arrangement as a so-called compromise, as otherwise MPs would vote to stay in a customs union? Also, after spending the day with Mr Davis and Mr Johnson, did she get any inkling of the dramas that were about to unfold? Was the PM right to be so confident that she had convinced them, brought them with her and won the day?

The Government’s plan is not one that would have been adopted by Labour—not least because it includes no real plan for services, which account for almost 80% of our economy—but with only six weeks of negotiations before the October summit, there is at least a proposal on the table. It is not quite what the Prime Minister presented at Lancaster House or Mansion House, and it will not be clear what the EU 27 make of the offer until a White Paper is published later this week. EU diplomats are displaying a level of discipline that would baffle some in the Cabinet.

Reinforcing the view that this was more about Conservative Party unity than the national interest, the Environment Secretary acknowledged yesterday that the agreed position amounts to a fudge, in part because of party divisions but also due to parliamentary arithmetic. Having tried different versions of Brexit on for size, the Cabinet has now chosen one that is a soft shade of pink. The UK will leave the single market but will continue to maintain a common rulebook for goods; the jurisdiction of the European court will come to an end but UK courts will be bound to have the regard to its future rulings; and the UK will no longer allow free movement but will offer a mobility framework that allows continued travel, study and work in each other’s territories.

While this blurring of the red lines suggests a recognition of the political and economic reality, can the agreement really be said to amount to a substantial evolution in the Government’s thinking? It seems not. Instead of combining elements of two customs plans already rejected by the EU 27, surely a better approach would have been to propose a formal customs union with the EU, a position supported by business organisations and trade unions. While some argue that a UK-EU customs union would prevent us from striking new trade deals, it is worth noting that, while the Cabinet was locked away, the EU announced that it would sign a new agreement with Japan on Wednesday—a reminder that while this Government are consumed by Brexit, the EU just carries on. Could the noble Baroness the Leader of the House confirm whether the UK will seek to be a party to the EU-Japan trade agreement after Brexit, or do the Government really plan to turn their back on all existing agreements after the transition period to pursue participation in the as yet unratified Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership?

Over the weekend it was suggested that the new mobility framework might allow for preferential treatment for EU migrants, and Prime Minister refused to rule that out, but the Leader of the Commons said on the “Daily Politics” that,

“there’ll be no special favours for EU citizens”.

Could the noble Baroness provide clarity on this specific point?

I want to ask about the area that most concerned David Davis, albeit for very different reasons. Paragraph 6.f of the Government’s statement from Chequers asserts that Parliament will have a lock on incorporating future EU laws into the UK legal order, meaning that,

“choosing not to pass the relevant legislation would lead to consequences for market access, security cooperation or the frictionless border”.

Does that mean that each and every individual EU regulation will require the consideration of both Houses? If so, have the Government estimated how much parliamentary time would be required each year? Would that proposal, if accepted by the EU 27, amount to a Swiss-style sector-by-sector agreement whereby, for example, the EU’s failure to implement a measure on car safety could lead to a loss of market access to that sector and therefore the imposition of tariffs? Where would that leave companies such as Jaguar Land Rover, which has already expressed its concerns? How can the Government avoid implementing the Northern Ireland backstop if the EU 27 cannot be sure that the UK will honour its commitments?

Although the Chequers proposal may offer more clarity on the Government’s thinking, it is no more coherent than previous Brexit plans. Whether you voted leave or remain, confidence in the Government’s management of Brexit is at an all-time low. As a result, faith in politics has been seriously undermined. Luckily—for some, maybe—the Cabinet will meet again tomorrow. There will even be a new face or two, or perhaps more by tomorrow, around the Cabinet table. I therefore echo the thoughts and comments of the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, in his excellent article in the Times newspaper, where he urged Theresa May to follow the example of Robert Peel by putting the national interest ahead of those of her party. I hope that today the noble Baroness the Leader will be able to answer my questions.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I add my condolences to the family and friends of Dawn Sturgess.

The Statement and the subsequent resignations lay bare the fundamental dilemma at the heart of Brexit. What is most important, access to EU markets and institutions, which is necessary for prosperity and security, or control, which is necessary for real independence of action? The former Foreign Secretary accurately summed up the Government’s approach when he said that it was to have their cake and eat it, and the agreement at Chequers still aims to perpetuate that impossibilist policy.

The Government have tried to avoid saying that they plan to remain a de facto member of a customs union by calling it a “free trade area”, but they have agreed to harmonise our rules with EU rules for trading goods, possibly in perpetuity if they cannot get their preferred long-term solution of the so-called facilitated customs arrangement to work. The Chequers statement is so incomplete on this concept that it is frankly pointless to try to discern how it would work, but I will ask one question. The Government say that the UK will eventually apply UK tariffs to goods intended for the UK and EU tariffs for goods intended for the EU. Do they envisage that the EU will adopt the same system, or have they given that idea up as politically and technologically impossible?

The Government have decided that there will be no attempt to have a common approach to services—some 80% of the economy and more than 40% of our exports. The Chequers statement says that this will mean that we,

“will not have current levels of access to each other’s markets”.

These words mean that there will be fewer service sector jobs in the UK post Brexit. Have the Government made an assessment of how many jobs are likely to be lost and can they give another single example of where any UK Government have previously adopted a policy that knowingly has job losses at its heart? The text refers to setting our own tariffs. When is the earliest that the UK believes it will be in a position to strike independent trade deals, given that this can happen only if the facilitated customs arrangement is in place? What assessment have the Government made about potential gains to be made in jobs under the Trans-Pacific Partnership compared with the jobs that will be lost in the services trade with the EU?

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked some questions about the role of Parliament as envisaged in the Chequers statement. I have one supplementary question: does the noble Baroness the Leader of the House agree with David Davis, speaking this morning, that the concept of Parliament having a real say on customs matters was more illusory than real? Who are the Government seeking to fool by spinning that illusion?

On the movement of people, the Chequers statement contains but one sentence. It is deeply worrying. It says that EU and UK citizen should be able,

“to travel to each other’s territories”—

on unspecified terms—and EU citizens should be able to “study and work”. The Government clearly envisage major restraints on freedom of movement. Have they made any assessment of the impact of this approach on UK citizens wanting to travel, work and study in the EU, given that we must assume that freedom of movement will be restricted by the EU if we do the same to their citizens coming here?

The Prime Minister was at pains to stress that the Government will step up preparations for no deal. Can they confirm that while the Dutch, for example, have already recruited 800 new customs officers to cope with such an eventuality, the UK do not even plan to begin to do the same until later in the summer? How, therefore, could the customs service be even remotely ready for any no deal scenario next April? Does not the lack of planning to date mean that the bold brave talk of no deal is simply bluster?

Finally, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House was present in the room last Friday and, if reports are to be believed, like all other members of the Cabinet expressed her views. As virtually every other Cabinet member has already done so, could she possibly tell the House the gist of her contribution?

We will have a full debate on the Government’s White Paper on 23 July. Who knows what the Government will look like then? Today, however, they are simply a complete shambles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, I first apologise for having missed the first few minutes of the noble Baroness repeating the Statement. I was in the other place, listening to the Prime Minister’s Statement. With great respect, it does not improve much by repetition. On the subject of the quaintly named “facilitated customs arrangement”—in simple terms, for anyone who has not ploughed their way through the three pages, it means that we will have two different rates of taxation at the border of the United Kingdom for imports—the noble Baroness is a very intelligent Leader of the Opposition—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

Leader of the House!

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

Sorry, that was both inordinate expectation and a Freudian slip—probably overhopeful thinking. Does she not recognise that having two rates of import tax at the borders will inevitably lead, first, to a bureaucratic nightmare for British manufacturers and, secondly, to a smugglers’ paradise not only here but in Northern Ireland—I speak as a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, where they have 300 roads between the north and the south? Thirdly, it is clearly a method of undermining fair competition in manufacturing throughout the United Kingdom, as anything that you as a distributor claim that you are importing for a British manufacturer will be incorporated in a product at less cost, which we will then try to export to Europe. Lest I am accused of not having an alternative plan, why do we not just stay in the customs union?

European Council

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this was an extraordinary European Council summit. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement.

I think we are all surprised to see so little on Brexit right at the end. Obviously, Brexit is the key issue for the UK. Although it is increasingly apparent that everything in government is now seen through the prism of Brexit, the summit highlighted that it does not occupy the EU 27 in the same way. So I have some sympathy for the Prime Minister. It must be increasingly difficult at such summits, struggling to maintain influence and credibility in Brussels when under such pressure at home. Then, there is luck—or the lack of it. Who could have predicted that the Belgian Prime Minister’s gift of a No. 10 football shirt could possibly present any hazard? At least he is an attacker, not a defender.

The summit was also extraordinary in other ways. We saw the vetoing of an entire set of conclusions, requiring an all-night session to ensure progress on migration. Angela Merkel, who has taken the lead on the migration issue, questioned the very purpose of the EU if it is unable to deal with this. The discussion on security and defence took place against the backdrop of our Government refusing to confirm that the UK will remain a tier 1 military power and the US President confirming a summit with Vladimir Putin in July.

Migration has divided EU member states for years. The conclusions eventually reached on Friday morning stated:

“This is a challenge not only for a single Member State, but for Europe as a whole”.


Although there have been fewer crossings, the recent plight of more than 600 migrants on the rescue ship “Aquarius” highlighted that political judgments need humanity and decency at their core. We agree with Spain’s Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, that unilateralism and inflammatory rhetoric are not the answer. I hope his message was echoed by the Prime Minister in her contributions to that discussion.

Member states are right to want to step up their efforts in Libya, including increasing support for the Libyan coast guard. But, as your Lordships’ House debated recently, Operation Sophia is falling short of expectations and can only ever be one piece in this complicated puzzle. The UK and the EU must do more to secure a political solution in Libya and to support the development of state institutions to tackle people smuggling at its source. Could the noble Baroness the Leader of the House clarify the Government’s position on the UK’s post-Brexit participation in EU migration agreements with Turkey, Libya and other states? Will the UK’s support in Libya continue to be a part of co-ordinated European efforts?

EU leaders also discussed security and defence. Like many, I was disappointed by the Prime Minister’s almost belligerent attitude. The Prime Minister was criticised for appearing to make threats on security at Lancaster House. Even with the Commission’s strict stance on Galileo, it is disappointing that she has returned to playing hardball. As with migration, co-operation is essential; we are co-dependent in ensuring the security and safety of all our citizens. The Prime Minister noted the imminent arrival of the NATO summit, arguing that we are “leading throughout NATO”. That does not appear to be the view of President Trump, his Defence Secretary, or even the Prime Minister’s own Defence Secretary, whose agitation and campaign for additional funding show no signs of abating.

Elsewhere, we welcome that action will be taken to allow a co-ordinated response to the challenge of disinformation and to enable the improved identification and removal of online content that incites hatred. Discussions on tax avoidance and evasion, and the importance of rules-based international trade, remain as important as ever.

But, on Brexit, the four—just four—paragraphs in the conclusions are a stark reminder of how much work lies ahead in the next few months. They express,

“concern that no substantial progress has yet been achieved”,

on the Irish border, echoing the comments made by the Dutch Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, that breaking the impasse and fleshing out the details of the proposed backstop solution is the EU’s,

“first, second and third priority”.

They issued a warning, to be heeded by certain Cabinet Ministers, that,

“negotiations can only progress as long as all commitments undertaken so far are respected in full”.

In the absence of the Government’s White Paper, the EU demanded,

“further clarity as well as realistic and workable proposals from the UK”,

highlighting that the fractures at the heart of government are damaging our interests.

Nothing in the conclusions reflects the Prime Minister’s optimism when she arrived in Brussels hailing the significant progress of recent weeks. The reference to Gibraltar will rightly raise concerns, so I hope the Leader can inform your Lordships’ House of how the UK will engage constructively with EU and Spanish counterparts to resolve the situation.

I return to a point I raised previously on the Prime Minister’s Statement back in March. The paragraph in the draft withdrawal agreement on the onward movement rights of UK citizens living in the EU simply disappeared overnight. I was assured in a letter from the noble Baroness the Leader of the House following that debate that this remains a priority for the Government but that it was a matter for negotiation. Yet, the UK-EU joint statement of 19 June suggested that no progress had been made. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether this remains a priority for the Government? If so, what does that mean? When will this next be discussed by negotiators? Did the Prime Minister have any informal discussions on this important issue at the summit? Has any progress been made? What discussions have taken place and when? If the noble Baroness does not have the details on that part, I am happy for her to write to me.

Both the Prime Minister and the EU have called for an acceleration of the negotiations, but it is not the first time that attempts have been made to inject a sense of urgency into the talks. It now has to happen. We are running out of time. There appears to be a growing consensus across the EU that it will be the December summit, not the October summit as previously anticipated, that signs off any agreement. That is a problem. Are the Government still aiming for October, not least to give both Houses of Parliament sufficient time to study the details of the deal? The House of Commons Brexit committee warned last week that even without any slippage it might prove difficult to ratify the agreement and pass enabling legislation before the Article 50 window slams shut.

In the absence of an agreed UK position, the EU has made it clear that it is preparing for a no deal outcome. As we have said so often, no deal is the worst possible outcome and would be catastrophic for the UK. I see the Brexit Minister shaking his head. That really does not inspire confidence in anyone in this Chamber. Nevertheless, the EU 27 have reiterated their willingness to come up with an improved offer if the UK reconsiders some of its red lines, for instance over the EU charter and the underpinning of the European arrest warrant.

All eyes will be on Chequers on Friday. With no England match, there will be nothing to distract the Cabinet from fulfilling its responsibilities. This could be the most important Cabinet meeting for a generation and it is time for leadership. We all know that no plan was put forward at this summit because the Prime Minister had sought party and Cabinet unity on an issue when there is none. Is it the case now that the Prime Minister believes that the dangers of not having a detailed plan for Brexit are outweighed by the dangers of losing a Cabinet Minister or two? As the Lord Privy Seal, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will have a seat at that table on Friday. She has an important role, and I hope she will urge Cabinet colleagues to put their differences aside, to open their minds and to agree a position that enables the UK to achieve the deal it needs, rather than the deal that the Brexiteers will let it have.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, this is a Statement of two parts. The first relates to the major issues on migration and security, which were rightly at the top of the agenda. The Prime Minister sets out in the Statement the things that we are doing to support the EU efforts to control migration: a further Border Force patrol vessel off Greece—leaving how many, I wonder, left to patrol our own territorial waters—a few policemen helping EU and African countries, and a small contribution to the EU trust fund for Africa. But while the Statement reiterates the UK’s commitment to working together with other member states to counter illegal migration, the Prime Minister is silent on how this will be achieved if we leave the EU. We will obviously not be in the room when the European Council discusses these matters, but which room will we be in? What forum of which the UK is a member does the Prime Minister propose should take these discussions forward post March next year? The same applies to security, where again the Prime Minister says that she wants a new security partnership but has given no indication of what form that might take, other than via our continued membership of NATO bodies.

The statement issued by the European Council naturally covers the issues discussed last Friday in the absence of our Prime Minister: jobs, growth, competitiveness, innovation and digital. On these vital issues for our future prosperity we are already out of the room and having zero input on the development of more-effective EU policies. The Government have no answer to the question of how we might have an input in the future, despite the implications for British jobs and prosperity.

The second half of the Statement is on Brexit—or, rather, the final page of a seven-page Statement is on Brexit, which confirms that the issue was hardly discussed, either when the Prime Minister was present or in her absence. The EU’s statement, four paragraphs of it, on its Friday discussions is terse and crackles with frustration at the lack of progress made in the talks so far.

How had the PM sought to deal with this frustration the previous day? According to her Statement:

“I warned EU leaders that I do not think this Parliament will approve the withdrawal agreement in the autumn unless we have clarity about our future relationship”.


She warned them about a lack of clarity? This is a Government who will have a Cabinet meeting in Chequers purely to get some vestige of clarity among themselves. The EU has been patiently waiting for a British proposal for months. The Secretary of State for Exiting the EU has obviously decided that his position is so embarrassing that he does not even bother to meet Monsieur Barnier, except very occasionally. The Prime Minister would do better to warn the Cabinet of the consequences of lack of clarity in UK policy. It is surely a bit rich even by her standards to blame the EU for a problem which is entirely her own.

The Statement is curious in that it does not mention the issue which the Prime Minister’s spin doctors were claiming last Thursday night to be the main burden of her intervention on Brexit. The Times, for example, led with the headline:

“EU putting lives at risk over Brexit, warns May”.


Did the Prime Minister, as alleged, accuse the Commission of,

“putting obstacles in the way of a new security pact”?

If so, what response did she receive? If she really raised security but failed entirely to mention trade and Northern Ireland, what sort of message does that send to the many British businesses now seriously worried about the prospects for jobs and investment?

There are many questions which one could ask about the Government’s approach to Brexit, but I realise that the Leader of the House will enjoin us to be patient and wait for the White Paper promised for next week, so to ask them is pointless. But, 10 days ago, I said that if there were a World Cup for kicking a can down the road, the Government would win it hands down. This Government are kicking and kicking, not least each other. I suspect that they are likely to continue to do so well after Friday’s Chequers meeting concludes.

G7: Charlevoix, Quebec

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I congratulate the Prime Minister on resisting the temptation to issue her Statement on the summit on Twitter.

We agree with the opening remarks in the Statement: it is worth reminding ourselves of the purpose and value of the G7. These seven developed, large modern economies have recognised both self-interest as a group and wider world responsibilities. We have worked together during financial crises and on the sustainable development goals, and we have taken action on debt for the heavily indebted poor countries. There have obviously been criticisms of that time, but these gatherings have been optimistic and have sought to be effective and responsible.

This time, it is fair to say that expectations were pretty low before the summit, but I suspect that the real outcomes—not just those in the communiqué—are more worrying than anyone anticipated. It is increasingly clear that, despite the best efforts of G7 members to seek to manage and engage with President Trump, the US President does not abide by the same rules. It may appear chaotic, but his unpredictability has become very predictable. Even as other G7 leaders and the EU Council President thanked Prime Minister Trudeau and his team for hosting the summit, President Trump tore up the diplomatic rule book to decry the Canadian Prime Minister as being “weak” and “dishonest”. Those now trademark forthright tweets appear to isolate him from the G7 as an effective group and, whatever agreements are reached and whatever compromises are made, it is not certain whether the agreement or acquiescence of the US will last as long as the flight home.

One part of the Prime Minister’s Statement evoked memories of the understatements of Sir Humphrey Appleby and Jim Hacker in “Yes, Prime Minister”—the part where she says:

“This was a difficult summit with, at times, some very candid discussions”.


How well this was illustrated by the marvellous photograph of Chancellor Angela Merkel, supported by the other leaders, as she leans forward across a table to a seated President Trump, with his arms folded, looking away from her at something in the distance—he did not want to look at her. You could almost hear that “candid discussion”.

The implication of this summit is that it appears that President Trump does not see himself or the US as part of a global strategy seeking a consensus on key international issues. Indeed, he does not appear to value his association with the UK. The Prime Minister has made much of her special relationship with President Trump, and Ministers have been vocal in their opinion of the necessity of this, particularly in a post-Brexit world. However, when asked about his relationship with the G7, President Trump declared that the level of his relationship was a 10 with “Angela, Emmanuel and Justin”, very pointedly and deliberately ignoring Mrs May and, later, briefing against her. If our Prime Minister has irked the President in some way, it could well be to her personal credit that she has done so, but it does not bode well for our transatlantic special relationship. It also means that our relationship with our European partners is all the more essential.

Even without US endorsement, there are some good and strong outcomes in the communiqué. We appreciate that the G6 has signed up to a progressive, value-based programme that is to be welcomed. It includes the condemnation of Russia’s destabilising behaviour in seeking to undermine democratic systems, its support of the Syrian regime and the attack in Salisbury. Yet, although initially signing up to this, President Trump also called for Russia to again be part of a G8 summit.

We welcome the recognition that ensuring that all citizens benefit from the proceeds of growth is essential for a cohesive modern society to meet the challenges ahead. Given the imposition of the new US tariffs, to which the noble Baroness referred, President Trump’s intentions, if not the accuracy of the assessment, could not have been clearer. The Prime Minister refers to the open, direct discussion, but President Trump did not sound like he was discussing it with anyone. He said:

“We’re like the piggy bank that everyone’s robbing. And that ends”.


He went on:

“If they retaliate…we win that war a thousand times out of a thousand”.


This is clearly a difficult situation. Can the noble Baroness say anything more about the implications for the forthcoming EU summit and what discussions she has already had with our current European partners?

The commitment to a more secure and peaceful world and advancing gender equality and women’s empowerment are important statements but, to be effective, they must jointly be acted on with political will and adequate funding. This was also a key issue at CHOGM earlier this year. I ask the noble Baroness, if she can respond today, how this builds on the CHOGM discussions. Is it consistent with the outcomes from that conference?

The statement on the protection and sustainability of our oceans and coastal communities is clear and far-reaching. Was the impact of the US withdrawing from the Paris agreement properly discussed? The comment at the end of that section of the communiqué is conciliatory to the US, but that US decision has serious implications.

If we are to build a more peaceful and secure world, all countries must abide by international law and their international responsibilities. Yet, in the past few days, the Italian Government have refused to let a rescue ship dock despite it carrying around 600 refugees, including young children, unaccompanied minors and pregnant women. That undermines those international agreements and the sense of shared responsibilities that underpin bodies such as the G7 and the G20. What discussions have the UK had with other EU countries regarding this situation and future implications?

I hope that, when the noble Baroness answers the questions today, she will also turn her attention to the value of the relationship we will have in the future with our EU partners.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, it is easy to feel some sympathy for the Prime Minister and the other non-US members of the G7 today. It must be extraordinarily frustrating dealing with an American president given to “fits of anger”, to quote President Macron, and they must all share Chancellor Merkel’s view that it was “sobering and a little depressing”. Again, Sir Humphrey would appreciate the understatement in that phrase.

For the Prime Minister and her colleagues, though, it must be particularly depressing because a large part of the case which Liam Fox, Boris Johnson and others make for Brexit rests on the assertion that the UK will receive a warmer welcome from the other English-speaking countries in negotiating favourable free trade arrangements if we free ourselves from the shackles of the EU. America’s supposed commitment to free trade was the key to that argument, as was the closeness of the special relationship which, we were told, would guarantee British leaders easy and preferential access to the White House. President Trump has now demonstrated that he does not believe in the special relationship at all. The Prime Minister does not even feature in the list of leaders with whom he has a good relationship—or, rather, had a good relationship, before he fell out with all of them—and he rejects the principles of free trade. This leaves the justification for leaving the EU to pursue more open markets elsewhere dead in the water. How appropriate that it was World Oceans Day with the Government and the G7 so at sea.

The G7 meeting has rightly been described as a G6 plus one, with the UK aligned with France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan in resisting the arguments of the US. However, only last week our Foreign Secretary was describing our European neighbours as the enemy rather than the allies with whom we are most closely associated and with whom we share interests and such close values. It is hardly surprising that the Prime Minister appeared to play only a marginal role in this summit, while Merkel and Macron stood up to Trump. Is it not the case that we have now marginalised ourselves as a nation and lack any coherent foreign policy whatsoever? The EU will now impose retaliatory measures against the US tariffs on steel and aluminium, but the Prime Minister is urging caution. In the Statement, she says that she wants to avoid tit-for-tat measures, but that is what countermeasures are. Could the Leader of the House, therefore, explain what sort of measures the PM does think appropriate? Could she explain what the Prime Minister hopes to gain by resisting calls from the rest of the EU for a firmer response?

The Prime Minister also said that, as long-standing allies, we do not make progress by ignoring each other’s concerns but by addressing them together. What do those words mean in the context of the attitude of President Trump, and by what means does the Prime Minister propose to do this in practice? Is she really going to start replying to President Trump’s tweets, or is there some sense in her mind about what those words might mean?

The world today is in greater disarray than it has been for decades. Nothing in the Prime Minister’s Statement would give you any sense that that is the case. In these circumstances, you need to embrace your friends in order to rebuff those who do you harm. This weekend has demonstrated that our friends are in Europe, and that we should be standing with them and not planning a walk into the wilderness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The leaders were very clear that the duration of sanctions is linked to Russia’s complete implementation of its commitments in the Minsk agreements, and we stand ready to take further restrictive measures if necessary, should their actions require it.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, as we have time, I wonder whether I can help the noble Baroness. She was asked twice about President Trump’s reaction to the communiqué and whether he has signed it. In a tweet yesterday, he said:

“Based on Justin’s false statements at his news conference, and the fact that Canada is charging massive tariffs to our US farmers, workers and companies, I have instructed our US reps not to endorse the communique as we look at tariffs on automobiles flooding the US market!”.


It would seem clear that he has withdrawn any support he gave to the communiqué at the meeting.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I have said in answers to a number of questions, all I can say is that we hope that they continue to stand by the agreements. We will certainly continue to honour them and we will continue to have discussions with President Trump on these issues.

Syria

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I first thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I am grateful—along with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the Lord Speaker—for the briefing we were given by Cabinet Office Privy Counsellors today, as well as the offer of a wider detailed background briefing for all Peers.

First, I want to join in the condolences to the family, friends and colleagues of Sergeant Matt Tonroe, who was killed in the service of his country. I entirely endorse the Minister’s comments. His family has rightly regarded his highly regarded military service with great pride. They, and he, would always have known how dangerous that service was—but that will not make the pain of their loss any easier. We rely on men and women such as Sergeant Tonroe to keep us safe, and we should never forget how much of a sacrifice they are prepared to make.

The attack on Douma, which has brought so much suffering, was the latest and most serious of a number of chemical weapons attacks since 2013 in Syria. The Syrian conflict is estimated already to have cost more than 400,000 lives, and many more people have been injured, maimed or forced to flee their homes as refugees. This area had already seen intense air and ground assaults when—as we heard from the Minister—on 7 April, reports and images emerged of what now appears to have been corroborated as a horrific chemical attack, leaving hundreds of people affected and around 70 dead. No one can read those reports or see the images of such suffering without being deeply moved. We completely and unreservedly condemn such attacks.

The multilateral action that has followed this attack was clearly one of limited precision targeting, aimed specifically at chemical weapons installations, including storage. It is to the credit of those involved in both the planning and execution of the attack that there are no reported fatalities and that the installations have been destroyed. We welcome the fact that all our personnel arrived home safely. It must be clear that an operation of this kind cannot ever be in retaliation but must be to prevent further such atrocities.

I am grateful to the Government for publishing some of the information that was made available to the Cabinet at its meeting on Thursday. It would be helpful if the Minister could say more about the international legal position, including the advice of the Attorney-General. Clearly, the use of chemical weapons is against all international law and conventions. I am grateful for the Minister’s comments on the moral and legal case, but she will also be aware that humanitarian intervention is not universally accepted; indeed, it is disputed by some. What discussions have the Government had with the United Nations on this issue, including prior to the operation? Specifically, are any discussions ongoing?

We are also aware that this conflict remains ongoing—not just with chemical weapons but with conventional weapons as well—bringing enormous suffering with no real end in sight. It is vital that we continue to play a role in humanitarian relief and medical support and care. Will the Minister say more about this in her response? That brings us to the much-needed pressure to renew diplomatic efforts to ensure they are resumed. What discussions are taking place on that? Have the Government made any assessment of the risk of retaliation after these attacks?

A crucial part of this is the role of the OPCW. I understand that the director-general told a meeting of his executive council today that inspectors had not been allowed to visit the sites. According to Sweden’s representative on the council, Syria and Russia told the inspectors that their safety could not be guaranteed. Additionally, I am informed that Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister said that the inspectors would not be allowed to access the site until they produced an appropriate UN permit. What efforts are being made to engage with all parties? It is essential that the OPCW is allowed to continue its work and visit these sites. What discussions are taking place so that it can do that with the full co-operation of both Syria and Russia?

The Minister said that, even if the OPCW team can visit Douma to gather information about that assessment, it cannot attribute responsibility because Russia vetoed in November 2017 an extension of the joint investigatory mechanism set up to do that. Then, last week, as we heard, in the wake of the Douma attack, Russia again vetoed a new UN Security Council resolution to re-establish such a mechanism. What plans do the Government have to engage with other members of the Security Council to ensure that the OPCW has the necessary powers to undertake full investigations?

Finally, I will ask the noble Baroness about parliamentary engagement. We all understand that there will be times when Governments, in an emergency, have to act in the national interest and when there is no opportunity to return to Parliament until after an operation. We also understand that there are times when details cannot be made public—even in your Lordships’ House—and when rapid action is needed. But in the past there were a number of occasions when the Government consulted Parliament and even voted on an issue before military action. Will she say something about why in this case it was deemed impossible to consult Parliament prior to action and possible to return to Parliament for debate only after the operation had been concluded?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. We on these Benches associate ourselves with the Government’s condolences to the family and friends of Sergeant Tonroe.

Last week, the Government and their allies were faced with a painful dilemma. The atrocious attack in Douma was only the latest and most lethal in a series of chemical attacks that have occurred in Syria over the last year. The only credible perpetrator of these attacks is the Assad regime. The stark choice which the Government and their allies faced was either to do nothing or to take some form of military action to signal our abhorrence of the use of chemical weapons. Given the attitude of the Assad regime and its Russian allies, there was, in the short term, no third effective diplomatic avenue open.

To undertake military action the Government needed to ensure that it was legal, effective and proportionate, and did not lead to an escalation of the multidimensional conflicts that beset Syria. The strict targeting of facilities, the extraordinary accuracy of the missiles, the avoidance of civilian casualties, the forewarning of the Russians and the assurance that the military action was a one-off event appear to have met those requirements. Another requirement for the use of military action, however, that was not met was the need to gain the prior approval of Parliament. It would have been possible to recall Parliament last week at very short notice and the Government should have done so. They might have had in mind the precedent of 2013, when the Commons refused to back unspecified military action in response to chemical attacks in Syria, but the hesitancy of the Commons to authorise military action then only strengthens the case for getting its approval now.

However effective the air strikes might have been in degrading Assad’s short-term ability to manufacture chemical weapons, they do not constitute a strategy. Indeed, the Government make no such claim. But the need for a way forward in Syria that goes beyond the brutal suppression of all resistance by the current regime has never been greater. As far as the UK’s role in achieving this is concerned, we can be effective only when working over a sustained period with our allies and the wider international community.

As the Statement makes clear, the Foreign Secretary has today, alongside his French counterpart, briefed the EU Foreign Affairs Council about Syria. This is commendable but, if the Government have their way, in 12 months’ time he would not be in the room. So I repeat a question that I have put before: after 29 March next year, how do the Government foresee being able to have a voice in EU Councils when they discuss Syria and foreign affairs more generally?

As for the US, it is reported that President Macron and Chancellor Merkel are to visit Washington next week. Does this mean that the French and Germans are now speaking for the European allies instead of the E3, of which the UK was a partner, which handled the Iranian nuclear negotiations?

On the prospects of a long-term settlement in Syria, while the Geneva talks appear to be deadlocked, there are more encouraging signs from the discussions convened by Russia in Sochi with the participation of the Iranians and the Turks. What is the Government’s assessment of the potential of these talks and are they in any way associating themselves with them? Will the Government offer their support to those within Syria gathering information about those committing war crimes so that they can eventually be brought to justice before the ICC?

The multi-layered conflicts being played out in Syria—Assad v al-Qaeda, Turkey v Kurds and Iran v Israel—have the potential to cause further horrific suffering and senseless violence beyond that which we have already seen. At the very least, we must ensure that action by the UK does nothing to escalate these conflicts. Last week’s raid appears not to have done so, but the Government must approach any further such interventions with great care and should take action only when they have the support of Parliament.

House of Lords: Allowance

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the Motion in my name proposes changes to the current and future rates of the daily allowance that would come into effect from 1 April. It follows the agreement of a report by the commission, which has also been put to the House for agreement. The current system was introduced in 2010 and was rightly considered to be a more direct, simpler and more transparent system, as well as being much easier to administer than the previous, discredited expenses system.

The daily allowance rates of £300 and £150 have been fixed since their introduction in 2010, and the House made a conscious decision at that time that this should remain the case until the end of the 2010 to 2015 Parliament. No decision was taken about how the scheme would operate after that Parliament, and rates have remained the same. I believe that, after almost eight years of the rate being frozen, the time is now right to introduce a modest uprating. While freezing the rate during that time was justified in line with public sector wage restraint and expenditure more generally, it is clear that, unless some means of providing a modest uprating mechanism is introduced, over time the amount of the daily allowance will reduce significantly in real terms.

The question then arises of what uprating mechanism should be used. I believe that the method that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has used to determine annual increases in MPs’ pay for the last few years, in line with the independent ONS figures for average increases in public sector pay, is a sensible method which we should apply to the level of the daily allowance, beginning this year and for subsequent years. I am pleased to confirm that the commission agreed to my proposal that an initial uprating should be made to the daily allowance from 1 April 2018, in line with this year’s IPSA increase to MPs’ salaries of 1.8%, with subsequent annual upratings being pegged to subsequent annual IPSA determinations. Initially, this would result in a new rate of either £305 or £153. The result would be a modest and sustainable adjustment to the rate which I commend to the House. I also welcome the commission’s endorsement.

The overall cost of such an uprating in terms of the impact on the House of Lords estimate would be approximately £339,000 per annum. This can be accommodated within the current financial plan, which reflects overall savings year on year in the total running costs of this House, and means that we would continue to fulfil our important role at a rate that represents good value to the taxpayer. If IPSA were to change its method of determining future upratings, the commission would, of course, want to reconsider this approach. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. This seems a sensible and appropriate approach to an uprating mechanism. As she pointed out, Members of your Lordships’ House have not seen any increase in allowances since 2010. To have an automatic annual increase on the same basis as Members of Parliament seems an entirely fair and appropriate way to proceed. She will understand that issues and anomalies remain that colleagues across the House will seek to address. They have not been addressed today, as she commented. However, the approach to the uprating mechanism is entirely appropriate. On a personal level, I thank the noble Baroness as I have raised this issue for a number of years, and without her personal commitment I do not believe that we would have seen this uprating at all.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the Leader on securing this settlement. It is modest but it protects the current level of allowances after years during which they have fallen and provides the basis of a regular uprating in the years to come—and it is closely linked to what happens in the Commons. In the current environment, I simply do not believe that a more generous settlement was politically possible, so it is very much to be welcomed.

In my view this does not mean that we have anything like a satisfactory approach to allowances. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, produced a simple political fix when he introduced the current system, and, while it has met what I am sure were his objectives—namely, a system which survived without inviting much adverse comment—it is by any logical perspective deeply flawed. In the past 10 years, I have seen my allowance in effect doubled—I lived in London when the Strathclyde measure was introduced—and then, when I moved last year to north Yorkshire, halved again. These changes have borne no relation to my participation in the affairs of the House.

Colleagues who have lived outside London for the whole period have seen a real terms fall in their allowances of nearly 20% at a time when London accommodation costs have increased faster than the overall rate of inflation. Personally, I can see no reason why, within a slowly rising funding envelope, we should not move towards a position in which expenses start again to reflect the actual costs incurred by Members who live outside London. I think that would be a much fairer system. However, I realise that there is no consensus in the House to move in such a direction and that the overall funding available to the Lords is likely to remain tightly constrained for the foreseeable future. That being so, I reiterate my thanks to the Leader for securing the increase she has announced today.

European Council

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. We fully endorse her comments about the extraordinary bravery of police officers both in the attack in France last week and here at home as we commemorated last week. We recognise the bravery and commitment of those who have lost their lives and we will never forget their actions, which are truly heroic. We should also pay tribute to the police officers and members of the other emergency services who never know what danger they may face on any and every day. They and their families live with the knowledge that they always have to be prepared to ensure that we are safe.

I turn to the security issues outlined in the Statement. We welcome the recognition of the necessity for co-operation. Specifically on Russia, we were grateful for such swift and strong support from President Tusk and the EU 27 following the Salisbury attacks. Even in the midst of what are obviously very tough negotiations, our EU partners have not hesitated to offer both solidarity and action, which emphasises our shared values. Action has now followed across the world, with the announcements today of Russian diplomats being expelled from European and North American countries. We look forward to further updates on the detail of future security arrangements, but is the noble Baroness able to provide any information on discussions regarding UK participation in vital schemes such as the European arrest warrant?

The Government have been reluctant in the recent past to take action to protect the British steel industry, so we welcome that the Secretary of State for International Trade has now joined in representations to the US Government against US-imposed tariffs on EU steel. But we have to ask: would he have been able to achieve this on his own, without the support of the other 27 nations? I wonder whether we might now see a conversion by the Secretary of State to the benefits of joint and co-ordinated action by the EU in all our interests. The exemption that has been achieved, while positive, is only temporary. With talks ongoing between the EU and US, I hope the noble Baroness will confirm that the Secretary of State will provide an update through a Statement in the House of Commons in due course.

Turning to Brexit and the discussions on key issues, the noble Baroness will know that we have been calling for an agreement on a time-limited transitional period and we welcome the Government’s recognition of the necessity of this, not least for the British businesses that lacked certainty on their ability to trade with the EU after March next year. But although I understand the noble Baroness’s and the Government’s reluctance to use the word “transition”, labelling it as an “implementation period”, as in the Statement, is pushing it a bit when it then says it is an implementation period to “prepare properly” for the future. Surely an implementation period would be to implement what has been already been agreed, rather than to allow more time for Ministers to plan for the future.

As we heard in the debate this evening, the Government seem yet again to accept being tied into an absolute cut-off date. It seems a little like watching the sand run through an egg-timer and when it gets to the end, that is it. Does the noble Baroness accept that once the principle has been agreed that there is to be a time-limited period, as it now has been, there is a need for a little flexibility beyond having to return to Parliament? Such flexibility has no impact on the effect of the Bill and, as we heard in the last debate, it would be helpful and useful to the Government. I was sorry to hear the Minister, who is in her place at the moment, rejecting building such flexibility into the legislation. The Prime Minister has already discovered the pitfalls of setting firm deadlines when she rushed over to Brussels to announce the phase 1 agreement only to find she had not properly squared off the DUP. A couple more days were needed. Such flexibility would avoid that kind of embarrassment.

The Statement is clear that the issue of the Northern Ireland border remains to be resolved, but it seems that the Statement misses the crucial point. It talks of,

“how our commitments to avoid a hard border … should be turned into a legal text”.

That is part of the issue, but the fundamental point is not about the legal text and the language to be used, but is about the policy agreement, the practicalities of delivering the frictionless border we all want and maintaining our commitment to and operation of the Good Friday agreement. In her Mansion House speech the Prime Minister outlined her vision of a technological border, despite her Brexit Secretary’s previous description of these proposals being as an example of what she called “blue sky thinking”. If the Government insist that it is now just a matter of a legal text, can the noble Baroness tell us how the Government will give practical effect to the commitment that there should be no hard border in Northern Ireland?

I have two final points on clarity. Last week, this House passed two significant amendments on Euratom in the Nuclear Safeguards Bill. This issue was flagged up in the Prime Minister’s Mansion House speech and is one of vital importance to the country. Can the noble Baroness clarify whether the Government will accept those amendments when they are considered in the Commons, and/or bring back alternatives in the withdrawal Bill?

My final request for clarity is on the position of UK nationals. The noble Baroness is aware that I have raised this numerous times in this House before, including on the previous EU Council Statement from the PM that said that the Government had protected the rights of UK nationals. I raised then that unless the issue of onward movement is addressed the Government will have disadvantaged UK nationals, but will have protected just some of our rights. I ask her to look at two documents. The first is the withdrawal agreement of 28 February. I thought it was clear, if, to me, unwelcome on this point. Article 32 says:

“In respect of United Kingdom nationals and their family members, the rights provided for by this Part shall not include further free movement to the territory of another Member State”.


Then we had the updated document from last week. There is a mystery. Apart from the mystery that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, tried to raise earlier about what had been agreed and what had not, which the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was not able to answer, we have Article 31 on the development of law and adaptations of Union acts, but I looked for Article 32 and it has gone. It has disappeared. We move straight to Article 33. Where is Article 32 about the rights of UK nationals when we Brexit? What will happen to them? It has mysteriously disappeared. It is a blank piece of paper. If the noble Baroness can explain the missing article, where it has got to and whether it means the Government have now come to the negotiating table to protect the interests of UK nationals it would be extraordinarily helpful.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I echo her condolences to the families and friends of all those who died in Trèbes, particularly those of Lieutenant-Colonel Beltrame. On security, the Prime Minister is clearly to be congratulated on securing a co-ordinated EU response. To have 18 EU member states expelling Russian diplomats is clearly a major achievement. However, I wondered whether the noble Baroness would agree with the assessment from the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, of why such an agreement is possible. He said:

“Those who weren’t keen on nailing the Russians were brought along by the powerful instinct for consensus that develops over a long summit discussion. It will be much harder to get that amplification of a UK position from outside the EU”.


It really is important to be in the room. Could the Leader say anything about how the Government will seek to replicate that ability to be in a room with other EU leaders when vital matters of our national security are being discussed in future?

More generally on our response to the Russian incident, when we debated this on the Prime Minister’s previous Statement, a number of suggestions were floated by the Government about further action being taken against individuals. Could the noble Baroness tell us what further action the Government now contemplate?

On Brexit, I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition about the use of the word “implementation”. It implies that there is something to implement. This is a standstill agreement or transition agreement; it certainly is not a period during which any agreement is being implemented. The process that has led to this agreement has been very instructive on the Secretary of State for DExEU’s negotiating strategy. It seems to follow the following rules. First, make a series of extremely bellicose statements. Secondly, have no meetings whatever with your main interlocutor for three months. Thirdly, wait to see what the Commission’s proposals are, having made no detailed proposals of one’s own. Fourthly, just accept them all: the customs union, the single market, a £40 billion payment and the European Court of Justice having a rule during the transition period. These were all things that the Government were ruling out at the start.

On the most intractable issue of all, the Northern Ireland border, if I were the DUP I would be seriously worried about the UK’s agreed fallback position of a customs union down the Irish Sea. The only alternatives that it has put forward are widely accepted as completely unsustainable and unworkable. The draft agreement applies the EU’s solution—that is, of the border down the Irish Sea—unless and until another system is agreed, yet detail of another system is there none. There is a curious passage in the Prime Minister’s Statement on which I would be grateful for the Leader’s clarification. It reads:

“I have explained that the specific European Commission proposals for that backstop”—


that is, the border down the Irish Sea—

“were unacceptable because they were not in line with the Belfast agreement and threatened the break-up of the UK’s internal market. As such, they were not a fair reflection of the joint report”—

that is, the December report. But they were in the December report. What has changed to make them unacceptable now when they were in the December report which the Government signed? I find that a remarkable statement.

On the agreement, most of it is in green, which is agreed, or in yellow, which is agreed in principle, but probably the biggest section in white, which is not agreed, is on ongoing police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. This is a crucial element of the whole deal and of our relationship with the EU. What were the problems that have meant that we have not reached agreement in principle on the policy in that area? We have been able to reach agreement in principle on the policy on virtually everything else.

As for the future, the Government have so far produced no detailed proposals. Can the Leader give us some idea of whether the Government plan to do so at any point and whether Parliament might have an opportunity to discuss them?

The Prime Minister concludes:

“With a year to go, people are coming back together and looking forward”.


Well, they are looking forward, but the emotions which that forward glance fill them with vary. The Prime Minister said that,

“many are … tired of the old arguments and the attempts to refight the referendum over the past year”.

What does the Leader say to the majority of voters, including the majority of Conservative voters, who according to recent polling now believe that they should have a vote on any Brexit deal? How does the mantra of respecting the views of the British people sit with ignoring the views of the British people in respect of approving any final Brexit deal?

Tributes: Lord Richard

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, it is my sad duty to lead the tributes to one of my predecessors as Leader of the House, Lord Richard, who died on Sunday.

Lord Richard was a significant figure in the political life of this country, holding a variety of high-profile public roles over several decades. He always argued with a fearsome combination of intellect and passion, directed by strong political convictions. He joined this House in 1990, becoming Leader of the Opposition two years later during a time of great change for the Labour Party before being appointed as Leader of the House after the 1997 general election. As Leader, he played a central role in the early cross-party discussions about the future of this House, which were to culminate in the House of Lords Act 1999. By then he had already had a long and distinguished record of service, both as an MP and at the highest levels of international relations, and after his time as Leader of the House he continued to make important contributions to our work and through our Select Committees.

In 1974, Harold Wilson appointed Lord Richard as the UK Permanent Representative to the UN, where he served for over five years. During this time he played a key role in bringing together the different sides in the Middle East and Rhodesia conflicts. Following the change of Government in 1979, Lord Richard was appointed as one of the UK’s European commissioners, replacing Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. He spent four years in Brussels, where he oversaw employment, social policy, education and training. My noble friend Lady Chalker tells me that Lord Richard’s unfailing willingness to listen and seek the advice of others helped him to resolve a wide variety of challenges and ultimately achieve better outcomes during his time in these international posts.

His service to this House since his period as Leader saw him making a number of invaluable contributions to the European debate as well as on major constitutional issues, including reform of this House. He was appointed as Chairman of Committees on the Constitutional Reform Bill, the Barnett formula and most recently of the Joint Committee on the draft House of Lords Reform Bill. In each of these roles he demonstrated all the negotiating skills gleaned from his international postings in achieving cross-party consensus on serious and difficult issues. As well as chairing committees, he also served until very recently on a number of EU sub-committees.

Together with the death of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, I am sorry that the House has had to bid farewell to two distinguished Welsh political figures in the same week. Lord Richard was a man who never abandoned his Carmarthenshire roots; he was invited to chair a commission on the future powers of the National Assembly for Wales, which reported in 2004. While its recommendations were not initially accepted by the Government at the time, the important body of work eventually resulted in the devolution of further powers to Cardiff.

At this sad time, all sides of your Lordships’ House will want to send their good wishes to his wife Janet, to whom he was a devoted husband, and to his children. We share in what must be their sense of profound loss. But it is almost impossible not to be struck at the breadth of what he achieved at high level in so many different fields He put his experience and wisdom willingly at the disposal of this House throughout his membership, and he will be greatly missed.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments; we are grateful for the tributes she has paid. As well as Lord Crickhowell, she will understand that we are also mourning our colleague Brenda Dean who died very recently.

In 1997 Lord Richard—Ivor—led the Labour Party in the Lords into government for the first time in 18 years. He had taken over the leadership in 1992, just after we had been defeated in an election that we went into with such high hopes. Noble Lords will understand that it was not an easy time: despite the convincing nature of Labour’s victory in 1997 the future had looked far from certain five years earlier.

Ivor was a man of great intellect and experience—a “wise owl” if ever there was one. He had strong political convictions and as someone said to me earlier, he was a true character. His time in Parliament spanned almost 54 years. He was first elected as a Member of Parliament in 1964 for Barons Court in west London and served for 10 years in the other place, returning to Westminster on the red Benches in 1990. Between his times at Westminster he served in not one but two high-profile international postings; first, as Britain’s ambassador to the United Nations and then as a European commissioner. In the former role, Ivor was at the centre of two of the key issues of the day: the Middle East conflict that still troubles us and the growing movement for independence in what is now Zimbabwe. An early advocate of Britain’s membership of the then Common Market, Ivor found himself briefly dislodged from the Labour Front Bench for defying the Whip on the historic vote to join in 1971: some things change.

We will miss Ivor’s wisdom, expertise and statesmanship as the seemingly never-ending Brexit process moves forward over the coming months and years. In 1997, his tenure as a Cabinet Minister and Leader of your Lordships’ House was inevitably dominated by the new Government’s heavy legislative programme, particularly the proposals for reform of this House. Lords reform remained a passion and an issue close to his heart, so he was the obvious choice to chair the Joint Committee considering the draft Bill at the last major attempt to reform your Lordships’ House, under the coalition Government.

A proud Welshman, he also played a key role in the development of the powers of the National Assembly for Wales, paving the way for the 2011 referendum on the Assembly’s lawmaking powers. Ivor served on more committees of this House than we have time to mention here, most recently on the Select Committee that this House set up to consider some of the most contentious aspects of the Trade Union Bill. I well recall the Monday morning when Ivor arrived at my office in your Lordships’ House, having just been appointed the previous week, with a huge pile of papers under his arm, all marked up, all flagged: he had spent the whole weekend examining in detail the issues before that committee. His contribution to Parliament and to the Lords over many years was huge. He was the last former MP to become Leader of your Lordships’ House—so far.

So today we pay tribute to Ivor, our friend and colleague whom we shall miss enormously. Our thoughts are with his family, particularly his wife, Janet. I hope that our thoughts as we remember him today will be of some comfort to them.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, Ivor Richard, as we have heard, had an exceptionally varied and successful career in both domestic and international politics. As MP for Barons Court, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, pointed out, he gained the battle honours of being sacked from his Front Bench for supporting the Bill taking the UK into the European Community in 1971. After leaving the Commons, he was a forthright UK Permanent Representative at the UN and then a successful commissioner when he succeeded Roy Jenkins at the Commission in Brussels.

On these Benches, he is especially remembered, particularly by my Welsh colleagues, as architect of the Richard commission report, which was commissioned in the early days of the National Assembly for Wales by the coalition Government, of which the Lib Dems were then part. The report looked at the powers and the size of the Assembly, and, somewhat remarkably, proposed changed the voting system to STV—which particularly commended it to my friends. He was a committed devolutionist and a committed Welshman. He helped push the boundaries of thinking on full powers for the National Assembly, which eventually, many years later, have come to fruition.

But the thing which always impressed me most was his presence and his voice. He had a solidity, an authority and a manner of speaking which commanded attention and made me, at least, want to listen very carefully to everything he said. This, in my experience, is a very rare ability and made him a most effective leader of your Lordships’ House. I will certainly miss that voice.

Salisbury Incident

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. We are grateful for the information the Government have been able to share with us so far regarding the threat from Russia.

On Monday, I said that this incident had local, national and international ramifications. We are now seeing an escalation on all three of those fronts. The people of Salisbury are dealing with an attempted murder, through a nerve agent, on British soil and in their home town, with total disregard for the lives of British citizens. We welcome that the evidence that the risk to the public was low appears to be correct, and that those members of the public who sought medical attention for poisoning symptoms have been cleared. We again send our best wishes to Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey. We also recognise that there are ongoing checks and issues in Salisbury. This was an unacceptable and reprehensible attack, and the response must be robust. We cannot continue with business as usual, and we welcome the measures announced.

The Prime Minister is clear in her Statement, as she said on Monday, too, that we deploy an “engage but beware” strategy when dealing with Russia. Following the high-level diplomatic expulsions, what form do the Government expect that engagement to take in the future? The noble Baroness will be aware of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee report on Russia, which confirmed that engagement is vital both to de-escalate points of difference and avoid misunderstandings, and to better understand any threat that is faced. She will be aware that President Putin is facing the first round of Russian elections this Sunday, so currently he is obviously focused on his domestic audience. This makes the support of our allies all the more important.

The UK has called for an urgent meeting of the UN Security Council. Donald Tusk has announced that EU leaders will discuss this issue at their summit next week, and there will be a NATO meeting tomorrow. International co-ordination is key for any action against Russia to be successful, so will the noble Baroness update the House on the preparations for potential UN Security Council resolutions that should be drafted in order to get the widest possible international support?

Will the noble Baroness also update the House on investigations being carried out on other deaths under similar circumstances? While the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal is confronting us today, what efforts are being made by the Government to reassess the deaths of Mr Skripal’s wife Liudmila, who died in 2012, and his elder brother and his son, who died within the past two years?

Sergei and Yulia Skripal were not regarded as facing a high risk and were not living under a witness protection programme. They lived openly under their own names. What assessment has now been undertaken to review the protection currently offered to other Russian citizens who are not currently deemed, or were not previously deemed, to be high risk?

We welcome the Government’s intention to table a Magnitsky amendment to the sanctions Bill to see the UK doing more to challenge gross human rights abuses. We look forward to seeing the detail. The noble Baroness announced plans to look at further legislative powers to support our defences against hostile state action, and we will work constructively with the Government to scrutinise the proposals that are brought forward. On plans for powers at the border, the noble Baroness will understand that there will need to be safeguards to ensure that the power is used properly to protect citizens and is not open to abuse. On all these issues, will the Government work with the Intelligence and Security Committee and all other relevant committees of Parliament to ensure we understand the threat Russia poses and the consequent pressures on our intelligence and security services and how best they are to be supported and resourced to do the job they have to do?

The Prime Minister announced that the Government have commissioned the OPCW independently to verify the Government’s analysis of the nerve agent. Will the noble Baroness provide assurances to the House that the Government will work with the OPCW to strengthen its chemical weapons monitoring system and encourage an investigation, including the inspection of relevant facilities in Russia?

Finally, all this serves to emphasise how essential it is that we work internationally. International co-operation, European co-operation and engagement are the only way to tackle any threats and, indeed, to seek to prevent them.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. Like her, I start by paying tribute to the professionalism and dedication of the emergency services, the medical staff and others in Salisbury who are dealing with what is clearly a more complicated business in cleaning up and in dealing with a rather larger number of people who have been affected by this incident than was at first apparent.

The conclusion that this incident represents an unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom is stark and unavoidable. On these Benches, we agree with the Government that, that being so, this act needs to be met with a full and robust response. The challenge is to identify practical and effective measures to constitute that response. The Government have come up with a number. The first proposal is to,

“expel 23 Russian diplomats who have been identified as undeclared intelligence officers”.

If they are indeed undeclared intelligence officers, this seems a fully justified measure.

Secondly, the Government plan to,

“develop proposals for new legislative powers to harden our defences against all forms of hostile state activity”.

While we will obviously wish to scrutinise any such measures very carefully, and for understandable reasons we do not have the details of them yet, we welcome the proposal to introduce the Magnitsky powers. That is something that we have been calling for for some time, so the Government will have our support in getting those powers on to the statute book. Is the noble Baroness able to tell us whether it is intended that those powers will be introduced by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill or whether they will be coming forward in free-standing legislation?

Thirdly, the Government plan to,

“increase checks on private flights, customs and freight”.

On a number of occasions, your Lordships’ House has debated the potentially damaging consequences of the lack of checks on private flights, so this is welcome. The concern is that this is potentially a very big commitment, because there is a very large number of small airports which are currently almost totally unregulated. We look forward to hearing from the Government how they expect to be able to do that effectively and what the manpower and cost implications will be.

The final strand of the Government’s proposals relates to working together internationally. Of course, that is very much to be welcomed. Within that strand, there are two principal international interlocutors, the first being NATO. Given the strength of the Prime Minister’s language, about the incident involving the unlawful use of force by the Russian state, have the Government given any consideration as to whether these events would justify invoking Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty? Finally, it is obviously the case, as the Government have recognised, that the attitude of our EU partners is very important. The Prime Minister has spoken to Chancellor Merkel and President Macron. I believe that earlier today President Tusk proposed adding to the agenda of next week’s European Council an item relating to this incident. Could the noble Baroness tell us whether the Government have yet accepted that invitation?