G20 Summit

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement. It helps the House when Statements are repeated; I am grateful to him for doing so.

As the G20 got under way, the scale of the devastation caused by the earthquake in Morocco was becoming evident. Today, the death toll continues to rise towards 3,000, with almost as many reported injuries. I entirely concur with the noble Lord’s comments, and our thoughts and condolences are with those affected and those aiding the rescue efforts. Alongside other nations, UK specialist search and rescue teams are working with the Moroccan authorities in a race against time to try to find and treat survivors. We know that a number of UK citizens have been affected. I do not know whether the noble Lord can comment on this, but it would be helpful if he could say something about the efforts being made to ensure that UK citizens can return home at the earliest opportunity.

As the Lord Privy Seal said, this is the week in which we should remember the victims of the 2001 9/11 attacks and those who risked their lives trying to rescue others. It is a further reminder that we must always strive to make our country and communities safer and more resilient. As we look to secure future security, we recognise that, for some, their lives will never be the same. With the ongoing war in Ukraine as a backdrop to the G20 in New Delhi, there can be no greater reminder of the need for nations to stand together against terrorism and aggression, and to support countries dealing with major disasters.

This year’s G20 was a real opportunity to secure progress on international issues. With the Government and the Opposition consistently united against Putin’s unjust invasion—the noble Lord has made that comment himself—and seeking international co-operation to help Ukraine, I think we all would have hoped for an unequivocal statement from the G20. The Lord Privy Seal may not wish to comment on that, but I suspect he would concur that that is also what he would have sought. It would have been a hugely significant expression of support if the international community had agreed to work towards an agreement about repurposing Russia’s frozen assets to help reconstruct Ukraine. The fact that it was not an unequivocal statement of support means that, whatever its other merits, the communiqué is a disappointment.

We generally welcome and encourage the Prime Minister’s comments on global food supplies in the Black Sea and his personal condemnation against Putin. The Lord Privy Seal will know that the need for further action is urgent. Can he say anything more or give an update on preparations for the November summit on food security? Does he have some detail on whether, and what, progress was made in this regard in Delhi?

The inclusion of the African Union in the G20 reflects Africa’s progress as the world’s fastest-growing continent. We should also support the increasing role of Africa on the world stage. Does the noble Lord consider that the inclusion of the African Union might represent a step towards a greater role for African states in, for example, the UN?

The important announcement of a new partnership for global infrastructure and investment represents an exciting prospect for the world to have an alternative to China’s intercontinental belt and road initiative, but that partnership will not involve the UK. I have a number of questions on this that I hope the noble Lord can clarify. Did we decline the opportunity to sign up, or was it never on offer—were we not offered the opportunity to do so? Will there be opportunities for the UK to play a role in these arrangements in the future? How does it fit in with Ministers’ ongoing rhetoric on global Britain when we are not part of such an exciting and crucial partnership?

I will also ask the noble Lord about the trade deal between the UK and India. The Chancellor has referred to the “real political momentum”, but there does not appear to be any tangible evidence of that following the summit. Can the noble Lord shed some light on the reasons for Mr Hunt’s optimism? This is a key government promise, yet deadlines have been and gone. There does not appear to be any progress, but he might be able to enlighten me: can he identify and outline the genuine progress, or is it still wishful thinking at this stage?

So, there is no UK-India trade deal and we are being left out of the new infrastructure and investment. Those are worrying indicators for the UK. Can the noble Lord say something about what our strategic plans are for the future of the UK and our place in the world?

The US has the Inflation Reduction Act and the EU is relaxing the rules to allow for greater green subsidies. The Government may disagree with those policies, but their promises of increased global trade and this wonderful new land of increased investment post Brexit are just not being met. Whatever disagreements we have on foreign and domestic policy, we do agree on the UK’s potential. With our expertise and creativity, we should be able to attract investment and trade, but it has to be as part of an international, outward-looking strategy for the economic, environmental and foreign policy challenges of the future. I have no doubt that we can meet those challenges, but if this Government are to do so we need to see a better, confident and credible plan.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement and taking questions on it. From these Benches, we also send our sympathies to the people of Morocco in the aftermath of the earthquake. The UK is already sending search and rescue teams, but do the Government have any plans to contribute financially to the reconstruction effort which is now under way and which is going to be long and arduous?

On the outcome of the G20, I probably should not admit it, but I have some sympathy with the Prime Minister. There are deep and unbridgeable rifts between G20 members on a range of issues, most notably Ukraine, and it would be unrealistic to expect harmony to have broken out on all these in Delhi. It seems to me that criticism of the Prime Minister on this ground is pretty naive. As is so often the case with this kind of summit, the value appears to lie principally in the discussions which were able to take place outside the full sessions, so I believe it had considerable value despite the inability to make progress on some of the big issues.

On Ukraine, we applaud the Government’s attempts to get more grain out of the country. The Prime Minister discussed this issue at length in the Statement and said:

“The UK is working with partners to get grain to those who need it most”.


Will the noble Lord explain what tangible support the UK is giving or planning to give to increase the volume of these much-needed grain shipments?

The Prime Minister held a much-heralded meeting with President Modi, principally to advance a trade deal between our countries, but as the noble Baroness said, the Statement is extremely coy about any progress made. There was much speculation in the run-up to Delhi that a deal would be struck before Christmas. Can the noble Lord give the House an assessment of how realistic he believes such a timescale to be?

One of the principal announcements around the summit, as the noble Baroness mentioned, was the signing of a new partnership for global infrastructure and investment. The UK was not a signatory to this agreement despite having been involved in its inception. Can the noble Lord tell the House why not? It has the potential to be a significant counterweight to China’s belt and road strategy and is therefore of direct relevance to our trade and security. Will the UK make any financial contributions to the initiative or take part in discussions with the other partners on its future?

The Prime Minister gave a detailed account of his discussions with his Chinese counterpart, but the words “Hong Kong” do not appear in the Statement. At present, the Hong Kong authorities, with Beijing’s backing, are actively offering bounties against pro- democracy Hong Kongers now in the UK. The United States has sanctioned those responsible for the crackdown in Hong Kong, but this Government have surprisingly failed to sanction a single person. Will the Government now specifically condemn what would, in effect, be kidnapping and commit to protecting Hong Kongers in the UK? Will they use sanctions, like the Americans, against those responsible for dismantling Hong Kong’s democracy?

The principal aims which the Prime Minister set in attending the G20 were: maintaining pressure on Russia; showing that the UK is leading the fight on global challenges such as climate change; and strengthening international ties. Those are admirable but need to be pursued consistently, so it is a surprise to see that the Prime Minister has decided not to attend the UN General Assembly later this month. This is the largest international summit and an annual opportunity to promote our values and our policy priorities. Can the noble Lord explain why the Prime Minister has decided not to go to New York, and could he suggest to him that it is not too late for him to change his mind?

Security Update

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 11th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement in a timely way on the same day as it was made in the other place. I have often said from this Dispatch Box that the first duty of any Government is to ensure the safety and security of its citizens, but, when you look at it, it is more than that. In doing so, we must ensure that we uphold the integrity of our democracy and values.

I am sure that everyone in your Lordships’ House can recall where they were when we heard the news of the attacks on the twin towers, 22 years ago today. It is an appropriate time to recognise and pay tribute to the work of the intelligence and security agencies, who work alongside the police and other public sector organisations. I thank them for their work to protect us, in which they face unprecedented challenges and risks. Those risks are evolving in size, volatility and complexity. Security threats now appear through threats to our economy and technological systems, at our borders and through interference in our democracy. It is a huge challenge, and our security response must evolve to ensure that it is cohesive, comprehensive and able to adjust to face the changing nature of those threats.

In the last week, we have heard of two serious security issues: the escape from prison of a man facing charges for terrorism and the serious allegations of espionage on behalf of China. The police, intelligence agencies and justice system have our support in carrying out their investigations and should be left to do so. That also means that we have to be honest about the challenges faced and mistakes made; we have to recognise where there are gaps and take action to address them.

The Lord Privy Seal will understand that there is some incredulity that a man suspected of terrorism was able to escape from a category B prison under a van. It is extraordinary that he was in a category B prison—HMP Wandsworth—in the first place, that he had access to an area from which he could escape, and that it was not immediately noticed that he had absconded. I doubt that the Lord Privy Seal will be able to answer questions on this matter today, but I am sure that he recognises the importance of those questions that need to be investigated. Can he say whether the review into the security status of national security prisoners has been completed?

In response to the arrests made for espionage, there are questions about the actions the Government are taking to combat the threats posed by other states which seek to interfere in our democracy. MI5 issued an alert about Chinese attempts to influence Parliament 20 months ago. Our security services have long warned about interference in our democracy and in our elections, and there have been previous alerts and warnings about foreign actors seeking to penetrate parliamentary security. Can the Lord Privy Seal say anything about the actions they are taking in response to those specific warnings, and are they observed across government by both Ministers and those in their departments?

The Lord Speaker mentioned it in his introduction, but I ask the Lord Privy Seal to clarify whether the two men who have been arrested, and, I understand, charged with espionage, have been released on bail.

MI5 has also warned about commercial espionage from China, cyber risks and the threat to supply chains. The Intelligence and Security Committee has noted the Government’s lack of a long-term strategy towards China and is currently waiting for a response to the report it published in July. Can the Lord Privy Seal say anything more today about the specific threat posed by China? Can he more specifically say when the Government’s response to the ISC report will be published?

We must be able to work with China on key issues, such as climate change, but at the same time we must protect our national security and oppose attempts to infiltrate our democracy. In your Lordships’ House, we on the Labour Benches introduced an amendment to the National Security Bill to create stronger checks on donations to political parties which would have closed a loophole that allows shell companies to be used to hide political donations. The Government opposed that amendment. Can the Lord Privy Seal explain why, and will the Government now reconsider their position?

We know that the threats are not limited to China. For example, we saw the attack from the Russians in Salisbury, and we know there have been further cyberattacks and misinformation campaigns. In response to the shocking and terrible attacks on 9/11, the then Labour Government created a comprehensive strategy in response to state threats to national security. The UK counterterrorism strategy Contest established new links between the counterterrorism police, intelligence agencies and our public services, with the Home Office and the Government at the centre at the helm. The scale of the response that is needed today is certainly no less than that which was needed 22 years ago.

We are committed to extending this approach, if we are fortunate enough to be in government, by creating an equivalent strategy today to deal with such state threats. I can assure the Lord Privy Seal that the Government would have our support if they were to commit to introducing such a strategy and response now. I am not asking him to answer that at the Dispatch Box today, but will he commit to take this back to his Cabinet colleagues and report back to your Lordships’ House?

I end where I started. Nothing is more important in government than ensuring the safety, security and well-being of citizens. To fulfil that obligation, we need the right policies, strategies and collaborations. If we are to protect our democracy, we need to have a strategy in place, but we also need our citizens to have confidence in our democracy if they are to properly and effectively participate in it. This should be a joint endeavour across all parties and both Houses, and I hope the Lord Privy Seal will be able today to reassure us on the actions the Government are taking, and commit to going forward on this in a way that protects our democracy and security and unites the country, rather than creating division.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, there are two distinct but related aspects to this Statement. The first relates to the arrest of two people on charges of conducting espionage on behalf of China. The second relates more generally to our posture towards the security risks which China poses to the UK.

On the charges, I fully understand why it is inappropriate to comment at this stage. However, I confess to be bemused as to the nature of the spying which the parliamentary researcher might have undertaken. According to media reports, one of his crimes seems to be to have organised regular drinks sessions at a Westminster pub. This may not be a meritorious activity but it is hardly a serious offence. I think everybody will be fascinated to discover, if charges are pursued, exactly what kind of secrets the parliamentary researcher might have had access to. But for today, we must simply compose our souls in patience until further details of any charges emerge.

There is the more serious question of whether parliamentarians should have been told about the arrests at an earlier stage, so that they could take particular care in their dealings with China and Chinese entities. It is not clear when the Home Secretary and Prime Minister were aware of this case and why they decided to remain silent about it with parliamentary colleagues. Perhaps the noble Lord the Leader can enlighten us.

The broader issue which this case exemplifies relates to our overall posture towards China. The Statement says that the Government believe that China presents a systemic challenge to our values. It lists a number of actions which they have taken to counter these challenges, but it fails to convince. In July, Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee issued an excoriating report on China which said that the Government do not have a “clear strategy” on China and have not devoted sufficient resources to tackling the threat that it posed. The actions listed in today’s Statement do not constitute such a strategy. The Government should be making protecting our democracy a national security priority—something, incidentally, which they have already consistently failed to do in respect of Russia—and accept the recommendations of the ISC’s China report.

More generally, the Government’s record on standing up to China is weak. From the genocide against the Uighurs to Hong Kong, and from Taiwan to interference in our democracy, the Government have failed to take China seriously. The Prime Minister may have meetings in Delhi with his Chinese counterpart, but the suspicion is that he is more interested in trade, rather than these broader concerns.

Developing a clear overall approach to China should now be an urgent priority. One specific question which such a strategy must cover is the extent to which we designate China formally as a security threat. The Prime Minister originally claimed that China was such a threat during the Conservative leadership contest—and on this we agree—but since then, he has back-pedalled. The spying case illustrates the broad challenge which China now poses to the UK, yet the Government have failed to take Chinese interference seriously. They surely must now do so.

House Of Lords: Appointments System

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, on the size of the House, since January 2022 it has in fact grown by four—plus seven net Conservatives and plus three net Labour. I understand that many noble Lords are agitated about the size of the House. However, I sometimes wish that the House would concentrate on extolling the great and good things that your Lordships do every day and the challenge that your Lordships give to the Government to improve legislation, and not concentrate so much on running down the House. I am not accusing the noble Baroness of that, but the reality is that we have just had in this House one of the most contested pieces of legislation, where 417 Peers voted.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord will understand that this is the fifth report of the Lord Speaker’s Committee. I am sure he senses the huge exasperation that so little has changed since the first report. Those of us who value—and I concur with him on this point—the work of this House and believe that it matters are frustrated that the two most serious and justified complaints are ones that Members of this House can do absolutely nothing about. As outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, the size of the House and the appointments system bring us into criticism. The work of this House, whether people agree or not with our decisions, does not receive criticism; it is often praised—it is the size of the House and the appointments system. We do not have to agree with everything in the Lord Speaker’s report to know that something has to change. There needs to be grown-up, cross-party, serious discussions on these two key issues. I am ready; are the Government?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I wanted the noble Baroness to have time to intervene. I repeat with some humility the fact that I think we worry too much about the nominal size of the House. A House which has certain experts in it and people who come here occasionally and make a great contribution has to be larger than a full-time House. I repeat that we had 417 Peers voting on the deeply contested legislation on illegal migration on Monday. The House calls for a limit of 600 Members; we very rarely get that number voting.

As for discussions, the most important things are the role of the House, the way it conducts itself and, if I may say so, the agreements across the House within the usual channels. I am always keen to facilitate the House operating in a sensible mode. Size was not a problem in the late 1940s when the Labour Party was massively outnumbered, because there was an understanding about the way in which the House should operate. The House should concentrate on doing its role in that sort of way, and I am very happy to have those kinds of discussions. We should worry a little less about the nominal size of the House.

G7 Summit

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 24th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement. It is very helpful to the House, and I am grateful to him for doing so. I reinforce the comments that he made about the Manchester Arena bombings and the murder of Lee Rigby. There are certain events that, when they happen, all of us remember where we were when we heard about them. I certainly think we still feel the emotions that we felt when we heard about those two.

Having read the communiqué from the summit before I heard the Statement, I have to say the Statement covers a lot more self-congratulatory comments that are not directly related to the summit. That is not the norm, but perhaps I can focus on the parts of the Statement that are relevant. It seemed particularly poignant that we were discussing one ongoing war, in Ukraine, at the scene of a peace memorial park in Hiroshima. That backdrop is a symbol of how the horror of war just haunts for generations.

Putin’s violent and illegal invasion has had an immediate effect on millions of Ukrainians today, and the post-war reconstruction of that amazingly resilient country will take decades. We also have to factor in the longer-term consequences for the future security of Europe. That is why a united front on this issue, here, across Parliament and internationally, is so vital. We continue to welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to Ukraine, which has the full support of the Opposition Benches. But it is clear that as Ukraine prepares for a counter-offensive, there is no room for complacency or letting our guard down. The international agreement to start providing Ukraine with F16 fighter jets is progress. It is a sign of the unwavering united stand.

New trade restrictions should continue to hamper Russia’s military capabilities, but until a Ukrainian victory delivers peace, we must continue to examine ways of strengthening our support. It is right that the UK’s sanction regime, which I welcome, is broadly aligned with our allies and that designations are being updated. But the noble Lord knows, as I do, that improvements should be made on enforcement. Is my understanding correct that no fines have been imposed for any sanction breaches? Is the noble Lord confident that this is because there have been no breaches? It would be helpful if he was able to provide information and assurances on how we are working with our allies to monitor the effectiveness of sanctions. We have to do this to ensure that breaches are identified and offenders held to account.

As we all know, Ukraine is experiencing a humanitarian crisis as a result of the invasion, which has a wider destabilising effect, including from the weaponisation of food. We welcome that the leaders’ statement on Ukraine references support to vulnerable countries, including from the World Food Programme. However, I ask the noble Lord specifically: how is the UK working with the UN Refugee Council to support those who have fled the conflict into neighbouring countries?

I was pleased to hear the comments on China. The noble Lord will be aware that we have had many debates and questions in this place about our relationship, business and political, with China and the risks posed. The Government’s commitment to de-risking our economic relationship is of course welcome. Does the noble Lord accept that we really need a full audit of our relations and our engagement with Beijing, and will he look into that?

We must remain at all times committed to our democratic values, the rule of law and the primacy of human rights, at home and abroad. The communiqué’s commitment to being

“more united than ever in our determination to meet the global challenges of this moment”

is both welcome and essential across a range of issues, including support for Ukraine and our relationship with China. The communiqué rightly referred to the situation in the East China and South China Seas. If we are to play our part in this joint approach, can the noble Lord tell us how we will strengthen our defence ties across the Indo-Pacific?

There were key issues discussed at the summit that I was surprised were not even mentioned in the Prime Minister’s Statement, including energy security and climate change. Russia’s weaponisation of energy has acted as a wake-up call, but while it illustrates a vulnerability in our supply, it also provides an opportunity to make Britain a clean energy superpower. Homegrown, cheaper, clean energy will cut energy bills, help tackle the cost of living crisis and support manufacturing and other industries. These issues are reflected across the G7.

It is one thing to discuss these issues, but can I press the Lord Privy Seal on how the Government will deliver on accelerating the transition to clean energy agreed at the summit? How will the UK play its part in the collective increase in wind capacity? He will be aware that the Government are opposed to the cleanest, fastest and cheapest energy sources: onshore wind and solar. That will make the objectives harder to achieve, so can he say something about the plans in place to compensate for that government policy?

The Lord Privy Seal will also be aware that there is a direct link between the environmental commitments and energy security. There were key commitments at the summit which are not even mentioned in the Statement. If he is able to say any more, the House would find it very helpful. Can he say why this is and perhaps provide some reassurance on the Government’s commitment on these issues and the action that will follow the summit?

Other issues that were not mentioned in the Statement include: health and pandemic resilience, digital technologies, artificial intelligence, multilateral development banks, human rights and equalities. I appreciate that not everything can be mentioned, but I hope we will hear more about these between now and the next summit.

In the Statement, the Prime Minister spent some time telling us how well things were going for the Government on foreign policy. There is absolutely no doubt that work internationally is crucial to our future as we seek to meet global challenges together. I have to say I found that part of the Statement really disappointing in its complacency and its quite selective reporting of these issues, so can I press him on a couple of points?

The Government promised a free trade deal with the US by the end of last year, but there has been no reference to this. Perhaps President Biden let the cat out of the bag when he was in Belfast, when he disclosed that talks will not begin until 2025. This is a key relationship for the UK. Is the noble Lord able to say whether the Prime Minister raised the timing of the start of those talks with the President to see if they could be brought forward? Despite the focus on trade in the Statement, there is no mention of the commitment to securing free trade agreements covering 80% of UK trade by the end of 2022. Can the Lord Privy Seal say when the Government now expect that commitment to be met?

There is a real fear that the Government’s lack of ambition and action will mean lost opportunities for the jobs and economic growth that we so badly need. We see other countries forging ahead. For example, the Government’s response to the US Inflation Reduction Act is so critical. We should be using that as an opportunity to seek out new opportunities for the UK. He will also be aware of today’s news that UK borrowing has reached significantly higher levels than expected, and of the associated costs of that. Was there discussion about how the Government expect to restore global confidence in the UK economy, which continues to lag behind international competitors in terms of growth and investment?

This was clearly a valuable summit with some very important outcomes, particularly on Ukraine and China. But if the Government really want to be a leader on the international stage, they have to be more proactive in securing a stable and growing economy here in the UK.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord the Leader for reading out the Statement. Normally I am happy for it not to be read out, but on this occasion I welcome the fact that he did so, because it demonstrates the gulf between the Prime Minister’s self-congratulatory posturing and the substance of what was actually discussed at the summit.

The Prime Minister devotes one-quarter of the Statement to Ukraine. On these Benches we strongly support the UK efforts in supporting the Ukrainian people in their struggle against Russia. But all the Statement does is boast about what the UK has already done, not what the Prime Minister thinks the summit might have achieved in supporting Ukraine in the future. The Statement then speaks briefly about the discussion about China in Hiroshima, before veering away from the summit altogether and making a series of breathless assertions about how terrific the Government’s foreign policy is. These take up getting on for half of the total content of the Prime Minister’s Statement. I will just raise two of them.

First, the Prime Minister talks about our post-Brexit, “hugely ambitious trade policy”. He particularly basks in the glory of deals done with the CPTPP, Australia and New Zealand. The noble Lord knows as well as the rest of the House that these deals promise potential increases in our level of trade which are a small fraction of the loss of trade we have suffered as a result of Brexit. Could he remind the House of the increase in GDP these deals promise according to the Government’s own impact assessments compared with the reduction in GDP of Brexit estimated by the OBR?

Secondly, the Prime Minister talks about the carrier strike force group returning to the Indo-Pacific region by 2025. Could the noble Lord say how many ships this strike force group will consist of? Is it not the case that we have so few frigates that any strike force group we send will be a sitting target, unless it has a huge amount of covering support from allies? We are deluding ourselves to suggest that we have the capacity to provide any meaningful naval force so far from home waters.

Compared with the Prime Minister’s Statement, the communiqué from the summit, which runs to some 41 pages, covers substantial proposals on some of the most important issues facing humanity. As the Prime Minister did not think any of these were worthy of a mention in his Statement, I wonder if the noble Lord could enlighten us. For example, the summit reaffirmed support for the sustainable development goals to be achieved by 2030. In particular, it stresses the importance of mobilising public and private sector resources for this. In light of the Government’s abandonment of the 0.7% target for development assistance, can the noble Lord explain what the Government are doing to reinforce their efforts in this area? Given the importance of the issue, can he say which UK Government Minister will attend the SDG summit in September? On climate change, the summit reaffirmed its support for “robust” pledges of funding for the green climate fund. What sort of robust pledge has the Prime Minister made, or does he plan to make, on this issue?

The other issues discussed in Hiroshima, as the noble Baroness already mentioned, according to the communiqué were disarmament, the global economy, the environment, energy, economic security, food security, health, labour, education, digital, science and technology, gender and countering terrorism. None of these subjects rates a single mention in the Prime Minister’s Statement. Could the noble Lord the Leader tell the House whether the Prime Minister expressed a view on any of these issues and, if so, what it was?

When Boris Johnson was Prime Minister, we became used to Statements which were full of bombast, self-congratulation and exaggeration. It is depressing to find that his latest successor has decided to follow the same songbook. In doing so, he does a disservice to Parliament and to the country.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement—that was quite a feat of endurance. He should be grateful that we have a time limit today; the Prime Minister was on his feet for over two hours yesterday.

I also thank the Minister for his comments about Betty Boothroyd—the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. So many Members of this House will have memories of her that we cherish and enjoy sharing. I can hear her voice today: I remember answering the phone and hearing her opening words, “Now listen, luvvie”—and of course I would. As sad as we are at her passing, we can only celebrate a long life, well lived. We look forward to the opportunity to commemorate her and share our stories with a smile.

It is with real sadness that I echo the comments about the shocking and cowardly attack on PSNI Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell. The impact on him, his family, his friends, his colleagues and all who know him is devastating. For DCI Caldwell and his family, life may never be the same again. For his colleagues and the community he serves, this is a stark reminder that there remain a few who do not share their commitment to peace. The most moving, emotional and, in many ways, uplifting scenes that I saw on TV this past weekend were of the people of Omagh—a town that suffered so much—standing united to proclaim, “No going back”. They represent the people of Northern Ireland. The immediate and unequivocal joint statement from Sinn Féin, the DUP, the SDLP, the Alliance Party and the UUP was, in so many ways, a manifestation of how far we have come since the signing of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement in 1998. The shooting of DCI Caldwell is a reminder of just how crucial it is to continue working together to uphold peace and support Northern Ireland’s institutions.

When the people of Northern Ireland overwhelmingly endorsed the Good Friday agreement, the UK Government took on responsibility as a joint guarantor, so a key question for many of us, when the protocol was negotiated and signed by then Prime Minister Boris Johnson, was its compatibility with the agreement. We knew it could never be perfect, but we also recognised that the assurances given by Mr Johnson that there would be

“no forms, no checks, no barriers of any kind”

on goods crossing the Irish Sea post Brexit were not based in reality. Who can forget his flamboyant promise to an audience of Northern Ireland businesspeople that they should call him if anyone tried to get them to complete a form? That was not just wrong; the lack of honesty was disrespectful to those who had raised legitimate concerns.

The solution to the problems was never going to be the aggressive approach of, in effect, tearing up an international treaty that the Prime Minister and Ministers had negotiated and signed. Not only would it not work but it would signal to the world that the UK could not now be trusted to keep its word. That is a dangerous position to be in when we have to negotiate post-Brexit trade deals.

It is no surprise that, during our long and at times passionate debate on the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, the key questions from across the House were: why were Ministers not at the negotiating table trying to resolve legitimate outstanding issues with the protocol, rather than standing at the Dispatch Box trying to defend the unilateral tearing up of that binding international treaty? Why were the Government not engaging effectively with unionists’ concerns? Why were they not listening to businesses about the need for common sense, clarity and honesty? Why did the Government negotiate and sign the treaty, given its failings?

On a recent visit to Northern Ireland with Keir Starmer and Peter Kyle, businesses had a common message for us. They had different concerns about the protocol, but they all wanted to make it work and they all had suggestions of how, through negotiation, changes could be made that would minimise problems. My party has always said that if the Prime Minister were serious about negotiating a deal with our partners in the EU, we would back him. So we welcome the Prime Minister’s Statement and the publication of the Windsor Framework announced by Mr Sunak and President von der Leyen. It proves that the complex legal and trade issues are best resolved through diplomacy, not unilateral action or headline-seeking bluster. We welcome the Prime Minister’s change of approach.

We also welcome that Mr Sunak has now, as part of the agreement, finally committed not to proceed with the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. We will never know how much sooner this new framework could have been agreed if the time and energy put into that Bill had been used instead to focus on negotiations from the beginning.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Lord heckles me from a sedentary position. I suggest that he should apologise to those who have had to deal with these negotiations to change the protocol that he supported. Had he not—

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

No, I am not giving way. I am not prepared to give way to the noble Lord who tried to heckle me from a sedentary position. He will have the opportunity to ask questions later. If he wants to heckle, he should understand that people respond to heckles like that. We just do not know—

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

No, I am not giving way, and he should not heckle. He should behave in this House; he has been here long enough.

How much sooner could this new framework have been agreed if the time and energy put into the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill had been put into negotiating the framework? The outline of a deal has been clear for months. Business organisations have been crying out for certainty for even longer, not only because of short-term stock issues or the burdens of additional paperwork but because the uncertainty was creating systemic problems on the ground. A lack of clarity on trade terms, both within the UK internal market and with the EU, was extremely challenging to those seeking to attract investment into Northern Ireland’s economy.

As the detail of the agreement is examined, debated and challenged, we urge the Prime Minister to be honest about the compromises that have had to be reached —compromises made in the best interests of Northern Ireland and the UK as a whole.

When arguing against the protocol, a key issue raised by the DUP, as we heard in yesterday’s debate on the Northern Ireland executive formation Bill, is the democratic deficit caused by the protocol. Those concerns must be understood but, as my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen, who has considerable experience on this issue, asked the House yesterday, is there not a bigger democratic deficit in the people of Northern Ireland not having a functioning Assembly or Executive? Crucial decisions are either not being taken or being taken by civil servants rather than Ministers. Meanwhile, the people of Northern Ireland are not being served properly in the face of a cost of living crisis affecting the entire UK. If we are making the case that the Good Friday agreement is undermined by the protocol, we must understand that the absence of those political and related institutions is also breaching the agreement.

The tone of DUP leader Jeffrey Donaldson’s comments yesterday, when he said he would examine the detail of the new framework, is welcome, as is the Prime Minister’s commitment to giving Northern Ireland’s political parties the time and space for their own deliberations and to address any points raised. This new agreement should provide a path through the political stalemate and towards the restoration of power-sharing, even if that is not immediate. In this 25th anniversary year of the Good Friday agreement, I hope we can move forward in a spirit of co-operation rather than seeking more negotiations.

The Windsor Framework will not in isolation solve all Northern Ireland’s problems, nor completely reset the UK’s relationship with the EU. Beyond the protocol, the Government are pressing ahead with the revocation of vast swathes of retained EU law at the end of this year. Such a step would likely have implications for the trade and co-operation agreement, which relies on minimum standards in several areas. We accept that the Government want a framework for replacing retained EU law and that we need to establish the future status of laws carried over from our time in the European Union.

However, having sought the Windsor Framework to provide certainty for businesses in Northern Ireland, it is counterintuitive to create uncertainty for businesses across the whole UK by introducing a regulatory cliff edge at the end of this year. Surely it is illogical, impractical and reckless to allow potentially important pieces of law to fall off the statute book by default because a department lacks the capacity to identify and rewrite them in the next 10 months. Perhaps the Leader can help me on this. Was it discussed with the Commission President yesterday? Can he now look again at our common-sense and pragmatic approach to review the process of existing retained law?

In conclusion, this important deal may not be perfect, but it represents a significant step forward. In welcoming it, we should pause for a moment to consider the wider context. For the past six and a half years, the at times toxic debate around Brexit, both in Parliament and in the wider country, has cast a shadow over our politics and civic debate. One of the worst aspects has been that the expression of any doubt about the process, let alone the outcome, has generated abuse and false accusations of not respecting the referendum. At the very outset of our debates, I said that the process and delivery of Brexit should not be led by those who had no doubt, because it is through doubt that we have challenge. It is through challenge that we have scrutiny and through scrutiny that we get better decisions and better legislation. The Prime Minister’s Statement is an admission that the Government made mistakes in negotiating and signing the protocol, and that there was a lack of honesty. We welcome today’s Statement. As we move forward, this should be an opportunity to reset our politics.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Leader for repeating this very long Statement. My principal emotion on hearing that an agreement had been reached and on reading the documentation was overwhelmingly one of relief. I suspect that this feeling is shared on a widespread basis across the House. For months the wrangling over the protocol has taken up a huge amount of time and political capital. It preoccupied your Lordships’ House with the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill and acted as a blockage to constructive engagement between the UK and the EU on a range of other issues that had absolutely nothing to do with the protocol itself.

The Windsor framework represents an outbreak of common sense on both sides and it should bring great relief to many in Northern Ireland who were worried about the practical costs of the previous trading arrangements or what they saw as threats to the Good Friday agreement. The Prime Minister and other Ministers involved in securing this agreement are therefore to be heartily congratulated on achieving it. It would perhaps be churlish to point out, however, that the only reason all this effort was needed, and that all the contortions required to get to today’s position were necessary, was the deeply flawed original agreement, an agreement enthusiastically supported at the time by those who have now fundamentally renegotiated it. So I shall not dwell on that point today.

On the actual contents of the agreement, the only aspect which raises an immediate warning flag to me is the Stormont brake. If it is indeed used in only exceptional circumstances, that is one thing; but if it came to be used regularly, it could in itself lead to serious instability and uncertainty. I know that this issue is of particular concern to my colleagues in the Alliance Party. Having had an initial brief meeting today, they have asked to see the Prime Minister again to discuss this in detail. I hope the Leader can give me an assurance that the Prime Minister will not now simply be spending a lot of time with the DUP but will equally meet with the other parties in Northern Ireland to discuss any outstanding issues they might have.

In the short term, however, yesterday’s agreement will bring relief for many people in Northern Ireland and will hopefully, one would have thought, lead to a rapid resumption of the Northern Ireland Executive. This, though, is entirely down to the attitude taken by the DUP. We have heard much from them about the democratic deficit caused by the protocol, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, pointed out, the democratic deficit caused by the continued absence of an Assembly is surely even more pressing for the daily lives of the population in Northern Ireland. To make an obvious point, if the Stormont brake is to rectify the democratic deficit, there needs to be an operational Administration in Stormont to pull it, so I hope the DUP will now allow the Assembly to function once again without further delay.

Beyond this, we need to use this outbreak of civility and the commitment by the Government and the EU to, in the words of the Command Paper,

“a positive, constructive relationship as partners”

to serve as a reset of our overall relationship with the EU, so that we can begin to mitigate some of the other costs of Brexit. It is, for example, welcome that the EU is now prepared to unblock the UK’s participation in the Horizon programme. This is long overdue, and I hope the Government grasp this opportunity with both hands, but this should surely be only the start. If it were possible, following the precedent of this agreement, to remove many of the costly barriers to trade with mainland Europe itself, there would be an even greater benefit for the economy as a whole than sorting out the protocol. If, for example, much of the red tape created by the TCA could be removed, small businesses, fishermen and farmers could trade with the EU at much lower cost. With a spirit of good will, the problems facing travelling artists could be mitigated, the lack of comprehensive financial services arrangements could be rectified and the many remaining issues on immigration between the UK and EU could be addressed in a serious manner.

This agreement offers the prospect that, if the EU believes that the UK is acting in good faith and can be a reliable partner, we can make progress across a much broader range of issues. Reaching agreement on the Northern Ireland protocol is a good start, but there is a lot more to do.

Arrangement of Business

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, Lord Soley retired from the House today. He served this House for 17 years and, prior to that, had a distinguished career in the House of Commons for more than two decades. He always intended to make his valedictory speech in the debate in the name of my noble friend Lady Verma.

However, a misunderstanding arose as a result of certain ambiguities in the Companion. None the less, the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 is clear that a retirement takes place at 0.01 am, and therefore Lord Soley was advised, quite correctly, that he would no longer be a Member of the House and could not make a valedictory speech. Lord Soley had not appreciated this, and I understand that a misunderstanding of this type has arisen before.

I believe the sense of the House is that it would wish to hear a valedictory speech from such a long-standing and well-respected Member. I therefore felt, as your Lordships’ Leader, that we should seek to address the situation that had arisen in a creative way. After due consultation, I concluded that I should suggest to your Lordships that, on this single occasion, special arrangements be made. So after my noble friend concludes her opening remarks—I congratulate her on securing this important debate—I will move that the House adjourns during pleasure. Lord Soley will then make his contribution and his valedictory speech. I hope noble Lords will remain to hear his remarks. The House will then resume and continue the debate.

I am particularly grateful to the clerks and the House authorities for their work to accommodate this. Measures will be taken to avoid any future ambiguity as to the time of retirement and ensure that retiring Members are fully aware of the consequences of their choice of date, which is irrevocable under the 2014 Act. Today’s proceedings should not set any precedent, but I venture to hope that noble Lords believe this an appropriate course in the circumstances.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal and the Government Chief Whip for their intervention in this matter. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s comments about Lord Soley, who has been a highly regarded, well-respected and much-loved Member of this House, and we wish to hear his valedictory speech. He and the Chief Whip, working with us, have made this possible, and we are very grateful.

Counsellors of State Bill [HL]

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Privy Seal (Lord True) (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I again place on record, as I did at an earlier stage, my gratitude to His Majesty’s Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats for their support in expediting this measure. We have heard important arguments put forward in the House. I believe that we have acquitted our responsibility in responding to the message from His Majesty. I thank all those who have been involved in putting this measure together at such short notice.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for his comments. This Bill has been a learning curve for many in your Lordships’ House. In conducting our debate, we have reached a sensible conclusion which concurs with the wishes of His Majesty the King. This Bill is a proportionate, moderate measure, which has the support of this House. Other issues may arise in due course that the House will wish to look at. This is not something that happens every day. I thank the noble Lord for his courtesy in engaging with the Opposition at all times about the detail of the Bill. We greatly appreciate it. We also thank those officials who have worked on bringing this Bill to the House.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I echo the comments of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition. I thank the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with all the issues and for the way in which he has taken the Bill through the House. It is not every day that a Bill goes through in three days. I also thank him for his personal courtesy to me, not least with regard to the amendment that I moved earlier. It is quite clear that he and others would have preferred it if I had not tabled it at all.

We have waited 70 years for a Bill of this kind. I am tempted to say that, having waited 70 years for a bus, I hope, on this occasion, another one does not come along at once. I hope that this Bill will succeed in its purpose and provide the resilience for the constitutional arrangements to which the noble Lord and others have referred. In the fullness of time, we may have to come back to it, but I hope this is not for a very long time. Meanwhile, I wish the Bill well. As has been said before, it is not often that Bills go from this House to another place. It will do the other place no harm to find that this Bill reaches them from this direction, rather than the other way around.

Counsellors of State Bill [HL]

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the thoughts behind this amendment, because the debate has shown that there is a certain amount of confusion about which members of the body of Counsellors of State will undertake royal duties, do undertake royal duties or might be asked to do so. In addition to the Duke of Sussex and the Duke of York, Princess Beatrice—although I might be wrong about this—is also not a working royal. That means that three members of this extraordinarily small body will never be asked to perform the function, which just seems strange.

An amendment of this sort would enable matters to be clarified. There are a number of deficiencies in its drafting, some of which were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It also raises in my mind the question of what would happen if we were to exclude two or three Counsellors of State. Who would replace them? Would they be replaced and, if so, on what basis? There is ambiguity. In an ideal world, this ambiguity would be dealt with by consideration of these matters.

For example, it is up to the King to decide which members of his family he considers working members of it. He decides who acts as a working member of the Royal Family, so I think we could get round all that. However, as we debated on Monday, once you start down this route, it takes quite a lot of time and effort to deal satisfactorily with all the wrinkles. Given everything else that lies before us, I am not sure it is a priority. However, one idea is that the work could be done on this to the extent that, at some point in the future, there may need to be another Counsellors of State Bill to include an additional person. It would be a good thing if this could be cleared up at the same time.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, listening to noble Lords talking about the definition of working royals, I sometimes think we ought to look at the definition of working Peers, over which similar anomalies arise. Monday’s significant debate made it clear that very few of us have considered this issue before. It is not something that we deal with every day. We debated the Bill at length but it is wrong to chastise those who want further debate. I would have thought, however, that His Royal Highness, the palace authorities and Parliament would have given considerable thought to whether the Bill would deal with the problems that may occur if there were not adequate members to fulfil the responsibilities of Counsellors of State.

I appreciate that my noble friend is not pressing his amendment to a vote; I think the House is quite anxious to see this legislation go to the other place and get on to the statute book. We quite like the idea of Bills that start in your Lordships’ House and then go to the other place, rather than the other way round. Therefore, we should send the Bill to the House of Commons, as it is now, unamended, as the noble Lords who proposed these amendments have suggested.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have spoken, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for putting this matter before us. Perhaps it would not be inappropriate at the start to thank the Official Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Newby, for their support on behalf of their parties, which I am sure will be noted and much appreciated.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who always likes to bowl a different ball, as it were, that if he had been here at Second Reading he would have known that no one has ever sought to say that this matter should not be discussed. In fact, His Majesty’s Government have presented a Bill before Parliament for the single purpose of enabling Parliament to consider the matter. His Majesty the King himself has invited us to discuss the matter, so it is 180 degrees away from the position that the noble Lord sought to represent. I cannot go into the point about the future of your Lordships’ House, but it was not my party that recently put that matter before the newspapers.

We believe that this amendment is a disproportionate step. What the Government are doing, as referenced in the King’s message, is a practical and limited modification that allows royal functions to be delegated to a wider pool of Counsellors of State. It is a practical and proportionate response. The Bill follows established precedents. There is no precedent for a measure to exclude individuals from acting as Counsellors of State. Any further changes to the pool of Counsellors of State by, for example, removing certain individuals, would require more fundamental amendment to the Regency Act 1937. These arrangements have been in place for 85 years and have, in my submission, served us well.

The Bill follows the precedent, as I said at Second Reading, of 1953, when Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was added, and adds the Princess Royal and the Earl of Wessex to the pool of Counsellors of State. I must remind my noble friend Lord Balfe, who suggested that this was a very narrow pool, that he did not mention the fact that Her Majesty the Queen Consort and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales are Counsellors of State, so the pool is slightly wider than he suggested. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to exclude individuals would be a substantial change that departs both from precedent and the approach set out in the King’s message to both Houses. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the approach set out in His Majesty’s message is appropriate and effective. I follow the noble Baroness opposite in saying that your Lordships should respect it, having considered it and reflected on it as we have.

I intend no disservice to my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, for whom I have the very highest regard, but I have noted criticisms in your Lordships’ House of the fact that the office of Lord Chancellor is now held by a Member of the House of Commons. I have heard that often at this Dispatch Box. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, to allow the Lord Chancellor to exclude those individuals who have not undertaken royal duties in the preceding two years is, in our submission, an unnecessary addition, introducing complexity into the scheme where it is not required.

The amendment proposes a significant change to the underlying Act and shifts the decision-making to a member of the Government. It would now be for the Lord Chancellor to make a judgment on what counts—and what does not—as regularly undertaking royal duties. The word “regular” is subjective, and that is a lot to load on one individual. It might be asked “What is regular?” I remind the House that there are working members of the Royal Family, some very senior, who undertake public duties but have never been Counsellors of State and are not intended to be. As was wisely put to us by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lord Wolfson, this approach would add complexity where previously there was none and impose an unnecessary duty on the Lord Chancellor.

The amendment must be regarded as practically unnecessary if the Bill is to pass. The Regency Act already includes provisions—the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, was kind enough to allude to our debate at Second Reading—whereby Counsellors of State are excepted from duties if they are overseas. I repeat what I set out at Second Reading: the Royal Household has confirmed that, in practice, working members of the Royal Family will be called on to act as Counsellors of State and diaries will be arranged to make this practicable. I think it is well known and understood who those persons are. The Bill as it is drafted and the flexible constitutional arrangements in place ensure that the effect of the amendment is already achieved. In my submission, and I believe this is the view of most noble Lords who spoke at Second Reading and today, that is sufficient and nothing more is required.

The underlying structure provided by the legislation has proved effective and it would be a mistake to seek to modify its effect in response to short-term contexts which are, of course, subject to evolution and change. To conclude, for the reasons I have set out and those set out by other noble Lords who have spoken helpfully in this debate, I hope I can convince the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that his amendment is redundant and disproportionate. In fact, it would add complexity and subjectivity to the system and is not suitable to the intent of this practical and precise Bill. I urge him to withdraw his amendment.

Counsellors of State Bill [HL]

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Lord Privy Seal for his detailed explanation of the Bill when he opened the debate. I also thank the House of Lords Library for its very helpful and comprehensive paper, which actually answers a number of the questions that were raised by noble Lords in this debate. I am sure that the Minister will make use of it.

I smiled when the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to the constitutional machinery of Counsellors of State. Those of us who have been candidates at elections often remember being told that we were a legal necessity for the election, but our role was important in that context nonetheless.

This is a very simple, straightforward proposal. We have strayed into debate on wider issues that may be addressed in the legislation, but we have quite a straightforward and moderate measure before us today. It has the advantage, unlike so much other legislation, of being precise and very clear. The purpose is to ensure that Counsellors of State are available when His Majesty wishes to delegate certain duties. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, asked what would happen if the Duke of Suffolk were to come over to the UK and try to assume responsibilities. Under the provisions of the legislation, the monarch delegates responsibilities; people do not take them on of their own accord.

I can think of no more appropriate members of the Royal Household to take on these two positions as extra Counsellors of State. As has been referred to, both have previously acted as Counsellors of State but were then moved as the line of succession changed—we will have to look at some of the gender issues in this at some point—and others reached the age of majority and became Counsellors of State. Princess Anne was a Counsellor of State from 1971 to 2003, and the Earl of Wessex from 1985 to 2005, when Prince Harry reached the age of 21. Their experience in that role is something that cannot be denied. They both know what is expected of them and how to perform their functions. It is of course open to other members of the Royal Family to carry out other ceremonial events, but Counsellors of State have very specific functions, as delegated by the sovereign.

There are other issues relevant to this legislation but they are not for discussion today, or indeed in this legislation. The measure before us today is entirely appropriate and proportionate. Unlike many other pieces of legislation, it does exactly what it says on the tin.

G20

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for repeating today’s Statement. I think it helps the discussions of the House when we are able to have Statements on the same day so the House can hear the Statement and respond, and I think he feels the same.

I entirely agree with the comments he made. As world leaders met in Bali, the incident in Poland was a stark reminder of the effect of the destabilising influence and effect of Putin’s war in Ukraine. I entirely concur with his comments about the terrible explosion in Poland. With two people killed, we extend our condolences, and I think the whole House will agree, to all those affected. We also admire our NATO allies for their calm and level-headed response to this at such a tense time.

We on these Benches, and indeed across the House, are committed to the principle of collective security. An attack on the sovereignty of any NATO country is an attack on us all. Sadly, though, as we await the results of the investigation into the incident, Putin’s illegal invasion continues to have further tragic and devastating consequences. Russian forces are being pushed further from Kherson but, in response, Moscow is now directing attacks on to civilians and civilian infrastructure, with all the consequences that brings both for the current citizens but also for the future reconstruction of Ukraine.

I am pleased that the leaders’ declaration confirmed that the G20 recognised the immense human suffering in Ukraine, but we also understand and appreciate that that forum is not the place where we can resolve the issue of the invasion. Nevertheless, it would be helpful if the Minister could say something about discussions that were held with allies about extending support for Ukraine, including the issue of air defences.

On the Black Sea grain shipments deal, we welcome some of the reports that are emerging of an extension. I do not know whether the Minister can say anything more about that today or if he is able to outline the Government’s assessment of Russian compliance with the agreement that has been reached.

I want to say something about international development. I think the whole House will hope that progress on grain exports could help to calm the issue of global food price increases, which is threatening even greater hardship across the developing world. Famine is now looming for many of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable. I was pleased to hear the Minister make reference to the international institutions’ role in mobilising resources, but I have to say it is unfortunate that the Government have abandoned the global leadership role that we have had on international development. We were well known for that for many years. He will be aware that during the G20 talks the Government cut support for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. That is in direct contrast to our allies, including the US, France, Germany, Japan and Spain, which have all stepped up their commitments by 30%. The timing of the Government’s announcement was unfortunate, to say the very least, and I wonder whether any of our counterparts in other countries raised the future of the Global Fund, given that the announcement was made at the same time as the G20 was ongoing.

On international development, as well as on security and the global economy, the value of the G20 is that it brings together leaders with interests that have not always aligned. That introduces opportunities but also provides challenges. For years, government policy on China has been marked by inconsistency and sometimes quite screeching U-turns. The Lord Privy Seal mentioned that the Prime Minister discussed China with President Biden. Can he say anything more about what kind of discussions they were? Further to that, can he confirm when the Government now plan to publish the China strategy that we are waiting for?

I want to touch on trade, particularly the meeting with Prime Minister Modi. India is the world’s largest democracy. There are strong cultural and family ties with the UK. Clearly a trade agreement would bring new opportunities for both partners, but it has been cast into doubt by irresponsible comments from the Home Secretary on immigration from India. It is quite shocking when two arms of government are not singing from the same hymn sheet on such issues. Her comments could be extremely damaging, as well as being unwarranted and unhelpful generally. Although I am pleased that progress towards that trade agreement was reviewed, we are now long past Diwali, which was the Government’s previous deadline for achieving such an agreement. Is the Minister able to tell us whether there is a new target date for completion of the Indian trade deal? Is there any sign or sight of our reaching a conclusion?

Unfortunately, the Government’s difficulty in finding agreement with India reflects broader issues with trade policy. I am sure the Minister has seen the scathing comments from George Eustice about the Australian trade deal, which were rather surprising given that he was a Cabinet Minister when it was negotiated. Meanwhile, the pledge to have 80% of UK trade covered by free trade agreements by the end of 2022 seems a distant prospect. It would be helpful to your Lordships’ House if the Minister could tell the House today—if not, I am happy for him to write to me and put a copy in the Library—what percentage of UK trade is currently covered by FTAs.

It is now being reported that a trade deal with the US was not even discussed by the Prime Minister when he met President Biden, which seems rather concerning. Is there any prospect of seeing a trade deal with the US before the end of this Parliament?

In conclusion, this summit took place against a backdrop of greater instability and economic challenge than any other G20 forum. I agree with the Statement on how serious the shockwaves that have come from the Russian invasion of Ukraine are, but that is only part of the story as far as the UK is concerned. It does not explain why we are doing so much worse on economic growth, and have higher inflation and greater inequality, than other countries with similar economies. We may see today what impact the Budget has and we will discuss that later. The Government’s actions and responsibility play into part of that as well.

Recent events in Poland are quite a warning for us that Putin’s reckless invasion of Ukraine has implications for wider international security. It reminds us of just how important our international alliances and relationships are.

All this reinforces that we must stand with our NATO allies and our friends in Ukraine in their defence against brutal aggression. But now, perhaps more than ever before, we have to stand up and commit wholeheartedly to multilateralism and the international rule of law as the guarantor—the only guarantor—of a safer and more secure future.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

I thank the Leader of the House for delivering the Statement. I am standing in for my noble friend Lord Newby, who cannot be here this evening. I welcome the outcome of the G20 meeting, with its near unanimous support for Ukraine, our Polish allies and condemnation of the illegal actions of Russia. The determination to uphold international law and the UN charter has our full support, as does the commitment to collective economic security.

If a deal to sustain grain shipments moving in the Black Sea can be secured this weekend, this will have special significance, at least for the developing world. The recognition by the Government that our own economic stability depends on a firm international foundation is welcome. The Statement says:

“By being strong abroad we strengthen our resilience at home.”


The problem is that everything that the respective Governments of the past six years have done has been to weaken this position abroad, and it is not surprising that this weakening is reflected in our own intolerable domestic economic situation, made worse by the last Conservative Government’s own actions.

The missile incident in Poland should perhaps remind us of our history: an attack on Poland led us into the Second World War, and, for the next two years, Churchill spent his life trying to ensure that we did not stand alone. Polish troops were some of the bravest who supported us then. This should demonstrate to us that, whatever happens in Europe, whether it is a security issue, energy shortages, economic problems or the impact of climate change, this all impacts on us as a nation. Every day, our sovereignty is weaker by being outside the European Councils. Gatherings such as the G20 and the G7 are actually now very important to us because we have fewer opportunities each year to meet world leaders. They are of course even more important to us now that we are outside the EU, where we had so many opportunities to meet leaders of our neighbouring countries in Europe to get to know how we could work with them, which we were very good at doing.

I want to ask the Leader of the House three questions. First, there is lots of talk about defence issues arising from the conflict in Ukraine, and that is obviously our focus, but are we and other nations prepared to support Ukraine economically as well as defensively? Will we be supporting its move into the European single market, and what involvement will we have in the equivalent of a Marshall plan for that country, either before or certainly when the war has ended?

Secondly, there seems to have been little discussion at the G20 on the problems of population growth across the globe—particularly in Africa, where half the growth is now expected to occur, according to UN projections—and its implications for water, food and migration pressures on Europe in particular. It needs international attention, particularly the line from Lagos to Shanghai, where resources are needed to counter the growing pressures of population growth and the shortage of world resources.

Finally, once again, there is a lot of attention to the discussions with President Biden on the edges of the G20 meeting. I suspect that his position and probable involvement in any celebrations in March on the Northern Ireland peace agreement were discussed. So is March now the new deadline for sorting out the Northern Ireland protocol to ensure that he makes this visit, and was it discussed?