Senior Deputy Speaker
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(11 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That Lord Gardiner of Kimble be appointed as Senior Deputy Speaker (Chairman of Committees) for this Session.
King’s Speech
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(11 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I would first like to thank Their Majesties for gracing us with their presence today. I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing Her Majesty a very happy birthday.
It is a great pleasure to follow all noble Lords who have moved and supported the humble Address. This is my eighth response from the Dispatch Box—and, in a break from tradition, my first from this side of the Chamber. I have greatly appreciated the many messages I have received from across the whole House. It is a pleasure to welcome back all noble Lords for this Parliament, with a special mention to new colleagues who will take up ministerial office. Although we are not an entirely political House, many Members here were involved in the general election, sharing the highs and lows—and riding, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Newby, did, the Ed Davey rollercoaster of campaign emotions.
Although today is a happy occasion, I want to take a moment to remember those colleagues who are not with us today. We are fortunate that we make many friends across your Lordships’ House and it is right that we remember those who have passed and retired in the previous Session. On the topic of friendship, I thank my colleagues on the Labour Benches: for the nine long years that I have led the Opposition, I have enjoyed and been sustained by their support. I give my serious thanks to them, particularly to those who have served on our Front Bench, as Deputy Leaders and as Chief and Deputy Chief Whips.
I am sure the whole House will join me in thanking those who served in the previous Government. It is not always recognised just how demanding the work of Ministers and Whips can be, and we especially appreciated those whose courtesy and generosity of spirit, both in the Chamber and outside, was in the best traditions of public service. They allowed your Lordships’ House to fulfil our responsibilities as a scrutinising and revising Chamber.
It is an honour and a privilege to be the Leader of your Lordships’ House and to succeed the noble Lord, Lord True. His natural modesty and reticence probably means that he will frown at me at this point—and he is doing. He is passionate about the constitutional role of your Lordships’ House, and his respect for that never dims. Having started as a special adviser in 1997, he became a Peer in 2011 and then Leader from 2022. The Leader has a dual responsibility here, to their Government and to this House, and he navigated that with thoughtfulness and consideration. Personally, I also thank him as we generally agreed on House matters, but when we did not we were able to disagree agreeably. I look forward to—I hope—maintaining that constructive relationship.
The relationship with the leadership quad of the noble Lord, Lord True, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, and the noble Earls, Lord Howe and Lord Courtown, made the usual channels’ discussions constructive and friendly. My noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark paid tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, at Prorogation and I add my own thanks. Throughout her time in government, she was open and engaging. I also pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who has so far served on the Conservative Front Bench for a record 33 years, latterly as Deputy Leader. He has many friends across this House; I hope he does not mind me saying that those of us who have been privileged to witness his acting skills all concur that the theatre’s loss is Parliament’s gain.
It is a great pleasure to thank the proposer and seconder of the Motion for the humble Address. My noble friend Lord Reid served in a number of positions in the Cabinet and was the first Secretary of State whom I worked for, as a Minister in Northern Ireland. That set a very high bar. Then, as today, he showed a deep political analysis, a passion for public service and affectionate humour. Like all in your Lordships’ House, I greatly enjoyed some of his more colourful tales today—there are many more—although I fear I am not the only one left with a lingering image of his hotel pool encounter with Lady Olga Maitland. On a more serious note, we must listen to his warnings about extremism being alive again across Europe. He understands how history can repeat itself and is correct that it will fall on social democrats, in the widest sense, to restore faith not just in good government but in politics more broadly.
My noble friend Lady Hazarika, having already impressed with her maiden speech before the election, has trumped it with a contribution that reinforces the star quality that she brings to our proceedings. Many noble Lords will know her as a journalist and broadcaster; I first met her when she was a special adviser in the last Labour Government and we would brief Harriet Harman for PMQs when she stood in for Gordon Brown. That was obviously great training for my noble friend’s next career as a stand-up comedian. That combination of fierce political intellect, generosity of spirit and the ability to see humour in so much of her life makes her a valuable and welcome Member of your Lordships’ House. Having worked on the Equality Act, she knows the transformative power of Labour Governments. She rightly raised issues relating to gender and race, and there is much more work for us to do. I look forward to her contributions.
Before turning to the content of the King’s Speech, I want briefly to reflect on the work of your Lordships’ House; I have had some time to think about this. The Government have a clear mandate for their programme, and have made a firm commitment to change how politics is done. I do not want to tread on the toes of the Chief Whip too early in announcing the length of the Session—it will be announced in due course—or which Bills will be coming forward, although I can tell the noble Lord, Lord True, that there will be three Bills starting in this House to be announced very soon. What I will say, however, is that it is important that we in your Lordships’ House have the opportunity to contribute in a meaningful way. The wide range of expertise here can benefit the scrutiny of legislation. Obviously, there was never a golden age when a Secretary of State rejoiced at Lords amendments, but in recent years sensible proposals have too often been resisted just by default. Ministers in our Government will not accept all changes but, when the House expresses a constructive view, the Government should treat that with respect.
A noble Lord
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Praise from the Back Benches—I hope that lasts. Those of us who have championed this House know that it works best when carrying out its functions of deliberation, scrutiny and challenge, not seeking to be a replica of the other place or simply to manage business by numbers. I am encouraged and supported by the Leader of the House of Commons, Lucy Powell, who is in the same place as me and the Chief Whip on this, namely taking a whole-Parliament approach to achieving the best legislation. I am especially pleased that, for the first time since 2010, we have an Attorney-General in your Lordships’ House, with a deep commitment to upholding the rule of law.
This Government will do their best to ensure that Bills are developed ahead of introduction and to recognise the value of the rules and conventions of this House. At times, urgency may be essential. I hope that on those occasions, just as we worked with the previous Government on such occasions, the Opposition will do the same with us. We will not always get things right first time, but it is our dedicated aim—and we understand our responsibility as a Government to make it work—to ensure that both Government and Parliament benefit from the constructive consideration of legislation.
As I move on to the legislative programme, I must say that perhaps we have the balance right when one part of the Opposition is saying, “You are doing too much; how long will it take?”, and the other side is saying, “This is not enough”. I think the greatest challenge will be to re-establish the confidence in our democratic and political system and to show that it has the capacity to be a force for good. The morning after the election, in his first address in Downing Street, the Prime Minister reflected that too few people believe that the future will be better for their children. He pledged to lead a Government guided by public service and committed to national renewal. Since the pandemic, life satisfaction has declined, anxiety levels have increased, the cost of living crisis has added to a decline in living standards and the world feels more volatile than it has for many years. Driven by our mission-led approach to government, the gracious Speech set out an exciting and ambitious legislative programme to kick-start that period of national renewal and to lay the foundations for a country that is more secure and fairer, with opportunity for all.
There is no time to waste. Indeed, work has already begun. The Chancellor’s announcement of a national wealth fund will unlock private investment for infrastructure projects as part of our efforts to take the country from the bottom of the international GDP tables towards the top. The King’s Speech sets out a number of measures to secure economic growth. Our planning and infrastructure Bill, alongside an industrial strategy council, will get Britain building again, and through a strategic partnership with business, working people and government, we will prioritise wealth for all communities, regions and nations. British businesses and workers will take advantage of new technologies and skills, not just for a sustainable future but to improve productivity and lead the world in AI. The fiscal lock Bill will ensure that our tax and spending changes are independently considered by the Office for Budget Responsibility, to reinforce market confidence and restore public trust. Devolution and transport legislation will empower civic leaders to ensure that decision-making reflects local need and demand.
Tackling the climate emergency is not just an environmental imperative; it is also an economic opportunity. We have already scrapped the ban on onshore wind, and legislation to establish Great British Energy, alongside the Crown Estate Bill, will boost investment, expand renewable sources and bring us closer to achieving energy independence and security.
But the first duty of any Government is the safety and security of their citizens. The implementation of laws to strengthen security at public events and venues, Martyn’s law, is the culmination of a campaign that followed the tragic and terrible events at Manchester Arena in 2017. I commend those campaigners. We will also work to reduce violent crimes, raise confidence in the police and the criminal justice system and drastically reduce violence against women and girls.
On immigration, debate has felt too often like a political campaign tool rather than a serious determination to deal with issues. Our border security command will work with national and international partners to strengthen our borders, bring criminal people smugglers to justice and deter illegal migration to the UK.
To do this, it is essential that we harness the potential of all, regardless of background or means. We will break down the barriers to opportunity and raise education standards through the children’s well-being Bill, and removing the private school exemption will fund the recruitment of more than 6,000 new teachers, improving state school pupils’ access to qualified staff in core subjects. We will also do more to ensure that children attend and that they receive the mental health support that they need. We will work with businesses on a skills Bill and other initiatives, not just to grow the economy but to give young people the skills and job opportunities they need to achieve their true potential.
We will also deliver the long-overdue renters reform Bill, giving renters greater protections and ending no-fault evictions. My noble friend the Government Chief Whip will also be delighted that we will progress further reform of leasehold and commonhold, starting with important pre-legislative scrutiny.
Those who use and work in our National Health Service deserve better. Through a number of initiatives, including Bills on smoking and mental health, we will build an NHS fit for the future, reducing waiting times, providing more mental health support and improving preventative public health care.
As has already been alluded to, and as I think a few noble Lords will have noticed, the gracious Speech included a Bill to remove the remaining hereditary Peers sitting in your Lordships’ House, which was intended as a temporary measure but has lasted for 25 years. I was delighted that the Leader of the Opposition had taken such great interest in our manifesto—most of the issues he spoke about were actually in the manifesto and not in this King’s Speech. He made a point about consultation. I think it is helpful for us, as a House, to discuss how to move forward on these issues. That is not about delay; I think it is courtesy and consideration to ensure we get things right. When the Bill on hereditary Peers is introduced, we will have the opportunity to debate the details of it, but I want at the outset to recognise the public service of those Peers, many of whom have made an important contribution to your Lordships’ House. I am told that without the strapping young hereditary Peers, we would never have won the men’s tug of war competition against the House of Commons. There is a lesson there on why we lost the women’s tug of war against the House of Commons.
This is the opening Session of this Parliament and for our new Government, and I am proud that this King’s Speech sets out an ambitious programme for change. This is the first step in delivering the Prime Minister’s promises to return politics to service and to restore people’s trust in public institutions. It is a signal of our determination to enhance the UK’s reputation for fiscal responsibility, as a destination for investment and as a reliable partner on the global stage. I see it also as an important shift in attitude, with mission-led government to deliver stronger growth, healthier public services and improved opportunity for all.
Finally, as I have said, I am proud and honoured to have the dual role that I referred to earlier, of representing this House in the Cabinet and of being a member of the Government in your Lordships’ House. I can assure noble Lords that I, the Chief Whip and all members of the Government here look forward to engaging with noble Lords across the House. Collectively, we have an important duty to carry out over the course of this Session. With that call to action, it gives me great pleasure to support the Motion.
Speaker of the House of Commons
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to acquaint the House that a Commission has been issued under His Majesty’s Great Seal to several Lords therein named authorising the said Lords to declare in the name and on behalf of His Majesty His Majesty’s approbation of the choice of the Commons of Sir Lindsay Hoyle to be their Speaker.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, we are commanded to assure you that His Majesty is so fully sensible of your zeal in the public service, and of your ample sufficiency to execute the arduous duties which his faithful Commons have selected you to discharge, that His Majesty does most readily approve and confirm you as their Speaker.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
Mr Speaker, we have it further in Command to inform you that His Majesty does most readily confirm all the rights and privileges which have ever been granted to or conferred upon the Commons by His Majesty or any of his Royal predecessors. With respect to yourself, Sir, though His Majesty is sensible that you stand in no need of such assurance, His Majesty will ever place the most favourable construction upon your words and your actions.
Parliament
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, it not being convenient for His Majesty personally to be present here this day, he has been pleased to cause a Commission under the Great Seal to be prepared in order to the holding of this Parliament.
Let the Commons know that the Lords Commissioners desire their immediate attendance in the House to hear the Commission read.
Business of the House
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I rise on behalf of my colleagues on my Benches to say something very similar. The Leader has, of course, a double-hatted role, and has walked very well the line between being the leader of his party and the Leader of us as a House. I pay tribute to his good humour and hard work. Indeed, last Friday I found myself speaking to him. I had to admit that I was standing in the middle of a field in Perthshire; he was at his desk and said that he had a lot of papers before him. He works very hard, and has always been readily available from the smallest to the biggest of matters. It has been an enormous privilege to have worked with him. I think that the entire Cross Bench feels that he has acted as Leader of the House in a quite exemplary manner; we pay tribute to that.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief, having spoken already, but want to add my thanks. It is an honour and a privilege to be a Member of this House. When I first came in, someone said to me, “Oh, you’re going to the House of Lords? They don’t do party politics up there, do they?” I think the difference is that we have learned to disagree agreeably, which is important in the debates we have.
I thank the Leader. He is the third Leader of this House that I have worked with, and I have enjoyed working with him. His customary courtesy to this House has been highly regarded; as the Convenor says, he is the Leader of the House as well as leader of his party, and that can be a challenge at times, as we know. I think he has met that challenge.
On behalf of my party, the current Official Opposition, I also thank all the staff of the House for all the work they do—the cleaners, the caterers, the doorkeepers; I hesitate to leave anybody out. Without their support for the work we do, we could not do it as well as we want to do it.
I also thank all my colleagues, particularly my Chief Whip and Front Bench, but also my Back-Bench colleagues on this side of the House and across the House. We have a job of work to do, and I think we do it as diligently and as well as we can. We may not always get it right, but we always have the interests of the nation at heart. I thank the Leader for his courtesy in his current role.
Iran and Israel
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Lord Privy Seal for repeating what is a very important Statement.
At the outset, we associate ourselves with and thank the Prime Minister and the Lord Privy Seal for their genuine sympathy on the passing of our colleague from these Benches, Lord Doug Hoyle. His was a long life, well lived, and we join in the condolences of the Lord Speaker to his family. I hope noble Lords will accept that on these Benches today we also mourn the loss of another Labour colleague, Lord Richard Rosser, who served on our Front Bench for many years, including as a shadow Defence Minister. We also associate these Benches with the Prime Minister’s comments on the terrible attacks in Sydney.
The Prime Minister rightly described the British aid workers, John Chapman, James Kirby and James Henderson, who were killed in Gaza, as heroes. They lost their lives when all they wanted to do was to help others.
Iran’s actions over the weekend have, as Keir Starmer said in the other place,
“left the world a more dangerous place”.
There was clear intent to destabilise the region and fuel further tensions. Innocent civilians were targeted. It is right that these actions were swiftly condemned by the Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition and much of the international community. We endorse the Prime Minister’s calls for restraint.
We also acknowledge the professionalism and bravery of our Armed Forces, both for their contribution to the weekend’s combined defensive action and for their ongoing work in the region. Given recent events, we welcome the decision to send additional RAF jets and refuelling tankers to bolster Operation Shader, the existing counter-Daesh operation in Iraq and Syria.
The repelling of Iran’s attack against Israel is important for several reasons. First, lives were saved, as 99% of the drones and missiles were intercepted. The attack failed. Secondly, Israel acted with strength and courage. Thirdly, the success of that defensive action gives hope that, with political will from the relevant parties, and with diplomatic support from partners, escalation can be avoided. The Foreign Secretary commented earlier that Israel should be
“smart as well as tough”.
The strength and courage that we have seen should now be harnessed to try to de-escalate action and tensions in the region.
Britain is resolute in our support for the collective security of Israel, Jordan and other partners in the region, and we urge every nation to proceed with restraint. The Prime Minister’s Statement is clear that, although the Middle East is thousands of miles away, it has a direct impact here at home, and we want to do all we can to prevent further bloodshed and conflict.
In the Statement, the Prime Minister said he had spoken to other G7 leaders and that “further potential diplomatic measures” had been discussed. Diplomacy is key to urging restraint, so we welcome those discussions. I do not know if the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal can today say more about what actions might be expected in the coming days, given the urgency of the situation now faced. Can he confirm that the Government agree that, as a matter of principle, diplomatic premises must not be targeted and attacked?
With the Iranian regime sponsoring terrorism across the region and beyond, repressing its own population and supporting Putin’s war in Ukraine, are additional sanctions being planned? If so, how will they be enforced and their impact monitored?
Are the Government now considering proscribing the IRGC? What additional steps are being taken to limit the revolutionary guard’s ability to glorify terrorism here in the UK? I would be grateful, and it would be helpful to the House, if the Lord Privy Seal could say whether that is now being looked at.
Given Iran’s use of drones in the attack against Israel, what steps are we and our international partners taking to prevent the regime accessing western-made components?
We do not accept that there is justification at all for Iran’s attack on Israel, but we acknowledge the role that the ongoing war in Gaza has in driving regional tensions. We are now more than six months on from the dreadful Hamas terror attack, yet hostages remain separated from their families and thousands of innocent Palestinians have been killed or wounded. Many more have been displaced and more than a million people are on the brink of famine.
Over the recess period, there were some positive signs in relation to the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza. I do not know whether the Lord Privy Seal is in a position to give us any current figures or an update on that, but could he outline what additional diplomatic and practical steps the Foreign Secretary and others are taking to ensure a continued scaling up of aid provision? He will be aware of the logistical challenges in getting aid to where it is desperately needed. UNRWA has the expertise and capability to do that, and Japan has now joined Canada and Australia in resuming payments. Can he say more about the Government’s intentions on aid distribution?
It is right that we condemn Iran’s actions and it is essential that we work with others to defend our allies in the region. It is right that we unite and seek the end of the conflict in Gaza to create a route to a sustainable peace through a two-state solution. Both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have spoken of support to the Palestinian Authority. Can the Lord Privy Seal outline what form that is likely to take and what co-operation we would expect and get from our allies? While we do these things, we must show restraint and urge others to do so as well. This is essential if we are to prevent greater violence, conflict, death and destruction.
Allowances
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches very much welcome this scheme. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, that we do not want to go down the IPSA route on anything. Everything is different, and once we start trying to draw comparisons, we get into real difficulty.
It is very important that this House is as diverse as possible. It is heavily skewed towards London and the south-east. Money is not the only reason, but we should be doing whatever we can to ensure that everybody, wherever they live and whatever their circumstances, can participate.
I fully accept that the scheme is not perfect, but it is better. Nobody I have spoken to has come up with a scheme that everybody would agree is perfect. This scheme will relieve real problems for a significant number of Members who, in some cases, have been out of pocket by coming to your Lordships’ House. This is clearly not acceptable, and the scheme goes a long way towards dealing with that. From these Benches we heartily welcome it.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for bringing this forward today. He has heard the mood of the House, and it is warmly welcomed. I also put on record our thanks to the chairs of the groups and the convenor. They have consulted around the House about the difficulties caused for those who travel some distance to get here and stay overnight. I am grateful to them for their efforts in putting forward a scheme.
This scheme recognises three things. First, when the rules on the initial daily payment were changed, it was not kept in line with inflation for around 10 years, meaning that it fell behind what was reasonably expected when it was set up. At the same time, the cost of hotels and other accommodation increased significantly above inflation during that period, meaning that those paying for accommodation are paying a significantly greater proportion of the daily allowance than they were when the scheme was set up.
To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, the difference between us and the Members of the House of Commons is that they are salaried employees, and we are not. We receive a daily allowance for days on which we attend and are here working. So, there is a difference in the arrangements for the two Houses.
The scheme also recognises that this is a contribution towards the costs, which fluctuate enormously; in that sense, it is fair to all colleagues. It also recognises the work of your Lordships’ House. Too often we talk about allowances in the abstract, but allowances enable Members of this House to fulfil their responsibilities. Members who have to dash off early to catch the train home because they cannot find a hotel within their price range are disadvantaged and cannot play a proper role. The bottom line is that we need to ensure that the House can do its work properly. I am grateful to the Leader of the House and to the chairs of the groups, who, as I said, have done a lot of work in producing something which is fair and reasonable for all. It has the support of these Benches.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. In my opening remarks, I expressed gratitude to the chairs of the various groups. I should have explicitly included the convenor, but I was including the Cross-Bench group as well. Mature, sensible discussions have contributed to this.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for what he said. I must not go back over old times, but the reality is that the current scheme came out of what was an emergency brake on a system that was being abused. We were trekking down a road which led the other place into considerable disrepute at that time, and there was widespread agreement in the House that we should move to a simple, transparent and accountable system. With the test of time and having spoken to the noble Lord and to others, I think it was right to undertake these conversations and this review. As the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said—I am grateful to them—we have arrived at a scheme which, although not perfect, is direct, transparent and clear.
My noble friend Lord Balfe spoke of loopholes. Being an expert, he will no doubt advise the finance department if he detects any. I have written to him privately about his VAT question but, since he raised it in the Chamber, I will give him the same reply. What he suggests would not necessarily achieve the desired result because there may be commercial premises that are below the VAT threshold and therefore not registered. There are far more likely to be Airbnb operations which cross the £85,000 threshold and charge VAT. This is a complexity that may not create a clear line between different types of property. There is broader guidance about this system; it is not too complex.
With respect, I do not fully agree with my noble friend that this is how Civil Service rules work. From an initial search, this does not appear to be the case in every department. In the Cabinet Office, for example, civil servants need to go through an approved agent to secure hotels.
I return to the fundamental point: this is proportionate and clear, and it is also testable. We will have a review and if it is misused, that will be seen and the House will wish to address it.
My noble friend Lady Fraser asked why we are treated differently from the House of Commons. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, gave the answer. Being a Member of your Lordships’ House is entirely different from being a Member of the other place; their range of duties, responsibilities and offices is completely different.
My feeling, the feeling of the commission and the feeling of the Back-Bench groups was that while this may not please everybody, as I said in my opening remarks, we need to reflect on the context that we are in. There is a point at which we need to enhance participation in the House, to get more Peers being better able to come from outside London to take part. I repeat that this is a proportionate, reasonable, clear and transparent system, which will be reviewed and tested.
Action Against Houthi Maritime Attacks
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the principles set out in this Statement are similar if not identical to those in last week’s Statement. Perhaps that is why noble Lords are leaving—they knew that they would be much the same.
The issues are similar, but they are also absolutely crucial. All efforts must be made to resolve this issue by diplomatic means; where military action must be taken within international law, it should be targeted and proportionate; and there is a need to ensure ongoing international support and co-operation. As we have said, any potential further action should be judged on a case-by-case basis. So, in the light of Houthi attacks continuing in the Red Sea and the intelligence regarding their ongoing military capacity, we back the military action taken on this occasion. We support the ongoing diplomatic engagement as well as the principles of sanctions that were outlined in the Statement.
The Houthi Red Sea attacks are a danger to civilian shipping and a danger to life, and they bring serious economic risks, particularly to the poorest and the most vulnerable. The attacks are unacceptable and unjustified, and there is a clear imperative to protect those waters for international shipping. Again, the professionalism, commitment and bravery of our Armed Forces, both in defending commercial shipping and in the military response, are impressive and commendable, despite the pressures they face. They are so often the best of us, and we are grateful for their service.
In his Statement last week, the Prime Minister seemed optimistic that there were unlikely to be further military strikes because of the success of the operation. I appreciate that, following the attack on Houthi military sites, any assessment of the remaining capability is not immediate, and intelligence about a range of issues has to be taken into account, including any flow of resources to the Houthis. Last week, I asked the Lord Privy Seal for more information on the strategic objectives of the military response and to confirm whether the objective was to degrade or destroy the capability to launch attacks on international shipping. He confirmed that the strategy was
“to ensure and maintain the principle of free and open navigation”.—[Official Report, 15/1/24; col. 272.]
We concur with this.
However, when reporting on the UK-US military action, the Prime Minister used the term “eliminated” regarding the identified targets. Yet the Houthi attacks have continued, so we know that they retain capability. We agree with the strategic aims, as set out by the Government and the noble Lord, but it would be helpful for your Lordships’ House to understand how effective our military strikes have been in achieving these. So can the Lord Privy Seal say something about when he will be able to share any further information about the Houthis’ military capacity following this week’s action?
More broadly, the avoidance of any escalation across the Middle East obviously remains a primary objective, and collaboration with the international coalition is absolutely vital. We share the Government’s rejection of Houthi claims that their action in attacking international shipping can be justified in any way by the conflict in Gaza. There is no benefit to the Palestinian people, who desperately need a sustained and effective ceasefire and urgent humanitarian aid and support. We continue to urge the release of all hostages. The only way forward for a just and lasting peace is a secure Israel alongside a viable and secure Palestinian state. A sustainable ceasefire and humanitarian truce are needed, first, to allow the return of all hostages and the provision of urgent humanitarian relief, but also to enable progress to be made towards a two-state solution. Israel existing alongside Palestine is the only path to a just and lasting peace in the region.
We welcome that the Foreign Secretary is visiting the region today. Given the desperate need for increased humanitarian support and a path towards peace, I hope he will make a Statement to your Lordships’ House on his return, and I hope the Lord Privy Seal can confirm or give further information on that.
Finally, and crucially, the Prime Minister’s Statement set out the continuing humanitarian aid and diplomatic support to the people of Yemen. We agree and would welcome any further information from the Lord Privy Seal about what specific steps are being taken towards these ends. The people of Yemen have suffered civil war for almost 10 years, and any recent efforts to bring stability to the country risk being undermined by opportunistic action from those who would seek to encourage further conflict.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Leader for answering questions on this Statement. It is useful to have this debate, although, as the noble Baroness said, large parts of the Statement are almost verbatim what the Prime Minister said last week. I will therefore repeat what I said last week: these Benches support the proportionate military action taken against the Houthi aggression and salute the professionalism and courage of the RAF personnel involved in the raids.
The Statement illuminates the complexities of the situation in the Red Sea and the region as a whole. I hope the noble Lord will find space in government time for a proper debate on this issue, as it is very difficult for noble Lords—other than the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and I—to engage with such a complicated issue via a single question. I believe that such a debate is happening in the Commons today; I hope we can have one in your Lordships’ House in the very near future.
The Statement says that the UK’s diplomatic efforts are being increased and that the Foreign Secretary spoke to his Iranian counterpart last week. This is extremely welcome, but it leaves us in the dark about the Iranian response to our requests for a cessation of arms supply to the Houthis. Did the Foreign Secretary feel that he had made any progress with Iran? What happens next in our engagement with it?
Next, the Prime Minister says that he plans to
“end the illegal flow of arms”
to the Houthis. How is this to be achieved? How many naval vessels have we deployed to intercept these flows and what other navies are supplying vessels for this purpose?
On sanctions, what estimate has been made of the use by the Houthis of western financial institutions to channel resources for buying weapons? Do we have the ability to freeze or cut off these resources? Which other countries, beyond the UK and the US, would need to do so for any sanctions to be effective? On humanitarian aid to Yemen, I pointed out last week that our current level of aid can feed only a small fraction of the children currently wholly dependent on it for their food. Have we any plans to increase our humanitarian aid, given the scale of the need?
The Prime Minister repeats his assertion of last week that there is no link between our actions of self-defence in the Red Sea and the situation in Israel and Gaza. This may in a limited sense be technically correct, but the Government cannot credibly argue that the Houthi attacks have nothing to do with what is happening in Gaza. It is noteworthy and worrying that this very link is increasing the popularity of the Houthis, not just in the areas they control but across the whole of Yemen. It is therefore only appropriate that the Statement proceeds as if they are linked and sets out the latest UK position on the Gaza conflict as a whole.
It is welcome that the Government are working to establish a new aid route through the port of Ashdod, and for a humanitarian pause, but progress is, to put it politely, very slow. In the meantime, thousands more men, women and children are being indiscriminately killed in Gaza. There have been reports in recent days about a possible new deal on the hostages which would lead to a pause in hostilities, and there appears to be an Arab-led initiative that would see Palestinian control of Gaza without Hamas involvement, alongside concrete moves towards a two-state solution. Predictably, this initiative has been rebuffed by the Israeli Prime Minister, but can the noble Lord give any indication of the UK’s involvement in this move and the extent to which the Foreign Secretary will feel able to put pressure on the Israeli Government to respond more positively towards it?
The situation in the Red Sea and in Gaza remains extremely volatile and dangerous. The Government need to continue to act with both determination and care. It is also important that they do so with the united support of Parliament, so I hope that we will continue to have further regular updates on what is happening in this most troubled region.
Defending the UK and Allies
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for repeating today’s Statement. I also thank him, on my behalf and that of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for our briefing at the Cabinet Office today; it was appreciated and useful.
As we heard in the Statement, this situation has been escalating over several weeks, putting lives at risk and causing considerable disruption to international shipping. First, we concur that the Government were right to do all they could to end such attacks through international diplomatic routes. We appreciate the considerable efforts that were taken to avoid a military response. As the Statement said, freedom of navigation is a fundamental tenet of international law, so seeking as wide a consensus as possible through the UN and other routes was the right approach.
However, when it became apparent that these diplomatic efforts were not working, it was also right that the Government acted in self-defence following further direct attacks on our Navy and US warships. So we back this limited and targeted action to reinforce maritime security in the Red Sea. We strongly condemn the Houthi attacks targeting commercial ships of all nationalities, putting civilians and military personnel—including British forces—in serious danger. Their actions are unacceptable and illegal. If left unaddressed, they could lead to a devasting rise in the cost of essential food in some of the poorest countries in the world.
The international community clearly stands against the Houthi attacks. Alongside the UK and the United States, four other countries were involved in this military operation. More than a dozen nations are part of the maritime protection force in the Red Sea, while many others supported the recent UN Security Council resolution that condemned these attacks in “the strongest possible terms”.
The UK’s response was proportionate and targeted to avoid civilian casualties. Can the Leader of the House provide more information on the strategic objectives of the military response, including how the Houthis’ response will be judged? He will be aware that, today—before the Statement was drafted, I think—there were reports of a further missile attack on a US cargo ship. I am sure that the Government will monitor this carefully; there may not be full information available yet but, at this stage, I ask him to commit to returning to your Lordships’ House in order to ensure that we are kept informed.
We are not clear yet whether this is a short-term targeted response or part of an ongoing campaign from the Houthis, but can the Leader of the House confirm that the strategic objective is to degrade or destroy the capability to launch attacks on international shipping? In the light of this assessment of capabilities, does he agree that further parliamentary scrutiny will be essential?
Our primary objective has to be the avoidance of escalation across the Middle East, so continuing engagement with our international partners is vital. None of us wants to see this proportionate act of self-defence being exploited by those in the region who seek to expand and escalate violence. This includes in Yemen itself. We must support international diplomatic efforts to address the huge humanitarian impact of the civil war.
Our Armed Forces across the region are showing the highest professionalism and bravery, both in defending commercial shipping and in this targeted action. As the Leader of the House said, we thank them; it is also worth putting on the record that we are proud of them. They continue to show that Britain is a force for good. However, can I ask the Leader of the House about their protection and how the Government are bolstering protection for our service men and women in the region?
The Leader of the House also referred to Ukraine. The professionalism of our Armed Forces has been crucial in our support for Ukraine. We on these Benches welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement of £2.5 billion for Ukraine next year and strongly support the agreement on security co-operation. This will provide President Zelensky with the vital confidence that he needs to plan for the year ahead; it also cements our support for self-defence for decades.
The Leader of the House asked this House to send a message to Ukraine. The strong message from this Parliament continues to be that we in the UK stand united—and will continue to stand united—in our condemnation of Putin’s invasion and our determination that Ukraine is equipped to defend itself for as long as it takes.
It is now more than 100 days since the shockingly brutal events of 7 October. Israel’s right to self-defence is fundamental yet, the longer the conflict in Gaza rages, the more the risk of escalation throughout the entire region grows. All our thoughts are with the civilians who have been, and continue to be, caught up in this horrific war. As my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury confirmed earlier today in your Lordships’ House, we welcome the efforts to secure UN Resolution 2720 and the Government’s commitment to seeking a sustained ceasefire, which would deliver the humanitarian support that is so desperately needed.
In the same way that we should seek to avoid escalation in the Red Sea, we must also urge restraint on the Israel-Lebanon border and make it crystal clear to parties that the UK does not support this conflict extending into Lebanon. On the issue of humanitarian support into Gaza, can the Minister say anything about other routes that may be looked at in order to provide such support, such as via the Royal Navy or airdrops? How are the Government supporting the diplomatic process that is being brokered by the US envoy to prevent a full-scale war breaking out across that border between Israel and Lebanon?
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement.
As the Statement makes clear, our military action follows not only a direct attack on our warships but some 25 other attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea over recent weeks. These attacks not only jeopardised many lives but were and are threatening the continued operation of the sea route through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, which plays such a vital role in the world trading system. We therefore also believe that the UK had little option but to act.
The challenge in these circumstances is always whether the action we take will have a lasting deterrent effect and whether it is proportionate. Whether it has a lasting effect on the Houthis remains to be seen, but it was certainly limited in scope and was, in our view, proportionate to the attacks that we had suffered. However, it is hardly likely to be the end of the story, and I repeat the request by the noble Baroness that Parliament has every opportunity to debate events as they unfold.
What makes this episode so significant and worrying is that it represents yet another flashpoint in an already extremely volatile area where the risk of escalation attends every move. I am sure that the Minster and the Government are well aware of this risk, but I ask them to keep it front of mind in the coming days and weeks as the situation develops. The Prime Minister says that this action is completely unrelated to what is happening in Gaza, but there is surely some link. It is therefore reassuring to hear the Prime Minister repeat that the Government will continue to work towards a sustainable ceasefire in Gaza and getting more aid to civilians. Can the Minister say anything about this work and give the Government’s assessment of the likelihood of aid being increased in the short term and of achieving a ceasefire at some point in the coming days and weeks?
On the Houthis, can I ask the Minister about the extent to which the UK and the US Governments have sought and obtained international support for the actions that we have taken? It is obviously in the interests of a large number of countries, not least our European neighbours, that the Suez Canal route is kept open, yet the Statement only mentions the Netherlands among all the European countries that have supported our military action. What is the attitude of other major nations in Europe towards this action? What efforts have been made to get their more overt support to date, and what more is being done to extend the coalition, whose membership at the moment looks rather limited compared with the global nature of the threat posed by continued Houthi military action on world trade?
As we take action against the Houthis, what more can we do to support the recognised Yemeni Government, not least by helping them to solve the huge problems of malnutrition and famine that afflict Yemen, where some 11 million children remain in need of humanitarian assistance? The Statement says that the Government feed around 100,000 Yemenis every month. This clearly meets only a very small fraction of the need. Might the Government consider, at the very least, reinstating the £200 million cut which they recently made to our aid budget for Yemen?
The Statement also deals with our continuing military assistance for Ukraine. We support the strong line which the Government have taken in pledging our long-term support to the country in its struggle against the Russian invaders. However, we hear disturbing reports that some other members of the coalition supporting Ukraine may be getting cold feet. Can the Minister tell the House what diplomatic efforts the UK is making to ensure that Ukraine gets the support it needs in the future, not just from this country but from our other international partners?
It has become a cliché to say that we live in an increasingly dangerous world. Yet, as this Statement demonstrates, it is sadly the case. We will have to work increasingly hard in the months and years ahead, not just on our own but in co-operation with other like-minded democracies, to vigorously defend the principles for which we stand.
Death of a Member: Lord Judge
Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for what I thought was a remarkable tribute to Igor Judge. I thought he entirely captured the essence of the man, who was a greatly esteemed colleague and much-admired friend of us all. A towering figure in the legal world as an advocate and judge, he brought his profound intellect and great humanity to the many landmark cases he was part of. He is rightly admired as having been a truly great Lord Chief Justice. But it was his personal qualities of kindness and decency, which came with a somewhat mischievous wit and sense of humour, that he used to great effect both in his legal career and in your Lordships’ House.
I must say that as I was drafting notes for my comments today, taking the advice of the Lord Privy Seal and Igor previously, I found I was smiling at so many memories we had. Even through sadness, he can bring a smile to us. Like the noble Lord, Lord True, I so well remember that he would pop his head round the door with what I remember as a somewhat cheeky grin, and “May I have a word?”, he would say with absolute, very genuine courtesy. Such was the pleasure of a conversation with him that it often lasted a little longer than a word; it would meander around so many different issues and subjects over the course of the time we were talking. I greatly valued his advice on constitutional and legal issues and many others.
His patience was never condescending or patronising. I would enjoy our discussions, and at times he would half-jokingly say to me, “You politicians”. Yet he had a natural, instinctive gift for the best of politics. I could hear his protestations as I suggested that he really was a politician—but he was a great parliamentarian. I was not alone in being in awe of his intellect. In debate, his mild and gentle use of language could pack one powerful punch. When others came armed with sheaves of paper, he would hold a few notes in front of him and speak with honesty, integrity and great authority. I do not think we will ever have a debate in your Lordships’ House that covers the issue of Henry VIII powers without reflecting on what Lord Judge would have said.
His interests away from your Lordships’ House were wide. He loved his garden; he told me what he liked the most was the feel of the earth in his hand, and you can just picture that. His discussions of important parliamentary matters and great affairs of state with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, would often digress into football. One supported Leicester City and the other Millwall; no prizes for guessing which one was which. They would watch out for each other’s weekend scores and then enjoy the rivalry between them in the following week.
To describe somebody as larger than life is usually taken to mean a very loud, physical and noisy presence, yet Igor was undoubtedly a larger-than-life presence through his intellect, his modesty, wit and decency. I did not take his advice enough. Our thoughts are with his much-loved wife Judith, his family and his friends.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, like other Members of your Lordships’ House, it was with great shock and sadness that I heard of Lord Judge’s death. I know that he was a devoted father and grandfather; he once told me with great pride that his role when the family went sea-bathing was to hold all the towels—he never dreamed of getting in the sea himself. Our thoughts today are primarily with his family as they mourn his loss.
I had my first long conversation with Lord Judge while sitting next to him at the first Queen’s Speech he attended as Convenor. He told me that he had been a great collector of 15th century manuscripts. We then spoke about the history of the period and the start of the Tudor dynasty. It was this great love and knowledge of the period that had alerted him to Henry VIII’s role in taking from Parliament some of its traditional legislative power. From this understanding sprang his deep antipathy for the current use of such powers, on which he spoke with such passion and persistence.
His speeches exhibited the hallmarks of a fine legal mind. He was crystal clear. He could explain the most complex arguments in language that everyone could readily understand. He was succinct: Igor rarely, if ever, made a long speech. He got straight to the point and when he had made it, he sat down. And he was ruthless: he was the master of asking Ministers the unanswerable question. As they floundered in response, he would pin them with a quizzical frown.
But he was much more than a great legal brain. He was witty. He saw the ridiculous side of some of the things we do in your Lordships’ House with a clear eye, a despairing shake of the head and an often hilarious response. He was a great reader of people. He had the measure of us all and would sometimes, in an unguarded moment, let a privileged few know what he really thought of some of his colleagues. It was not always totally complimentary, but it was usually correct.
He was wise. His reading and understanding of history, coupled with his long and distinguished career at the Bar, gave him a broad perspective from which to make judgments and give opinions—not just on the great issues of state, but also on the many arcane issues on which he was expected to express an opinion on the innumerable internal committees of your Lordships’ House on which he sat.
Finally, he was kind. There was a warmth about him, which was expressed with a sympathetic smile, a slightly cocked listening ear and a kind word.
I fear that he did not completely succeed in his campaign to expunge Henry VIII powers from new pieces of legislation. It now falls on the rest of us to pick up this baton. In doing so, we will not just be doing it for the good governance of the country: we will be doing it for Igor.