Ukraine

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 21st September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to the debate. She apologised for the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, not being here, but noble Lords know her personal commitment to this issue and her speech showed this. We have waited a long time for this debate, as I am sure my noble friend Lord Robertson will say, but it is a welcome opportunity to discuss some of the most serious issues facing us today.

I also place on record my thanks to the Ministry of Defence for the Privy Council briefings which I and others have been provided with. I have attended a number of these and they have been very informative; I am very grateful for the opportunity.

In the week that President Zelensky was in New York addressing fellow world leaders seeking to galvanise support—though the Foreign Secretary, not the Prime Minister, was there—it is worth reminding ourselves that it is now 18 months since Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. The world has witnessed persistent resolve and patriotism, not just from the Ukraine President, whom we have all come to admire greatly, but also constantly from the Ukrainian people. When homes have been destroyed, they have stood up and fought. When their lives have been uprooted, they have stood up and fought. When they have lost friends and family, they have stood up and fought. Their bravery has been inspiring in the face of some of the dreadful atrocities that we have seen reported.

As much as this remains a story of courage and resilience that we admire hugely, I do not want us to romanticise that in any way at all. The scale of human tragedy and suffering is enormous. They have lost their homes, communities and loved ones. For so many, their lives will never be the same. Indeed, since the start of this invasion, the UN has recorded nearly 9,000 civilian deaths and a further 15,000 civilian injuries. The number of military deaths is almost impossible to calculate but must be hundreds of thousands. Nearly 6 million people have been internally displaced; nearly 8 million have been forced to flee to neighbouring countries such as Moldova and Poland. Others have had to go further afield—often, as we have seen in our own country, facing very difficult circumstances despite the families who have welcomed them.

It is right that, since the war began, there has been absolutely no wavering in our determination to confront Russia’s aggression and to pursue Putin’s crimes. As a country, as a Parliament and in your Lordships’ House, we remain constant and consistent in our support. That £2.3 billion of military support to Ukraine continues, both directly and alongside our NATO allies. At the same time, we must do all we can to shore up and maintain global support beyond NATO. Our efforts must be focused not just on the immediate military action but also on the reconstruction, as the noble Baroness referred to towards the end of her comments. Sanctions continue to limit Russia's capabilities, and they will always have the full support of these Benches. I am sure the Minister will agree that we should continue to examine what more can be done and to strengthen the monitoring of compliance with sanctions. We welcome that the Government is working with the EU to explore the repurposing of frozen assets. I appreciate that there are legal challenges. It would be helpful if the Minister was able to provide an update on the Government's response to those.

We know that sanctions can be a powerful and effective mechanism to hold the Putin regime to account, but they need to be implemented as part of a broader strategy in our relationship with Russia. For example, energy security underlines the importance of identifying risks in our own economy and infrastructure, but it also presents opportunities for reconstructing Ukraine, as illustrated by the G7+ clean energy partnership agreed in June. Three months later to the very day, is the Minister able to provide an update on the implementation of that partnership? I am particularly interested in how we have engaged with the private sector on reconstruction.

Are the Government considering a change to a more strategic response to our backing for Ukraine? All the individual announcements made are welcome, but does she think that it is worth considering the case for setting out a full action plan for military, economic and diplomatic support? That would help to give Ukraine confidence in a sustained stream of future supplies and support. Given the escalating pace of the war, if such an approach were taken, it could send an even stronger message to Putin that this support is unwavering and universal and that things will get worse, not better, for Russia.

Putin’s offensive following the winter stalemate in effect made little ground. We saw the months-long siege of Bakhmut; the town suffered, yet it is of little strategic value to the Russians, despite their intentions to take all of Donbas by March. Ukraine’s counter-offensive, which properly began in June, has faced similar difficulties. Stiff resistance, hardened Russian defensive positions, air superiority and minefields have led to very heavy losses. Ukrainian forces have made significant, if limited, advances, and this slow and steady progress is likely, at least for the foreseeable future, to be the pattern of this war. The support being given must be tailored to this reality to help the offensive.

The British Armed Forces training programmes for Ukrainian forces in the UK is a first-rate example of the type of backing that can really make a difference. We continue to welcome this and the additional support from our allies. Working in this way and assisting Ukraine in defending itself avoids depleting stockpiles and is more likely to succeed in ensuring sustained resolve from all parties. I know the Minister is aware of this issue, but have the Government also considered a new strategy, in collaboration with our NATO allies, to ensure that parts of our defence industry and MoD procurement are on an urgent operational footing? This would both support Ukraine for the long term and help rebuild UK stocks for any future conflict.

Finally, I emphasise that Labour's commitment to NATO is unshakeable. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, a former secretary-general of NATO, which we in the Labour Party are very proud of, is here to contribute today. We share those values of democracy, freedom and peace; they are embedded in the founding treaty. Article 5 is the cornerstone of Labour’s commitment to Britain’s security. However, we remain concerned that the delays and MoD mismanagement in vital defence contracts such as Ajax armoured vehicles, E7 Wedgetail surveillance planes and a modern warfighting division undermine our UK capability to fulfil our full NATO obligations.

While NATO is boosting the size of its high readiness force from 40,000 to 300,000 following Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, UK Ministers plan to cut another 10,000 troops from the British Army, leaving it the smallest it has been since the Napoleonic era. That is in addition to the hollowing out that has already taken place across the Armed Forces over the last 13 years. This Government have cut our Armed Forces by over 40,000 troops. One in five ships have been removed from the Royal Navy—if the noble Lord, Lord West, was here, I am sure he would have further information on that. More than 200 aircraft have been taken out of RAF service in the last five years alone. Worryingly, satisfaction with service life has plunged to almost 40%. Given what we ask of our Armed Forces, they deserve better. A Labour Government will apply a NATO test to major defence programmes in Government to ensure our NATO commitments are fulfilled in full. Can the Minister inform your Lordships’ House today on how the Government will ensure that these obligations to our allies, in a time of European war and heightened security risk, will be met?

This is a period of uncertainty and instability and, ultimately, as a state we have a duty to rise to meet it, for our citizens but also for our allies. The Government have done this in the short term with the support provided for Ukraine, and have had, and will continue to have, our support throughout. But the longer-term management, whether looking forward or back, has not matched that. That leaves us in danger of not being able to meet our NATO obligations or our own expectations. In the context of Ukraine, this just is not enough.

The list of speakers for today’s debate shows expertise, experience and commitment from across the House, and I am confident we will all benefit and learn a lot from today’s contributions. Because the House of Commons is not sitting, today’s debate is being broadcast live on the parliament channel. That is not a frivolous point. I genuinely believe that these speeches and the Minister’s response are important for examining serious issues and for making our commitment to Ukraine public. They deserve a wider audience than those of us here in the Chamber.

I also hope that today’s proceedings and the contributions being made today will also be covered by the BBC. This is the last parliamentary debate to be covered by the veteran broadcaster, Mark D’Arcy, before his retirement. The role of the media, particularly those that have reported from bombed cities and the front line in this war, has been crucial in explaining the issues and showing us all the impact on the people of Ukraine. President Zelensky has broadcast direct into our homes and risen masterfully to a challenge that he could never have expected.

We all look forward to today’s debate and I look forward to the Minister's response at the end.

AUKUS

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement today. I am sure I am not alone in welcoming the fact that the Statement was actually repeated, rather than our just jumping into questions on it. In thanking her for being here—I know she has made considerable efforts to do so—perhaps I may say that it is disappointing that the noble Baroness the Leader was not able to be present for the prime ministerial Statement. In fairness to her, she said that she could be here for the end of today’s business, but I think it is much better that we have it earlier on, and I am grateful to the Minister that we can do so.

I have said many times at this Dispatch Box that the first duty of any Government is the security and safety of its citizens at home and abroad. International co-operation and strategy is essential to achieving that. Given that many on these Benches, and indeed across your Lordships’ House, have long called for closer co-operation with our democratic allies, we all hope that this presents an opportunity to put that principle into practice. By sharing information, intelligence and resources, we should have the capacity to enhance security.

In their integrated review, the Government identified the region as being at the

“centre of intensifying geopolitical competition with multiple potential flashpoints”.

Assuming that that is the driver for this partnership, it would be helpful to hear from the Minister more detail about what this agreement means in practice and how it fits with—and what is—the Government’s broader strategy. There are also implications for at least two other countries outside this partnership: the French, following what is now their previous submarine procurement arrangements with the Australian Government; and for our relationship with China, as illustrated not least by the comments of its Foreign Ministry this morning.

The Government have now termed China as a systemic competitor and have recognised its military assertiveness, but they also want the UK to maintain a strong commercial relationship with the country. As we need to work together on key global issues, such as climate change, and with COP 26 just six weeks away, this could not be more important. It is clear to everyone that, without a diplomatic strategy and enhanced diplomatic skills, those goals will come into conflict.

I do not know whether the Minister has yet had the opportunity to read the Lords’ International Relations and Defence Committee report from last week, but it gave us a clear warning that:

“Current levels of China expertise within Government and the civil service are insufficient when compared to the ambitious agenda and the tilt to the Indo-Pacific”.


What are the Government doing to change that? I am sure that the Government have also considered how they can ensure that the AUKUS partnership increases, rather than decreases, our ability to influence China. If there is any detail, or at least reassurance, the Minister can provide on that, it would be helpful.

There are still questions about exactly what our role will be in this partnership. According to the White House, the US sees the partnership as an opportunity to

“leverage expertise from the United States and the United Kingdom, building on the two countries’ submarine programs to bring an Australian capability into service at the earliest achievable date.”

The Minister alluded to this in the Statement, but is there anything more she can say about what UK expertise will be used in this programme? For those of us who are glued to Sunday night television, watching “Vigil”—for those who are not aware, it is about a murder on a nuclear-powered submarine—we just hope that life does not imitate fiction. As an immediate priority, the focus will be on delivering nuclear-powered submarines to Australia. With the expectation to develop other defence systems, including cyber, AI and quantum computing, will this time be used to identify other areas where the UK can contribute?

The Prime Minister’s commitment that this pact will create hundreds of highly skilled jobs across the UK is welcome, but it would be helpful to understand exactly what those jobs will be. We need to know what jobs will be created and where they will be based, because we need to know what skills will be required. Whatever defence contracts result from the announcement, we need to make sure the UK gets its fair share of well-paid, highly skilled jobs within the defence sector. We need to be preparing now to ensure we take advantage of any opportunities available.

To get maximum benefit, we also need to secure our defence supply chains. The Minister will be aware that, recently, there have been a number of attempted takeovers of British defence companies by US organisations. The potential takeover of Ultra Electronics, which provides the control systems for Trident submarines, was referred by the Government to the CMA just last month. Can she explain how she thinks this new partnership will impact on such deals?

Finally, I just want to make the point that, with new international security partnerships, we should never forget or in any way diminish our long-standing relationship with our allies. NATO remains our most important strategic alliance. It has delivered peace and stability in Europe for more than 70 years. That stability in our immediate neighbourhood must always take precedence.

Can the Minister confirm whether any resources will be redirected from western Europe to the Pacific as a result of this new agreement? Can she also say something about what strategy the Government have to protect our bilateral relationships with allies who have raised concerns about the partnership? The Five Eyes sharing arrangements remain critical to our security, and I hope today she is able to confirm that we will act to ensure that AUKUS will not lead to a two-tier alliance or weaken our arrangements for intelligence-sharing capacity.

I hope the whole House will welcome this announcement and new partnership, but the agreement alone will not be enough to achieve the stated mission. The onus is now on the Government to ensure that the security pact allows us to better respond to emerging threats and better protect the existing alliances, but also ensure that we make the most of the economic opportunities for our defence industry.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, my welcome to the AUKUS announcement is possibly slightly more muted than that of the other noble Baroness, Lady Smith. Clearly, co-operation with the United States and Australia is important and, as the Statement said, clearly this is supposed to be part of global Britain and the tilt to the Indo-Pacific. However, could the Minister explain to the House how security concerns in the Indo-Pacific are more relevant and important to the United Kingdom than security concerns in our own region? We need to pay particular attention to the question of our relationship with our European partners, in particular with France. Could the Minister tell the House what conversations the Prime Minister might have had with President Macron, or what conversations the Foreign Secretary—if there was one in post at the right time—might have had with the French Foreign Minister ahead of this announcement?

Clearly, the response from the other side of the channel has been one of deep frustration. While on a business level it might be entirely appropriate for us to work with the Australians to deliver the nuclear-powered submarines that they apparently want, if that means that we are damaging our long-standing and vital relationship with France, that is somewhat unfortunate. We might have left the European Union and changed some of our relationships with our European partners, but that does not change our own fundamental security concerns and questions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, said, our other traditional alliances are important. Did the Government take them into consideration when making this announcement?

Beyond that, clearly it is important to look at our defence industry. I realise that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, might raise her hands or look up in horror but I attended DSEI this week, where I had the opportunity to talk to some British businesses which are indeed absolutely passionate about being able to export. They are small and medium-sized enterprises for whom the opportunity to work with allies, whether from Europe, the USA and Australia, is important. I therefore pay tribute to those companies. In the original Statement the Prime Minister mentioned them; have the Government thought through how supply chain issues and working with SMEs might be supported by the initiative announced last night? Clearly, there are some areas where there are opportunities.

I have a final point of concern. The American approach to leaving Afghanistan left the United Kingdom unable to look after some of the people we might have wanted to repatriate. It seemed rather redolent of Suez, when we could not rely on the United States or the Commonwealth and we were closest to France. How has the world changed so that AUKUS is now the right answer to British security concerns?

Defence and Security Public Contracts (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I apologise. I am so used to Oral Questions, where we are called by name, that I was slightly wrong-footed.

Delighted would not be the word to use about speaking in this short debate on the draft statutory instruments, but it is clearly an important debate. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford flagged up a set of questions that have been picked up by various noble Lords.

I start with reference to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, and his most welcome maiden speech. It may surprise your Lordships and, indeed, the noble Lord himself, to know I would agree with him on one part of his speech beyond welcoming him to the Chamber. It is a key point that defence and security must be properly resourced. That is clearly essential, but it is not the primary purpose of today’s debate, which is to look at a technical set of regulations to ensure that provisions are in place after the transition period or implementation date ends.

As my noble friend Lord Thomas asked, can the Minister explain why we are still looking to amend regulations from 2011? Can the Minister explain when she envisages having some legislation, which she touched on, for the UK to have its own arrangements for defence procurement? If there is one area where the National Audit Office comes back with questions time and again, it is defence procurement.

The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, talked about the importance of best value for money. The best equipment at the best price and on time is clearly important. We have not seen that very often in defence procurement, which tends to be over budget and over time. Therefore, I ask, as my noble friend Lord Thomas did, what contracts are currently being discussed under the present arrangements and so will be part of the change in regulations that we are looking at today. It is quite likely that there are already contracts in place or being negotiated that will take us decades into the future. How far into the future do the Government see these regulations persisting? How do they see the transition to the UK’s own regulations for defence procurement?

Further, how do the Government envisage state aid? As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said, it is somewhat peculiar that so much time is being devoted to discussions of state aid, particularly—and this is something that the noble Baroness, did not say—as we have a Conservative Government. Never have I heard a Conservative Government spend so much time talking about the importance of being allowed to have state aid. Is it for the defence industry? Is it to support our shipping industry? What plans does the MoD have and is the Minister able to share any of them with us?

It is important that we have legal certainty after the transition period is over, so it is appropriate to support these regulations. I hope that the Minister does not have to come forward every year with an update saying, “We are still trying to amend regulations from 2011. There is still a word or two that is not quite right.” It is important to have a defence procurement process that works effectively and goes beyond amending regulations. We need a future set of arrangements to ensure that our defence procurement process is as strong and effective as our Armed Forces themselves.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 22nd July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Andrews]

My Lords, I shall be very brief. First, I thank the Government most warmly for the amendment they have brought forward. It is an exemplary amendment: it has none of the conditions attached that I thought might have been tempting. It is a simple, elegant and comprehensive statement of what it is we must take care of and it has the right balance of technical and emotive language. So I am very grateful and I can say that Historic England, with which I still have a continuing connection, is extremely pleased and grateful to the Government for this. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is absolutely right.

We heard a very powerful speech at Second Reading from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, which warned us, essentially, not to be completely obsessed by the simple presentation of a Victorian building. He was absolutely right, but very much of the medieval Palace—in fact most of it—has disappeared and the cloisters are the most significant part of the archaeology and architecture left, so we should have a special care for them. I am not entirely certain whether they are designated as being at risk. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is meeting the chair of Historic England, because we can get very good guidance as to what to do. In my experience, you can always do urgent conservation and repairs, so I see no reason why that should not happen before R&R starts properly, let alone before it finishes, because, frankly, there will be nothing left if it is the stone itself that is so fragile. I would be very interested to know what comes of that meeting, and so, I suspect, will many Members of the House: maybe we can follow that up informally, or maybe through the estates department of the House, to make sure that we know that action is being taken.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak relatively briefly, I hope, on this issue. I welcome Amendment 8 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, and I thank the Minister for his comments. My noble friend Lady Andrews spoke at Second Reading, as did other noble Lords, about the historical significance this building has, and I am pleased that that has led to the amendment today to ensure that a duty is placed on the sponsor body to have regard to,

“the special architectural, archaeological and historical significance of the Palace of Westminster”.

The amendment addresses the concerns felt across the whole House and we welcome it.

On the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, in a sense, what he is saying is the very basis of the restoration and renewal programme. I said before that we all recognise that there is that line to be trod between the necessary changes to the building and preserving its historical fabric. The whole basis of this programme is that, while we recognise the historical and archaeological implications of the building, we adapt it for modern use. He made a point in his amendment about us returning to the building. If we were not going to return to the building, we could just have a museum and patch everything up as it is now. However, because we are returning to the building, we need to have those types of adaptations and improvements. The only reason so many of our historic buildings have survived is because they have been adapted to modern use. If you go back to history, the reason why we have so many old buildings is because they have been kept in use and modernised over many years. I am also pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, makes reference to the building’s status as part of the UNESCO world heritage site, as that is an important distinction to make. The point of his amendment, which is well made, is covered in Amendment 8, so we are grateful to the Minister and the Government for bringing it forward.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate and for their welcome of the wording of the amendment before us. It resolves very neatly the concerns raised by many noble Lords and indeed many Members of the other place, and I am genuinely glad that noble Lords feel that it is entirely appropriate.

I hope that I can briefly give some words of comfort to my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, on their perfectly understandable concerns about the condition of the medieval cloisters. First, I assure them that Cloister Court is part of the Palace of Westminster. That point is material, because it means that it will be included in the restoration and renewal works. Furthermore, however, the House authorities are planning some exterior conservation works in Cloister Court before restoration and renewal begins. Following that, the whole Palace, including both the external and internal spaces of Cloister Court, are in scope for the restoration and renewal works. With those words, I hope that my noble friend in particular will be at least partly reassured on his concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, I will be brief: the situation is worse than that described by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, if I can deepen his gloom. With HS2 and Crossrail, with which I was deeply familiar, by the time we came to publishing legislation we knew what the project was going to be. The project was defined; indeed, at the second stage of the HS2 Bill, which had just been agreed by the House of Commons, we knew within a few metres what the line and specification of works would be and so on. We have a defined project—it has just proved much more expensive and problematic to deliver than was conceived. The problem we face with the parliamentary rebuilding work is that we are setting up the sponsor body before we have a defined project.

There is a very good reason for that: we are literally starting from scratch and trying to decide the best way forward, and this probably is the best way forward. I have views on whether we should consider other options —we will come to that in a while—but we are currently at such an early stage of the work that we do not have the faintest clue what the costs will be. We do not have a project description; all we have is a few back-of-the-envelope, broad objectives, a very old costing on the basis of them and a few timelines plucked out of a hat. We also have the potential for massive controversy, which we can already see, about the nature of the decant, where we will go, what we will come back to and so on.

What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, is proposing—that there should be best estimates for the timeline at the point at which the strategy is published—is perfectly sensible. There is also another reason why it should be done: it is my view that we are at such an early stage of planning, and the issues involved in the restoration and renewal of the Houses of Parliament are so great—because of the wider context referred to earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, of big questions about the future of our parliamentary democracy—that I do not believe it is sensible to be closing down significant options at this stage; we are at such a preliminary stage in devising what the project will be. I am sorry to keep making this point but, since we will be returning to it in September, I am very anxious to keep it open: we should include the question of where the decant should be—there is very good reason to propose that it should not be somewhere immediately adjacent to the Houses of Parliament but could be in another part of the United Kingdom—and where the ultimate Parliament will be.

I agree with what the noble and learned Lord said. On the basis of my knowledge of big infrastructure projects and the stage we are at currently, it is very plausible that there could be three or four years’ delay before the decant starts. If the decant does not start until 2028, we will not move back here until between 2038 and 2040. To put some context on this, phase 2 of HS2 is currently scheduled to open in 2032. So, relatively speaking, it is going to take much longer to complete the restoration and renewal of Parliament than to build a 330-mile high-speed line, which is the biggest single infrastructure project in the world outside the Republic of China. Keeping a few options open at this stage is sensible in terms of planning. We should take advantage of the situation at the moment to think a bit more broadly about where we intend our parliamentary democracy to go over the 100 to 150 years ahead, and in doing so demonstrate the same vision that our Victorian forebears showed when they designed these Houses of Parliament to be the centre of an imperial legislature in the 1840s.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I feel that we have already segued into later debates. With due respect to my noble friend, I have to challenge his “back of an envelope” assessment. If he comes to my office, I will show him a huge amount of paperwork—documents that some of us have worked on over the last couple of years. If it was all on the back of an envelope, the envelope would be enormous.

We have gone a little wider than the amendment by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, but I do think he is on to something. I understand that the question of the Ministry of Defence and the car park has now been resolved—but, I suspect, given the extra cost that would have been involved had it not been resolved, that public attention might well have encouraged them to move a little more quickly than they did. Again, we come back to what we are really talking about here: engagement, information and openness. The more that we can say what is intended to be done, the greater will be our ability to monitor the project.

In most large projects that I know, there is some slippage. Noble Lords are right that this project is at a relatively early stage, but quite a lot of planning has gone into it already. We do not need to say, “This will happen on 3 January 2022”, but it should be possible to have an idea of a timeframe for when certain things are likely to happen. That would help with public engagement and the engagement of colleagues around the House.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, for his amendment on the important issue of decant and its timeline. His amendment would require the sponsor body to provide its best estimate for the timeline of the Palace restoration works when consulting parliamentarians.

As noble Lords are aware, the full decant, restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster is scheduled to take place from the mid-2020s until the mid-2030s. I absolutely recognise that noble Lords are seeking further clarity on those dates. It is very much my hope, and that of the Government, that the work will be completed expeditiously and that we will move back to the Palace as swiftly as possible afterwards. Under the Bill, the delivery authority is required to formulate proposals for the works, including the timing of those works. This will form the outline business case, the OBC, which Parliament will need to approve before the substantive works commence. If for any reason the timings change significantly, the sponsor body will need to come back to Parliament for further approval. It is at that stage—the presentation of the OBC—that the timing of the works will become clear.

The Government have of course thought about requiring the sponsor body to provide its assessment of timings at the consultation stage, even if it is just a best estimate. The trouble with that is that the sponsor body at that stage will still be in the process of formulating the OBC, and any forecast timings will be at best a very rough estimation. I argue that this would risk setting expectations prematurely. Those expectations would then inevitably need to be revised when the sponsor body placed its proposals before Parliament prior to approval.

I shall give a simple illustration of that. We have had a wide-ranging and interesting debate on what noble Lords would like to see from a restored Palace. Those aspects of the plan are not the sort of thing that can be nailed down a priori. They are therefore bound to affect the length of time that the works will take.

Furthermore, one essential first step for R&R is the works to Richmond House, which the noble and learned Lord mentioned, to enable the decant from the other place. The timing of those works will inevitably affect the start time for R&R—so clearly we would not want to decant before those works had happened. The noble and learned Lord asked where we were in the planning process for Richmond House. All I can say is that the Northern Estate programme is currently consulting the public on its plans for Richmond House. We expect it to make a formal planning application to Westminster City Council by this autumn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stunell]

My Lords, debates today have probably added £1 billion to the total cost of R&R. When we look at we have said about disability, constitutional changes, public engagement and future-proofing, I think that we can forget £4 billion and start to look at £5 billion. All that is in square brackets anyway.

This legislation is not a money Bill; if it were, we would not be discussing it. It is a governance Bill, but how we arrange the governance affects how much money is spent. For example, the opaque governance of the process leading up to this Bill reaching your Lordships’ House has already cost us money, because it could perfectly well have come at least a year and probably 18 months sooner, which would have saved money. If it is hard to see how, perhaps I may say that the index of consumer price inflation in the last year was 1.9% and the index of construction price inflation was 2.8%—more or less 1% greater. That 1% leads to the whole project’s expenditure falling one year later than it would have done, which has cost us £40 million on a £4 billion project—probably £50 million—simply by starting a year later than we needed to. That is before we have a plan or a project on the table. My amendment is intended to enable us to avoid unnecessary delay and cost, and to learn from that story and the lessons of Crossrail.

Once upon a time when this project was first floated, the governance model in this Bill was advocated and supported because it was going to follow the magnificent models of UK construction projects where we had at last cracked the problem and, as seen with the Olympics and Crossrail, we could now deliver on time and on budget. We still say that, except we leave out the phrase “and Crossrail”; we only say, “the magnificent example of the Olympics”. What Crossrail illustrated is that once you have a delay you automatically and unavoidably have cost increases. That is not only because it costs money to take longer; it costs even more money to try to catch up.

My amendment is designed to save the large amounts of public money which come from delay in taking decisions about how the project should proceed. A project of £4 billion intended to take eight years is going to spend, on average, £500 million each year. That is not a trivial sum in anybody’s counting and certainly not in the Treasury’s counting. The year’s delay will not cost you all the £500 million but it will probably, à la Crossrail, cost you two-thirds—£300 million, say, will be the cost of holding things back for a year, for one reason or another. So the current way we are going to decide whether we can afford something goes something like this: the sponsor body develops a programme, signs it off and passes it to the delivery authority, which gets the design work and the tendering going and then reports back to the delivery authority, which reports back to the sponsor body, which sends it to the estimates commission, which at that point consults the Treasury. The Bill says it “must have regard to” the information or advice it gets from the Treasury. In fact, three of the Bill’s 15 clauses relate to having to have regard to the Treasury’s advice.

Whatever might be said in some idyllic constitutional theory about parliamentary supremacy, the actual tap is turned on and off by the Treasury. That is no surprise and certainly it is the reality of this piece of legislation. The point is that at least a year, and probably 18 months to two years, after the sponsor body has commissioned the work to be done, the Treasury will say, “Oh, no, sorry, that is not in scope, we cannot afford that. Spread it over 10 years, drop all the stuff about getting into the turrets, never mind Lord Stunell and hearing, let us just have it like it was in the old building and cut costs”. We will still have the delays. Incidentally, it will be very difficult to save as much by cutting things out of the design as it will cost to have the delays—which, of course, is another Crossrail story as well.

What we have is a system where we know it will be the Treasury taking the decision on whether the money is going to be spent, but instead of asking before we start, “Can we have the money to do this?”, we are going to wait until we have done everything and then the Treasury is going to say no. Amendment 23 simply short-circuits that in a very simple way. It says that it is permissible to have a Minister of the Crown on the sponsor body. It does not require that there shall be, and it is therefore still a matter of choice as to whether such a person is appointed or not. What that means is that, at the start of the process and not at the end, the Treasury would be saying what can and cannot be spent. In terms of parliamentary accountability and lots of other things, people will say, “That is completely wrong”, but the Government’s fingerprints are going to be on this and they are going to do their best to wipe their fingerprints off it, which they will be well able to do if they present it in anonymous advice to the estimates commission two years after the process began and the delays will be there.

My amendment allows the Government to find a way of being more transparent about taking the inevitable decisions that the Treasury will make and putting those in the public domain at the earliest moment. I know that I do not have too many friends on this, but I have given the House an option, which it does not need to exercise but which in five, 10 or 15 years’ time, a future Administration and the future House will be very grateful for, so that they can indeed save any more delays than those that will by then already have accumulated. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. If I understand his argument correctly, he seems to be expressing a lack of confidence that Her Majesty’s Treasury will come up with the money and deliver on the funding at the end of the project, and to avoid that he is suggesting putting it on the committee that is deciding what the project should do and what money should be requested.

I understand why the noble Lord made his arguments, and, as I said, I listened carefully, but I am not persuaded by them. This is a parliamentary project, not a government project—that is an important distinction to make. There are times when I suspect that there may be battles between Parliament and government on this, although I hope not. I hope that in bringing forward the Bill, government is showing its intention to recognise that the work has to be done and paid for.

--- Later in debate ---

All the amendment does is ask for this project to be costed properly so that we can have a debate about it. My noble friend said it is not going to delay things. I hope that we can do this and then debate over the next few years whether we go somewhere permanently or temporarily, what the cost will be and what the benefits will be to the region. My noble friend and I do not always agree on HS2, but we certainly agree on transport and the need to have somewhere with good transport in the middle which would work fine. I support the amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I always have a sense of déjà vu when discussing this issue. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Adonis and Lady Quin for contacting me prior to the debate. My noble friend Lady Quin’s amendment is somewhat different from those we have seen before. It is not about relocating Parliament but about a temporary relocation while the works are being undertaken. I have listened carefully to what has been raised today, and I wonder whether we are almost having two separate discussions. There is a challenge with this project so that all nations and regions of the UK feel engaged with it. I might have made a slightly different argument in pushing for this.

We face three things as a country: economic inequality, democratic disengagement and a loss of confidence in the political system. They have been raised at different times when talking about this issue. However, I am not convinced that moving Parliament necessarily addresses them. Having said that, the proposal before us today is about the restoration and renewal of this building to provide a home for a 21st-century Parliament. My noble friend Lady Quin referred to the comments I made at Second Reading about the administrative capital and the plans to build it on the Yorkshire moors. Other countries have done that. That is a completely separate issue from what is facing us today, which is the restoration and renewal of this building. There is nothing that says that in future, if as a nation we want to take that decision, we could not do so, but we would have to accept that the cost would make the cost of restoration and renewal pale into insignificance because Parliament does not exist in a vacuum. It exists as part of a system involving government, civil society, business and the Civil Service. I have always taken the view that we need to keep those elements of governance of the country together and have those communications.

A huge challenge to this programme is to address the issue of benefiting the regions. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in particular, has some interesting ideas and I hope the Government will pursue them and will be a little more positive than they have been to date on engaging young people and others throughout the country. However, issues of confidence in the political system cannot be addressed by this programme. The costs would be greater than if we have to do the work here. However, there is nothing to stop Parliament at any time looking at creating a new administrative capital if that is what it wishes to do, but I do not think this Bill is the right place to address that. If there had been new arguments that could have persuaded me otherwise, I would have been happy to take them on board, but I am still not persuaded that this programme is the right time to be looking at a different site, even temporarily.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for their amendment, which brings us back to the vexed issue of decant. The amendment would require the sponsor body to prepare, publish and lay before Parliament a report giving an assessment of relocating the Houses of Parliament, for the duration of the parliamentary building works, to a location outside London.

As noble Lords will be aware, the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster suggested that the Commons should decant to the Northern Estate, including Richmond House, and the Lords should decant to the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre. I can only underline the words of my noble friend Lord Haselhurst: those recommendations were based on substantial analysis of where Parliament could be relocated during R&R. This included a pre-feasibility study commissioned by Parliament in 2012. Just to clarify what I said at Second Reading, that study looked into the preliminary business case for R&R and considered whether Parliament should decant and, if so, whether it should be to a location outside Westminster, whether temporarily or permanently. It concluded that because the,

“geographical proximity of Parliament to Government is of significance … substantial additional costs would be incurred”.

On the back of the pre-feasibility study, the House authorities commissioned the independent options appraisal. This was scrutinised by the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster, which considered the various options for R&R. In its report the committee noted that it had considered the proposal to temporarily relocate Parliament during R&R. It concluded, as was well summarised by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, that,

“the option of temporarily locating Parliament outside London during the works, while attractive in many ways, carries an unacceptable burden of cost and inconvenience, which would otherwise be avoided”.

It reached that decision as Parliament currently owns a number of buildings around the Palace of Westminster, such as the Northern Estate and Millbank House. These buildings provide both office space for Members and many committee and meeting rooms. If Parliament were to relocate during R&R, it would mean abandoning these buildings, thereby increasing the costs associated with decant.

I listened with care to the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition. In its report, the Joint Committee brought our attention to the evidence of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, who served as Cabinet Secretary and head of the Civil Service for a decade. He described how he had,

“no doubt in saying that Parliament needs ready access to Ministers and vice versa. Departments also need ready access to Ministers and vice versa. It is an old-fashioned syllogism. The three need to be closely co-ordinated if Government is to work properly”.

I hope to convey that there has already been substantial work to assess whether the permanent or temporary location of Parliament should be outside London. On the back of that work, the matter was decided by Parliament in the Motions passed in 2018. Furthermore, contrary to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, I have concerns that the noble Baroness’s amendment, however well intentioned, might seriously delay progress on R&R. Significant work has already been undertaken to identify the decant locations and to formulate designs for the Northern Estate. If we were to decide to decant to somewhere else at this stage, we would need to start the process all over again.

I just do not think that we should go back and unpick the clear decision taken last year or the substantial work that has already been undertaken. To do so risks delaying this important, and urgent, project. Many of us would say that the work is already overdue. We absolutely must secure the Palace of Westminster—a grade I listed building, part of a UNESCO world heritage site and the home of UK democracy—for future generations. I am sure that I do not need to remind noble Lords of the problems that this building faces. Falling masonry, sewage leaks and the alarming number of fires caught just in time all demonstrate the pressing need to pass this Bill and get on with the job. We simply do not have time to delay.

So, for the reasons I have set out, I am afraid that the Government must express significant reservations about this amendment.

His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 14th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the Deputy Leader of the House, and we join in wishing the Prince of Wales a very happy 70th birthday. There is no job description for the role of heir to the Throne. As the longest serving heir during a time of significant social change, it has been an opportunity and no doubt at times a challenge to fulfil the role in the meaningful way that the Prince has undertaken. It is significant that the Prince is the first heir to the Throne to go to school rather than be educated by a personal tutor in a royal palace. He was the first to gain a university degree and the first have a cameo role in “Coronation Street”. He was also the first to be on Twitter, and the first to have his own birthday hashtag, #Charlesat70. He was also most definitely the first to run his classic Aston Martin car on fuel from the by-products of wine and cheese. I do not think that trying to get the Royal Train running on environmentally friendly used cooking oil has been quite so successful.

As we have heard from the noble Earl, the speech of His Royal Highness in the House of Lords followed in the footsteps of his great-great-grandfather, Prince Edward, later Edward VII, who had made such a speech 90 years before. Both speeches focused on social issues. In a thoughtful contribution on a Lords Select Committee report on sports and leisure, which was developed in a later speech made to your Lordships on volunteering, His Royal Highness gave a glimpse of some of the issues that he would make it his life’s work to champion. In both speeches he reflected on how society could best support young people, the environment and our environmental heritage.

But these were not woolly, do-gooder speeches; they had an edge to them and posed a challenge. The Prince recognised the role of the citizen and the state working together and the importance of support for life outside work to enhance physical and mental well-being. He advocated alternative activities and provision to challenge crime and anti-social behaviour. That personal interest led directly to the establishment in 1976 of the Prince’s Trust—but who knew that it was set up with his £7,000 Royal Navy severance pay? I know that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, will say more about the Prince’s Trust, but the vision that Prince Charles set out in the 1970s—that all young people, particularly those who have not had a good start in life, should have the opportunity to succeed—remains true today. He continues to be genuinely interested in the lives and life stories of young people, engaging directly with them. His vision and commitment have ensured that thousands of disadvantaged young people have been provided with the opportunity to transform their lives, helping nearly a million individuals into employment or business.

However, it is on environmental matters that Prince Charles has at times ruffled a few feathers. Who could have failed to see the amusement in his face when it was put to him by John Bridcut in the BBC programme last week that he had been accused of meddling? He replied with a smile, “Really—you don’t say?” There is no doubt, however, that what in the 1970s were regarded as somewhat eccentric issues are today’s problems that we are all trying to grapple with, having failed to heed past warnings. That 1970 speech in which he warned of the approaching waste crisis arising from using non-returnable plastic bottles and indestructible plastic stands out, as does his long-term concern about climate change. Perhaps we should re-examine a few more of those so-called “eccentric” issues.

The Prince’s Foundation is one of the many charities he has established and focuses on the built environment, heritage and community education projects. It aims to create a modern, viable and productive use for historic buildings. It proves that it is possible to bring together the past and the future in sustainable communities. The Prince has always been passionate about the nations’ built heritage, as I found out personally during my time as Environment Minister in Northern Ireland. As other Ministers will endorse, the usual response after a visit is a short note of thanks. Following one such visit to Northern Ireland, Prince Charles’ first letter to me ran to three long pages, with well-informed observations, thoughts and suggestions for future collaboration and support on heritage issues. It was what we would nowadays call “a nudge”. In the correspondence that followed, the Prince offered to arrange visits to newly developed sites and meetings with key advisers, all of which turned out to be both fascinating and useful.

Around that time in 2003, my much-loved grandmother died. As her funeral was during his visit, which was over several days, there were a number of engagements that I was due to host or attend that I was unable to make. When I returned to Northern Ireland, I was surprised to receive many lovely messages of condolence from people whom I only slightly knew and I did not really understand why. I later found out that, at all the events I had missed, Prince Charles had explained to everybody why I was unable to be there and that I was with my family. It was very thoughtful and greatly appreciated.

My favourite story of kindness is about the new young assistant private secretary accompanying his Minister to a meeting with His Royal Highness. Nervous and inexperienced, he read every book and took as much advice as possible on protocol and etiquette—he was not going to make a mistake. However, he became steadily more anxious as the day drew near. That his female Minister strode up to Prince Charles, arm outstretched to shake hands, did nothing to quell his nerves. As the Prince and the Minister sat talking over tea, the poor, now terrified, private secretary was unable to stop his hands shaking to such an extent that the sound of a cup clattering against saucer was in danger of drowning out the conversation. Ignoring it just made it worse. At which point, the Prince, sensing his acute discomfort, reached out and said, “May I take that from you?”—much to the relief of all.

No comments would be complete without an acknowledgement of His Royal Highness’s deep commitment to the Commonwealth, especially now it is confirmed that he will be its next Head. His recent visit to west Africa demonstrates that this is more than a formal duty but a responsibility that he clearly respects and enjoys.

None of us can choose the life that we are born into, but, especially from a position of privilege, we have a choice of how to live it and how to contribute. When His Royal Highness spoke in your Lordships’ House more than four decades ago, the then Leader of the House and previous Labour Leader, Malcolm Shepherd, reflected:

“The noble Prince was born to great privilege and great opportunity, and also to a position of influence. Equally, such a position, by its very nature, is open to temptation. It would be easy to find the easy way out and to seek narrow, selfish interests, for we are all human … But the noble Prince … has chosen the hard road of duty and service”.—[Official Report, 13/6/74; col. 632.]


While we hope that, on his birthday, he will be allowed to succumb to some temptation, on this side of the House we wish the Prince of Wales a very happy birthday.

National Security Situation

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Government have brought forward this debate, given both the importance of recent events and the seriousness of the issues that have been raised. I thank the Minister for his introduction to the debate, which, given its nature, was hugely wide ranging. I thank him also for his excellent work at CHOGM. We welcome the fact that he leads for the Government on human rights issues, and nobody in this House would doubt his personal commitment to the issues for which he has ministerial responsibility.

Today’s debate provides an opportunity for us to discuss recent issues but also to look at the wider context. In considering our response to recent events, we have to examine our national security and our international role in the long-term strategy for peace and stability in regions of conflict.

There can never be any justification for using chemical weapons. Both the Geneva protocol and, more recently, the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1992 make clear that their use is illegal under international law. Yet the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons against civilians is well documented, in a conflict that is estimated to have left around half a million people dead and many thousands more injured, maimed and displaced. The appalling attack on Douma was the latest and the most serious in Syria, with hundreds of people affected and around 70 dead.

However, as we have found, this is not just something that happens hundreds of miles away. As the Minister referred to, we have been shocked by the deliberate and calculated use of a nerve agent here on UK soil in the attempted murder of two individuals without any concern for others who may have been affected. We concur with the Minister’s good wishes to all those who have been affected and wish them a full recovery. It is clear that the use of chemical weapons is a serious global issue and we should condemn their use totally and unreservedly. We should also work internationally through the UN and our European allies in full support of the OPCW to ensure that such weapons cannot be manufactured or used in conflict.

Following the multilateral attack on Syrian chemical installations last week, the Prime Minister was clear that she considered that the Government fully complied with international law and that there was no need for Parliament to be consulted. We fully accept that it is not always possible or appropriate for Parliament to be consulted prior to military action. Sometimes, it will be because emergency action is required. There may also be times when operational reasons dictate that it is not possible to provide for such a debate. However, other Prime Ministers have considered it appropriate to consult Parliament, so it would be helpful if the Government today were able to provide the reasons why they believe that prior parliamentary engagement was not appropriate in this case. I am not challenging the Government’s judgment but seeking clarity on the principles of consulting, debating and voting in Parliament in advance of military action. I asked this of the Leader of the House on Monday, but she was unable to provide an answer, so if the Minister is able to do so today, I would be grateful.

It is imperative that we ensure that we act at all times within international law and conventions. It is what we ask of others and the standard that we set for ourselves. On Monday, I asked what discussions the Government had had with the UN about the principle of humanitarian intervention and whether any such discussions were ongoing. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House was unable to answer, but it would be helpful to know whether discussions are taking place on such an important issue.

In Syria, as in any area of conflict, there is an urgent need to provide humanitarian relief and medical care, both to refugees forced from their homes and to those who have remained. This country has a proud history of supporting those fleeing violence and having to flee their home country. The Minister will know the strong support that this House gave to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Dubs to what became the Immigration Act 2016. Across Europe, unaccompanied children in camps in Greece, Italy and elsewhere are feeling exactly the anguish and the danger that we have seen in Syria. We had hoped that under the Dubs amendment we would have been able to settle 3,000 children in the UK, and yet, even against the Government’s promise of fewer than 500, by the end of last year there were still more than 200 places available under the scheme. Given the desperate plight of these children, can the Minister provide an update on how both the spirit and the letter of the Dubs amendment to protect children, as unaccompanied minors in danger, will be implemented? As the Minister knows, my noble friend Lord Dubs has tabled an amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill to ensure that we maintain at least this commitment.

Military action should only ever be one thread of a strategy. Without diplomatic and political efforts, and without humanitarian support, no conflict will ever be resolved in a way that has long-term sustainability. The OPCW must be allowed to continue its work in Syria unhindered. To date, its inspectors have still not gained access to the site. Does the Minister have an update on this and what action our Government are able to take to help secure that access? We know that the conflict in Syria is complex and multifaceted, but, without an increased focus on diplomatic efforts and a credible plan for de-escalation, the conflict will continue. It would be helpful if the Minister, in his response, could expand on what will happen over the next few weeks in terms of the broader strategy. The Foreign Affairs Council in Europe has met to discuss the possibility of taking further action. Can the Minister provide any update on what form that could take? What efforts are being made to restore the diplomatic process to seek a political solution?

The national and international security situation presents ever-evolving challenges and threats to the UK. Our nation’s defences are facing unprecedented challenges. These recent events have brought into sharp focus the urgent need for the Government to make strategic defence decisions, taking into account UK defence capabilities and operational requirements.

The recruitment and retention in our Armed Forces can be described as nothing short of a crisis. The overall offer to service personnel is continuing to fall under this Government. That is having a devastating effect on recruitment and on retention. The National Audit Office report published earlier this week found that the Armed Forces are experiencing their biggest staffing shortfall for a decade, including—worryingly—a recruitment crisis among intelligence analysts. I was struck by the warning from General Sir Richard Barrons, the former commander of the Joint Forces Command, who said,

“you can either stop denying that defence is unable to deliver the things it is required to deliver, or you are going to watch it fail”.

That is a terrible indictment.

Our capabilities must reflect the changing environment, with threats, as the Minister outlined in his introduction, posed by Russia, North Korea and groups such as Islamic State. The Government have to focus on what role we want our Armed Forces to play internationally and the resources that are needed to maintain the security of the UK. The Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Nick Carter, advised in a recent speech that Russia poses a major threat that the UK will struggle to confront without an increase in defence spending. Huge challenges for the Ministry of Defence remain, and the Government must commit to no further hollowing out of our Armed Forces and our defence capabilities.

The threats faced at home today are also unprecedented. We have to ensure that we have the right resources, the right measures and the right technology to meet those challenges. Is the Minister confident that we are effectively using the existing measures and powers that we have, including economic sanctions and protections? As well as the additional powers announced following Salisbury, will the Minister update the House on the use of existing powers such as, for example, unexplained wealth orders to tackle the flow of illicit money into the UK economy?

I also raise the role of policing in security. Our national security is protected by our exemplary Armed Forces and intelligence services, but it is also protected day in, day out, by police officers operating in our communities. When the Minister spoke at the beginning, he referred to the unprecedented attacks that we have seen in London and Manchester as well as Salisbury. The head of UK counterterror policing, Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu, warned last year that cuts to local policing could have a potentially disastrous impact on counterterrorism efforts. That point has been made on many occasions during Questions in this House by noble Lords with expertise and knowledge.

With the loss of front-line officers and with them the loss of the relationships and trust that have built up over decades of community policing teams, Mr Basu asked where that vital intelligence will come from. He said:

“All the work we’ve done over the last 20 years to put neighbourhood policing back on the map ... is in danger of disappearing. For me, that is a national security issue.”


Since 2010, we have lost 21,000 police officers, 18,000 police staff and 6,800 police community officers, in addition to the reduction in the support of a number of armed officers. Last month, the independent Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary reported that policing is under “significant stress”. On occasions, that stress stretches some forces to such an extent that they risk being unable to keep people safe in some very important areas of policing. These things are not independent. What happens here at home, in our Armed Forces and internationally are all interdependent and interrelated. These pressures should concern us all.

The UK and the US intelligence forces this week issued a joint alert on the campaign of hostile cyberactivity by Russian state-sponsored actors. The Minister is nodding at me, so I welcome that he recognises that. Cybersecurity has been the focus of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting this week. But questions remain and the Government need to address them to give us the reassurance that we need. What are they doing to review the resources, and increase them if required, for the growing cyber threats? The Intelligence and Security Committee reported concerns over the ability of the intelligence services to recruit and retain critically important technical staff. Without those staff we cannot address the threats that we face. What is being undertaken now to ensure that the services have the personnel they need?

The first duty of any Government is to protect their citizens, but we also need to consider the wider international implications and how we can best fulfil our role in supporting the UN, our European partners and others in providing for international peace and stability.

Royal Navy: Operational Capability

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 20th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord is absolutely right that hybrid warfare presents particular problems and issues for decision-makers. The Ministry of Defence’s contribution to the cross-government capability review is looking actively at our future defence posture and how we can best spend our defence budget—our rising defence budget, I should emphasise—in the light of the various threats we face.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, bringing the Minister back to the Question about the cables, the Policy Exchange report written by the Conservative MP Rishi Sunak said that Russian submarines are “aggressively operating” near Atlantic cables which are,

“inadequately protected and highly vulnerable to attack at sea and on land, from both hostile states and terrorists”.

The Minister will have heard concerns expressed around the House about operational capability. Does he understand the lack of confidence among the public and in the House when we find that the six Type 45 destroyers are all in Portsmouth and not at sea because of a combination of the need to give sailors leave, mechanical problems, routine maintenance and the shortage of manpower? Does he accept that this is damaging to morale in our Armed Forces?

[Earl Howe]

It would be damaging if the story were entirely accurate. Over the Christmas period, the Royal Navy has about 1,500 personnel and 13 ships and submarines deployed on operations and defence tasks all over the globe including the Mediterranean, the Gulf, home waters and the Atlantic. In addition, it has assets and personnel at high readiness should there be a requirement to activate them. However, it should not surprise anybody that, wherever possible, the Royal Navy programmes leave over the Christmas period so that personnel can spend time with their families.

Armed Forces: Serious Crime

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the procedures for trying members of the armed forces for serious crimes such as murder; and whether they intend to consult on possible improvements to those procedures.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to ask the Question standing in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, the procedures for trying service personnel for serious offences under the service justice system are reviewed every five years. In preparation for the Armed Forces Bill in 2020, we will review what the services need from the system of justice and whether the current provisions are the most effective means of delivering that. I do not anticipate any external consultation in delivering this, but the Government will consider any representations made.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that Answer, but can I press him on the point on consultation in my noble and learned friend’s Question? If the Government are to review, they should do so on the best information possible. Those who have been through the system themselves, or other service men and women and their families, will be in a position to assist the Government to ensure that the best possible procedures are in place. Although he said that he will accept and welcome any information, I ask him to undertake a positive review and consultation process, and to invite those people and the wider public to consult on this issue.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the Government’s aim is that the service justice system mirrors where possible the provisions of the civilian criminal justice system. Where the maintenance of operational effectiveness across the Armed Forces requires it, there may be differences from that system. Given those principles, we are not so far persuaded that there would be much to gain in conducting a public consultation about a future system, but that does not preclude any interested parties making representations to the Government on these issues as and when they think it appropriate. We would welcome that.

Register of Hereditary Peers

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am sure that the House will wish to note that fact but I can only say again that the process for the filling of vacancies on the register of hereditary Peers is a matter for this House under its Standing Orders. It is open to any noble Lord to make representation to your Lordships’ Procedure Committee and to the Lord Speaker on any relevant matter.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister said this would not be an incremental change. By my reckoning, if we take the hereditary Peers who are currently in your Lordships’ House, if we fail to have by-elections to replace every single one of them as they choose to retire or depart by other means, it would take 60 or 70 years. I think that is a fairly incremental change. I suggest to the Minister that this House thinks we should end by-elections for hereditary Peers—he just has to be here when we have our debates. There are very few noble Lords, including hereditary Peers, who think it is the right thing to have the nonsense of these elections. The other House would agree with us; the public agree with us. Why do the Government not just get on and make this minor, incremental and sensible change?

Report of the Iraq Inquiry

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. It is longer than is usual, but I think that is appropriate and I am sure that the House is grateful for the additional information.

Few will have had the opportunity to read more than the executive summary and to have seen Sir John Chilcot’s statement and some other comments. I am grateful to the Government for providing advance access to the executive summary this morning. In the weeks, months and years to come, this exhaustive, detailed report will be digested and analysed in greater detail that we are able to do today.

First, I pay tribute to all our Armed Forces and to those who serve in a civilian capacity. When young men and women take on the responsibility of joining the Army, the Navy or the RAF, they do so in the knowledge that they are joining one of the highest forms of public service. They become our front line, both in peacetime and in conflict. As a nation we are very proud of the work they do, the way they do it and the high standards that they set, but we must always recognise that, in conflicts such as this, lives are lost, others suffer physical and mental injury, and the families who support our service men and women are hugely affected.

In Iraq, 179 of our Armed Forces and 23 civilians lost their lives. Their families will never be the same. We mourn their loss and recognise that this is a traumatic time for them all. We must also never forget that both in this conflict and before it thousands of Iraqi people lost their lives.

Decisions about when our Armed Forces are deployed are not theirs; they are made by politicians with advice, including from senior military and intelligence services. We have a duty to ensure that such decision-making is of as high a standard as we ask of our military.

When Gordon Brown set up the inquiry, he was clear that it was to ensure that lessons could be learned. We are grateful to Sir John Chilcot and all those who took part in the extensive work that was required. It was clearly a greater task than had been anticipated. When compared with other reports, it has taken a very long time, and some of those who most wanted to see the outcome are no longer alive.

As well as any lessons to be drawn from the report, there may well be lessons to be learned from the process of the inquiry itself. Would it have been of assistance, for example, if there had been legal representation on the inquiry team? Also—this will be something to examine from the report—in the past the very process of an inquiry has itself led to changes.

I appreciate that in his Statement the Prime Minister took on board how decision-making across government can be changed and improved. That may already have come about to some degree because of the process of this inquiry, with those involved in the machinery of government considering and reflecting on these issues and identifying deficiencies.

The report makes a number of criticisms that must be addressed. What it does not do, however, is either make a case for a non-interventionist policy in future or conclude that anyone acted in bad faith. That is important. The report shows how difficult and often how finely judged such decisions are, including the analysis and use of intelligence information. It identifies some very real criticisms about process and procedure, analysis and decision-making, planning and preparation, and our relationship with the United States. Sir John Chilcot provides us with an opportunity to examine these issues in the light of all the detail in his report and to take decisions today to ensure that any mistakes are not repeated.

It is worth recalling that this was the first time in Parliament that the House of Commons voted on taking military action. I took part in that vote, so I know how thoughtful and solemn MPs were in making their decisions. No MP, however they voted, took the decision lightly, and for the most part there was mutual respect for people who took, and still hold, differing views. Although the decision had to be binary, the reasons and views behind it were much more diverse. Within all political parties there were people who took different views—for honourable reasons.

Sir John’s report is clear that in both the UK and the US there was what he calls an “ingrained belief”—a genuinely held view that Saddam Hussein possessed the ability to use chemical and biological weapons. Whatever view was taken on the military action, no one believed that Saddam Hussein was anything other than an evil dictator. Given that he had used chemical weapons before and that he had been unco-operative with international weapons inspectors and with the intelligence information provided, it was not unreasonable to conclude that he was seeking to hide these weapons. Sir John identifies this as a failure in the decision-making process. The proposition that that was no longer the case in 2003 was not identified and examined.

The Prime Minister’s comments about the National Security Council are welcome. However, if lessons are truly to be learned, there is a broader issue about the role of ad hoc Cabinet committees. Reading through Sir John’s comments, we should consider, when such major issues are being examined and at some point decisions have to be taken, whether an ad hoc Cabinet committee can be established for that very purpose. It would include key Secretaries of State, key officials, experts—such as, in this case, military and security intelligence experts—and possibly legal advisers, and it would be chaired by the Prime Minister, with papers circulated beforehand and decisions minuted. That would bring an identifiable rigour and challenge to the decision-making process. It should not preclude less formal consideration as well, but the key decisions would be taken at such meetings.

On planning, the report is critical of both pre- and post-conflict planning, but some of the strongest criticism is of the situation immediately after. I have read only the summary, but further examination of the full report later will allow the Government and the military to make a clearer analysis of how this can be improved. It is not about equipment and resources only; it is about understanding what comes next and how to respond. The report states that the military on the ground had no instructions on the process for establishing safe and secure areas, and different decisions were taken in different places. There are lessons to be learned from other conflicts. What any country needs post any kind of conflict are stable and functioning institutions—of administration, of policing, of utilities—and the ability to establish and support that safe and secure environment.

Sir John’s report is critical, and there are lessons to be learned about the assumptions we made about our role and the assumptions made about the role of the US and the United Nations. I have two questions for the Minister on this point. First, the Minister referred in the Prime Minister’s Statement to the National Security Council. I understand that the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy has expressed its concern more than once about the lack of regular National Security Council meetings and the fact that it meets only when the House is sitting. In addition, it is not a body that can take executive action. Will the Minister ask the Prime Minister and his successor to reflect on my suggestion about the use of ad hoc Cabinet committees not just on decisions about military operations, but on any strategic decisions of national importance?

Secondly, in his report, Sir John Chilcot reflects on the lack of effective co-ordination between government departments. May I draw the Minister’s attention to the report of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, entitled Persuasion and Power in the Modern World? This was a landmark report on the use of soft power. It made the case that military force alone is today insufficient for defending a nation’s interests. The committee made a key recommendation to the Government about co-operation between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and DfID—that the Government should look at the co-ordination of those departments in the context of Afghanistan and report back to this House with a view to learning lessons for any future post-conflict reconstruction. When the report was debated, the Government declined to take that route. Will the Minister now accept it in the light of the Chilcot report, which also highlights such deficiencies? That decision should now be reconsidered.

This report is difficult and challenging, but it provides an opportunity to investigate decision-making processes about how as a country we should intervene, whether militarily or for humanitarian reasons, although they are not mutually exclusive. I think the Minister made the same point in the Prime Minister’s Statement: this is not about whether we should intervene, but about having a superior process that better informs decision-making when we consider doing so.

In every case where military intervention has been considered, there have been both consequences of intervening and consequences of not doing so. Interventions in Sierra Leone and Kosovo were widely recognised as well executed and positive—they were undertaken under the same processes—and we should never forget the role of military personnel in helping to tackle Ebola in west Africa. It is right that we also reflect on when there has not been intervention: was that the right thing to do when such a decision was taken, and could we have done more? The Prime Minister referred to Bosnia and Rwanda. We may all have different views, but the principle is sound. It is absolutely right that the tests we set for ourselves about when intervention is right and appropriate should always be high.

The key challenge that Chilcot sets us is how we learn the lessons of the Iraq conflict. As we digest the detail of the report, more issues will arise and greater consideration and reflection will be needed. As we go through that process, we as parliamentarians have to consider how we should do things differently in future.