House of Lords: Behaviour and Courtesy

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 14th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, Questions should not be read. They should be concise and questions rather than speeches. My noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark has pointed this out on many occasions and will continue to do so. On the noble Lord’s second point, many noble Lords—including me, on occasion —have felt chastised when they have slipped up and referred to someone as a “noble Minister”. He is absolutely right: it is the “noble Lord the Minister” or the “noble Baroness the Minister”. This makes the point: we have to abide by the rules and conventions of the House in order to conduct our business appropriately.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, having been in your Lordships’ House a long time, I do not think that the degree of shouting at Questions has become significantly worse than when I started. For me, in the current environment, it is more important than ever that everybody in public life is tolerant and shows respect to everyone. Does the noble Baroness the Leader agree that Members of your Lordships’ House have a particular responsibility not to say anything in this Chamber which might lead to greater divisions in society than the ones with which we are already struggling?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, your Lordships will have heard the response from the whole House, and I think that is definitely the case. All of us, particularly those in positions of responsibility—or when there is a worldwide audience—should choose our words with care, because they have an impact. We have a duty and responsibility to behave appropriately.

Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Leader for repeating the Statement. Today, we mark an extraordinarily sombre anniversary. The barbarism of the Hamas attack was almost beyond imagining, and our thoughts today are very much with Jewish people, wherever they may be—not just in recognition of the sorrow and grief felt by those directly affected but because the events of 7 October were only the start of a year of fear and anxiety for the entire Jewish community, wherever they live, which continue to this day. Of course, it has also been a horrendous year for the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank, as well as for the population of Lebanon, which now finds itself engulfed in a cycle of increasing violence and destruction.

The last 12 months have amply demonstrated that the British Government’s ability to influence events in the region is limited. Neither Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah nor Iran is exactly in the mood to be told what to do by the United Kingdom. But that does not mean that we should do nothing. The Statement mentions three areas where we can and are doing something distinctive, and where we might do more.

First, we can do more to aid the innocent populations of Gaza and Lebanon. In the case of Gaza, we are now funding UNRWA again, which is most welcome. The Statement is unclear about how much our new commitment to UNRWA amounts to and how far this provision of aid is constrained by our financial resources and how far by the unjustifiable Israeli restrictions on the flow of aid into Gaza. Can the Leader clarify this? What is the Israeli Government’s response to our requests for the opening of more crossings and the provision of a safe environment for aid workers?

Secondly, on Lebanon, the Government are now providing £15 million of support, but this is a small fraction of the £200 million that we were providing in 2019, when obviously there was nothing like the level of devastation that now prevails. Will the Government accept that £15 million, though helpful, is plainly a very small drop in the ocean? Will they commit to increasing it?

Thirdly, the Government have supported Israel militarily in countering the bombardment it suffered from Iran last week. We are sympathetic to this support, but the Statement is totally silent on the form it took, and the Government have been unclear about its limits. At a point when Israel is clearly contemplating a military response to the Iranian attack, it would be helpful if the Government could confirm that the military support they give to Israel in the future will continue to be limited to defensive purposes.

We can and should do everything possible to fight hatred of Jews or Muslims in the United Kingdom. Attacks on both communities have increased greatly in the last 12 months. Passions have been inflamed and, although the situation in the UK will inevitably remain more tense as long as there is severe conflict in the Middle East, calmer voices can and must prevail. In a number of places, faith leaders from Jewish, Muslim and Christian communities have come together to deliver messages of unity in their localities, not least in schools. Such initiatives are hugely important, and we should do whatever we can, as individuals, to support them in the places where we live.

The last year has seen an escalating cycle of violence and destruction across the Middle East, and it seems quite conceivable that this cycle has some way to run. However forlorn it may seem today, we need to redouble our efforts to get the hostages released, to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon, and to add impetus to the political process, with the aim of establishing a two-state solution. Unless and until these aims are achieved, we will inevitably see more death and destruction. Peace and stability in the region seem further away today than ever, but we must continue to do all we can to replace today’s despair with a more positive hope for the future.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments and for the tone of those comments. I think we all feel the weight of what has happened upon us. Many of us have met families of the hostages—I met Mandy Damari in your Lordships’ House just before the Conference Recess—and you can almost feel the weight of their dignity and their suffering; it is sort of physical and you wonder how on earth people can cope under those circumstances. I think the tone of both noble Lords reflected our understanding of the pain and trauma they are going through.

Noble Lords are also right to say that under any criteria, there is no justification at all for the attacks that took place on Israel on 7 October. It is hard to see how anybody, including the Supreme Leader of Iran, can seek to justify such comments. It must be understood that Hamas will have known that Israel would have to defend itself, and the horror that would be unleashed in the region as a result. It is deeply shocking. There is no route to peace of any kind—temporary, long-lasting or an eventual two-state solution—that does not involve international diplomacy. That is the only way forward to try to find a resolution to protect people in the region.

Both noble Lords made the point that what is happening in the region is played out in the streets of the UK. Up and down our country, people have been subject to attacks and abuse for being either Jewish or Muslim, and I think everybody in this House will totally and utterly condemn such abuse and attacks. The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, about the tone of the debate that takes place, both in your Lordships’ House and in our communities, are very important. I pay tribute to those who have reached beyond their own communities and across the divide, understanding the problem that it is causing within their areas.

I turn to specific points raised by both noble Lords. They will realise that Hezbollah is a proscribed organisation and is treated as such. We all utterly condemn its actions: that is why it is proscribed. How can Israel trust Hezbollah or have trust in progress towards peace? It is precisely because there is no trust that international efforts are so important. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, made the point that the UK is but one voice and that working with partners across the world is the only way that any progress can be made. That is why the Prime Minister has had so many meetings with leaders across the region and others to try to build that coalition, to bring pressure to bear and to do what we can to bring about an initial cease- fire in Gaza but also to protect those in Lebanon.

I do not have the exact number of British nationals remaining in Lebanon. More than 500 have been brought out so far. There are still commercial flights, but about 500 have been brought out, plus the 430 on the chartered flights. We will continue to do that. We have been saying for over a year to those in Lebanon, as did the previous Government—the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, is nodding at me, because he recalls saying it—that they should return home and that we will facilitate and give support as best we can. Their safety is clearly a deep priority for us.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked for details of our operations in support of Israel. I say to him that all defensive operations are in line with international law and always will be. He will understand that I will not give any further information than that, but I can give him that assurance.

The key point is, and both noble Lords expressed this succinctly and very sincerely, that we must work across nations to bring people together and be steadfast in our support for the security of Israel, for security in the region but also for the humanitarian aid that is so essential to civilians who are suffering and dying now. We have to work internationally to achieve that or no progress will be made. I am grateful for their support for the Statement.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase 2 Report

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 9th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the central conclusion of this long-awaited report is blunt and devastating. Sir Martin finds that building safety has failed for decades in central government, local government and the construction industry. He says that every single death was avoidable. From these Benches, we say a heartfelt sorry to the victims, their families and their friends.

One of the most shocking threads running through the report is that there has been no sense of responsibility and a lack of questioning inside various government departments, including by Ministers. The report says that the machinery of government and its agencies failed the victims, especially as a result of a lack of interdepartmental working. Fragmentation and a lack of curiosity resulted in inaction, delay and obfuscation, and this cost lives. This criticism also came up in the Infected Blood Inquiry, the Hillsborough report, and the Post Office Horizon report. That is why, from these Benches, we have long advocated for a duty of candour, and we are pleased that the Government have committed to introducing it. Can the Minister say when this legislation will appear?

In the meantime, what changes have been made to ensure that civil servants and public agencies ensure that Ministers are always told the truth, however uncomfortable it may be? Specifically on building safety, can the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to ensure that everyone across government knows who is in charge, and how the current culture can be changed to ensure that no more tragedies like Grenfell can happen again?

The failures of the construction sector—whether regulators, manufacturing companies, builders, maintenance or management agents—are also shocking. The 2018 Hackitt report, with 50 reforms for the sector, was accepted by both Sir Martin and the last Government, in 2019. The key was to strengthen the golden thread of safety running throughout the sector, from manufacturing to regulation and training. When will there be an update to Parliament on the implementations of the Hackitt recommendations? In particular, can the Minister say when she expects the Government to appoint a cladding safety tsar, as proposed by Dame Judith?

At the heart of this report is the evidence of the poor treatment of individuals, especially those already marginalised in our society. Sir Martin speaks of

“a marked lack of respect for human decency and dignity”,

with

“those immediately affected feeling abandoned by authority and utterly helpless”.

These words could also be written about the other inquiry reports, such as those on Windrush and infected blood. This widespread lack of respect challenges all involved in public policy management, whether Ministers, politicians or officials, to change our attitudes. Central government must take a lead in bringing about this change, which requires a fundamental change in mindset. This will take time and commitment, but it is crucially important.

In this case, the tenant management organisation failed badly. Never again should social housing tenants be regarded as not worthy of safe housing. Never again should the vulnerable, especially the elderly and disabled, be regarded as not worthy of safety systems to get them out of burning buildings. In the light of the Dagenham fire two weeks ago, where there were locked exits and problems with the fire alarms, what are the Government doing to ensure that all blocks of flats, regardless of height, have working fire systems without delay?

Seven years on from the Grenfell fire, the delays in the removal of combustible cladding are now a national disgrace. As the noble Lord pointed out, the previous Government committed funds and said that they wanted to knock together the heads of the building firms and freeholders. But clearly more still needs to happen, and urgently. So what will this Government do to speed up the process of making safe the hundreds of blocks that still have inadequate cladding?

It is vital that the police and the CPS move at pace to review the report and investigate the individuals and organisations that Sir Martin says deliberately breached the law. Given the pressures on the police and the CPS, will the Government ensure that there are no further delays because they lack the resources to do the work? Justice further delayed is justice denied, and there have been enough delays already.

The Government have pledged to act on more than 50 recommendations in the report. Despite their initial commitments to move on them all, there is a danger that momentum may not be maintained, as we have seen with the recommendations of the Hackitt report. So can the Leader of the House commit to a full debate in your Lordships’ House in the near future, and then a regular report back to Parliament, so that everybody can feel safe in their homes and those who behaved so appallingly in this case can be held to account?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments. I think the House is united, first, in an apology and, secondly, in determination and a sense of anger. As I read the inquiry report and felt that disappointment and sadness about it, the further I read, the angrier I got. It is quite hard to sustain anger, but by the end I was more than just bristling with anger, and I think anybody who read it felt exactly the same. So I am grateful for all the comments.

I will take the last point first. Yes, we commit to a debate in the House. This addresses points made by both noble Lords. The Prime Minister has committed to an update, within six months, on where we have got to, but there are things that can be done sooner and, where they can, they will be implemented sooner, with an annual update to the House. So there will be a regular update, and there will be an early debate, although I will not attempt to identify when; I leave that to the Chief Whip, who will come back.

The noble Lord will know that the height of buildings referred to in the report is currently 18 metres, but we have to see whether that is the appropriate level.

On when secondary legislation will come forward, it is being drafted now and there will be measures in the renters reform Bill to bring that forward. The police and the CPS will have the resources they need to do this job. Justice has been denied for far too long, and this should move on apace. Anyone who read the interviews with police officers involved in the investigations would have sensed their determination and commitment. Anybody who has spoken to the families or anyone affected will be nothing but moved and determined to support and help them. I went to one of the hearings in Church House. There is always a sense of guilt: when you hear something and are deeply moved by it, you realise what it must have been like to be there at the time, even though all you are doing is hearing it and being deeply moved at that point. So there is an absolute determination that resources will not prevent proper investigations and prosecutions.

The duty of candour will come forward. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, is right to raise this: there does seem to be a theme of people being ignored or not taken seriously. Many years ago, when I was a Minister in Northern Ireland, there was a report into the deaths of children in hospitals there. The first recommendation for the Northern Ireland Government was that there should be a duty of candour—in other words, for public servants to tell the truth. That also protects junior members of staff, who may feel under pressure from more senior members not to say exactly what they know. Bringing that forward, I was pleased to see that in our manifesto.

On the management of buildings and how we manage public policy, it is worrying to read the report and see how many opportunities there were to prevent this happening. Information was withheld, including information on the testing of combustible materials. The culture change on this starts from the top. Ministers have to be told uncomfortable facts and create a climate in their departments whereby, if they are brought information that is not what they want to hear, that is difficult and uncomfortable, when action has to be taken by government and may be expensive, that information will be brought to them and members of their departments will be encouraged to do so.

On the removal of cladding, we are accelerating that process. It is a tragedy that in Dagenham that work was ongoing and had not been completed, which also caused a problem. There is the scale of the challenge—4,630 residential buildings over 11 metres have been identified as having unsafe cladding—yet, so far, all these years on, only 50% have either started or completed that remediation work. That has to continue apace, and we must do so as quickly as possible. There is now a route to do so, and access to government funding, as well as a way of identifying whether any buildings have been missed there.

NATO and European Political Community Meetings

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement and begin by saying that we share the Government’s sentiments in their tributes to President Biden.

I welcome this Statement, not least because of its tone. In the last Parliament, we became used to gushing prime ministerial Statements that made grandiose assertions about Britain’s role in the world, which often seemed at odds with reality. Today’s Statement adopts a much more matter-of-fact tone, which seems more in keeping with our global position as a nation. It seems to me that this more realistic degree of national self-awareness is a much sounder basis on which to base our foreign and defence policies.

On the specific issues discussed at the NATO summit, the war in Ukraine remains the biggest threat to European peace and security. We therefore welcome the Government’s ongoing commitment to supporting Ukraine militarily and financially, and in moving towards NATO membership.

Meanwhile, the situation in Gaza goes from bad to worse. We obviously welcome the Government’s commitment to an immediate ceasefire and their practical decision to resume support to UNRWA, but we believe they should go further now by ending arms exports to Israel and recognising a Palestinian state. On the ICJ opinion, we are pleased to hear the Prime Minister’s reiteration of UK support for the work of the court. I therefore hope that the Government will respect all its judgments. We must not get ourselves into the position of supporting the work of the court only when it delivers politically convenient opinions.

The overarching challenge now facing NATO is how Europe should respond to a possible US retreat from its European commitments. That would be an immediate challenge were President Trump to be elected, but in the longer term even Democrat presidents, faced with an increasing preoccupation with China, are likely to give less priority to the defence of Europe. Europe is therefore going to have to stand on its own feet on defence to a greater extent than at any point since World War II, and the sooner we accept this and proactively plan to do so, the better.

That is one reason why we support the strategic defence review. We hope that it will agree with us that a top priority must be to increase the size and operational capability of the Army, and that the previous Government’s so-called tilt to the east was a mistaken attempt to pretend that we had a global military reach—which we simply do not have—and should now be reversed.

The Prime Minister was fortunate in the timing of the European Political Community summit last week, in that it gave him an early opportunity to begin to reset our relationship with our European neighbours, and particularly with the EU. It is a pleasure to be able to agree with the Government that we need to be in the room when the EU discusses security, migration and climate change, but we would welcome any indication from the Leader as to when the Government anticipate that this active participation will start. Has any timetable been agreed?

As the Leader and the House know, while we are pleased that the Government are adopting a more positive tone in respect of the EU, we do not think they are going far or fast enough in building our relationships. It is intensely depressing to me to hear the Prime Minister ruling out freedom of movement and membership of the single market or customs union almost as an article of faith. It is equally depressing that the Government seem unwilling to take smaller steps such as reinstating EU youth exchange arrangements, which are clearly beneficial for the UK and the EU alike.

The Prime Minister says that he is taking a practical rather than an ideological view of our relations with the EU. If that is indeed the case, can the Leader assure us that the Prime Minister will look practically and not ideologically at a further series of steps to restore our European links?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments and questions. Indeed, I share the Leader of the Opposition’s comments about violence in political discourse and the attack on President Trump. Whenever we see such attacks, the world is shocked and holds its breath for the implications it may have. We should all choose our words carefully going forward, because words do matter and can have an impact. That might apply to President Trump sometimes too, but we should all be careful because political discourse can have a wider impact than just debates. The Prime Minister spoke to President Trump very soon after that incident. It was a very convivial conversation, and he conveyed the best wishes of us all.

I also thank him for the comments he made about responses to maiden speeches. The House will have heard and appreciated what he said. I know from my exchanges with him that he always acts with the best civility on how this House behaves, and I appreciate what he said.

On Ukraine, it has been really important that your Lordships’ House, the Government, the Opposition and the other House have always been as one. It is not just important that the Government and Parliament are as one; it is also important that we say to Ukraine that the British people stand with it. Friends of mine were privileged to host a Ukrainian refugee family. There were difficult circumstances for them to come over here, but so many people across the country have opened their arms and their doors to welcome Ukrainian refugees. When President Zelensky came to the Cabinet meeting last Friday, the message was that the people of this country and whoever is in government—across both Houses—stand with Ukraine and will continue to do so for as long as it takes.

NATO is stronger than ever. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, made a comment about the contributions made by member countries. In 2014 just three countries had reached 2%. Today it is 23 out of the 32, with others having plans to do so as well. That commitment shows how its strength is growing, and how all member countries feel exactly the same as we do on how important this alliance is for us all, and why it needs to be strong.

The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that we have not dropped any commitment to 2.5% of GDP. I do not know how many times “commitment” has to be said, but it remains and always will. However, on timing, we have said that we expect the strategic defence review to report in probably the first part of next year, and that will inform how the amount is reached. It is an “if” and certainly not a “when”, and I assure him that we remain committed to that. He also talked about having another review, but the strategic defence review is fully independent. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, Fiona Hill and General Barrons are big figures in the world of defence; they know what they are talking about. I am grateful to them all for taking on that role, and we look forward to seeing their report when it is presented.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, mentioned the EPC several times. I share the congratulations and thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Ahmad and Lord Cameron, on and for the work they did in ensuring that the EPC came to this country; it was very important and it gave us, as a new Government, an opportunity to host that meeting. However, this is not just the EU—the noble Lord, Lord Newby, spoke several times about the EU, but it is important to note that the EPC is wider than the EU. The meeting was an opportunity for European leaders to get to know the new Government and understand the kind of relationships that we want to build with the leaders of all countries. It was a reset of our relationship, which will be important going forward.

The Leader of the Opposition raised the issue of Israel. As we have said so many times, it is absolutely right that Israel has the right to defend itself. How it does so is also very important—as long as it acts within international law. After the appalling attacks on 7 October, it was shocking and upsetting to hear that news coming through around the world. The way forward has to be a ceasefire; it is hard to see any way of getting all the hostages released unless there is a ceasefire. We want all the hostages to return home to their families. Anyone who met the families of those hostages when they visited your Lordships’ House will know of their deep despair, as well as their courage, as they wait for their family members to come home.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for his comments on the Prime Minister’s tone. It is quite clear that we have a Prime Minister who is thoughtful and careful in how he approaches these issues. What he wants is to work in collaboration—without conflict—by seeking common cause where it is possible to do so.

On Ukraine, we now have an irreversible path towards NATO membership. On the arms exports issue that the noble Lord raised, we will ensure that international law is fully factored into those decisions, in line with the strategic export licensing criteria.

Something I said in response to the King’s Speech was that, too often, illegal migration has been a political campaigning tool. We have to lower the rhetoric and find action that works. The Rwanda policy was hugely expensive. I know that the Leader of the Opposition wants to put the costs on those who pulled the plug, as he put it, but I note that while about £700 million has been spent so far and £10 billion was apparently factored in, only four people volunteered to go to Rwanda. Some 1,000 staff working on that have now been redeployed to work on assessing claims and returning people who have no right to be here. The new border security command is a way forward on that. The greatest deterrent for anybody who wants to come to this country is to know that, if they come here, their claim will be processed in the appropriate way and they will be returned—that is the most important thing and where we will put our efforts. Also, through the money spent in Africa and the Middle East, it is important to try to tackle the causes of why people are leaving their countries: extreme poverty, conflict and the effects of climate change, as we have said. I make no apologies whatever; we feel some pride that the Rwanda policy will not be pursued by this Government.

Allowances

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Wednesday 27th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

Israel and Gaza

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, for repeating today’s Statement. I reiterate that we recognise and appreciate his work, and the work of his ministerial and diplomatic colleagues.

I am sure the Minister will agree that it has been hard to be optimistic in recent weeks, as hostages remain under the control of Hamas and vast swathes of Gaza edge towards man-made preventable famine. The images we see on our TV screens and in the newspapers every day are no less harrowing today than they have been for many months. We must not allow the familiarity of that to lessen our sense of urgency in dealing with the ongoing conflict. Given the unimaginable suffering on both sides, it has been deeply disappointing that successive rounds of negotiations have broken up without agreement, and that the UN Security Council had previously been unable to achieve a consensus on a way forward. We therefore strongly welcome the passing of UN Security Council Resolution 2728 yesterday. The Minister’s comment about that shared sense of purpose is a significant one.

We welcome the Government’s change from abstention on other resolutions to support for this one, and recognise the significance of an abstention from the United States. We also acknowledge the Government’s statement of support for Prime Minister Mohammad Mustafa, who we hope the international community will do everything possible to support, and their commitment to doing what they can to ensure that this resolution is implemented in full. For this to be realised, and for the resolution to become a genuine and meaningful turning point, it means Hamas laying down its arms and releasing all the hostages, and Israel abiding by international calls to drastically scale up humanitarian aid.

I will follow up on questions that were raised in the other place this afternoon. MPs across the House of Commons, from all sides, asked the Minister whether the Government consider that the UN Security Council resolution is binding, and what implications this may have if its terms are not implemented. Is the Minister able to say some more on that, and outline his views on that today?

We accept that the Government want to see the resolution, including the ceasefire, succeed, but we are also trying to understand how the world responds if that is not the case. Regarding UNRWA, Minister Mitchell noted that the interim report is currently with the UN Secretary-General, and suggested that an update may be available later today. As the Shadow Foreign Secretary noted, one of the biggest issues faced by the civilians of Gaza is the distribution of the already limited aid that does get in.

We were all appalled, rightly, by the allegations against some UNRWA staff. Nevertheless, that body is best placed to ensure that finite supplies of water, food and fuel get to where they are needed most, and as quickly as possible. Can the Minister provide any updates on the UN’s work in this area and the Government’s response to it?

A further issue, raised earlier, is the advice on arms exports given to the Business Secretary by the Foreign Office. Did either department receive legal advice on the potential use of UK arms that would contravene international law? The Government have so far maintained the usual position that legal advice is not shared, and we understand that. But the Minister will be aware that summaries of advice have been published on many occasions. Most recently, he will be aware, each round of UK air strikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen has been preceded by a statement providing a summary of the legal advice. I wonder whether he has given thought to whether that could potentially be a model for the type of material that could be placed in the public domain on this occasion.

The Statement also referred to yesterday’s RAF aid drop over Gaza. The Minister said that the UK is contributing to aid initiatives, including participating in air drops co-ordinated by Jordan, but I think that this is the first time an RAF plane has been used for this purpose. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government are expecting to authorise further missions as part of an ongoing international effort to prevent catastrophic famine?

Finally, as the Minister concluded, we all recognise that the UN Security Council resolution does not guarantee peace, but its significance cannot be underestimated. It is a sign of the international community coming together, and we hope that it will be an important step towards ending the conflict and towards a lasting peace.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. As the House is aware, we on these Benches have been calling for an immediate bilateral ceasefire for a number of months. We welcome the resolution passed by the UN Security Council. Does the Minister agree that we need something more than a temporary ceasefire? We need to work to achieve a more permanent ceasefire, so that we can begin to move towards the reconstruction and political processes that are now so desperately needed.

We, like everybody else, are extremely concerned about the immense, and growing, humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. Latest figures from the IPC, for example, show that more than half of all Palestinians in Gaza—some 1.1 million people—have completely exhausted their food supplies—just think of that. We of course welcome the fact that yesterday, for the first time, the RAF started dropping food supplies directly to civilians in Gaza, but that is, at best, a partial solution. What pressure have the UK Government put on Israel, and specifically the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories—which is run by Israel—to facilitate aid into Gaza to allow an increased flow of vehicles and supplies across the Israel-Gaza border?

We welcome the recent sanction of four Israeli settlers who have committed human rights abuses against Palestinian communities in the West Bank, making peace harder to achieve. Will the Government go beyond this and now sanction all violent settlers, along with National Security Minister Ben-Gvir, Finance Minister Smotrich and all the violent settler movement’s connected entities?

Israel has agreed to a US proposal on a prisoner-hostage exchange that would release about 700 Palestinian prisoners—among them 100 serving life sentences for killing Israelis—in exchange for the release of 40 Israeli hostages held by Hamas in Gaza. Once again, Hamas has rejected it, saying that “issues remain unresolved”. An essential step to ending this conflict is the unconditional release of all hostages held by Hamas in Gaza. Will the Minister commit to using all his best efforts to urge the Qataris to require Hamas to release all the hostages, starting with these 40, about whom there appears to be a nascent agreement?

Earlier this month, my right honourable friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton wrote to the Foreign Secretary, asking him to write to the International Criminal Court to ask it to issue international arrest warrants for Hamas terrorists involved in planning the 7 October attacks. Can the Minister commit to doing this?

The UN resolution is a welcome development, but in itself it will achieve little on the ground immediately. What we need now, as we have done for many weeks, is for all the parties to put in place the ceasefire that is so long overdue and so urgently needed.

Action Against Houthi Maritime Attacks

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Wednesday 24th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[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

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 15th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[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

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Thursday 9th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[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.

Israel and Gaza

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 23rd October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for repeating today’s Statement. He will have recognised that it was welcomed across the whole House.

Last week, following the previous Statement, I met Noam and Sharone, both of whom have parents who have been taken as hostages. It is impossible to imagine how any of us would react in such circumstances, but they both bore their fear and pain with a dignity that served only to emphasise the depth of their emotions. As they still pray for their release, they also pray for peace.

The horror and the suffering of the brutal attack on 7 October are seared into memories, with images of the dead and dying that can never be unseen, and Israel remains under attack, with rockets still being launched against it. That suffering is compounded by the continuing plight of over 200 hostages, with so many families not knowing whether loved ones or friends are alive. The glimmer of hope of the release of the two American hostages was a relief beyond words for their families, and noble Lords may have heard the news in the last hour that two older women have been released by Hamas. It just shows that Hamas can and must go further. These are innocent people—men and women, young and old, some ill and infirm. We stand united with all of those who have called for their immediate release.

As I have said, we understand the individual pain of those who wait, but there is also collective pain across Israel and the Jewish community worldwide. On Friday evening in Tel Aviv, the families of the hostages came together for the traditional Friday night Shabbat dinner, with 200 empty place settings marking each and every one of those taken. It was a sombre and almost unbearable scene.

Israel has the right—indeed, the duty—to bring home all hostages being held by Hamas and to weaken the capabilities which made Black Saturday possible. A military response from Israel is justified in these circumstances, and it must be within those sacred parameters of international law and the protection of human life. It is, after all, these values, and the upholding of international norms, which separate lawful states from terrorists.

The purpose of military actions will be to deliver peaceful security. Israel’s objectives—to bring home the hostages and to protect itself by defeating Hamas—are to ensure that no one should endure such suffering again. During this period of conflict it is imperative that humanitarian aid reaches those in need and that corridors are established to allow civilians to escape violence. Where Palestinians are forced to flee, they must not be permanently displaced. Hamas may not care for the safety and security of the Palestinian people, but we should make it clear that we do. We cannot and will not ignore their suffering. Life is precious and fragile, and we must play our part.

Gaza is now a humanitarian emergency. Life was a struggle before, and now hospitals are trying to provide care without the medicines they need, and with food, water and electricity running out. It is desperate and people are suffering. Gaza needs aid and it needs it now. The “logistical and political challenges” that the Prime Minister referred to will have to be addressed urgently, because without immediate aid more will die.

The Lord Privy Seal will know that the EU has promised to treble humanitarian aid and that the US has appointed a special co-ordinator. The opening of the Rafah crossing is welcome progress, but more is needed. We welcome that the Prime Minister has announced an additional £20 million today. Is the Lord Privy Seal able to say anything more about the ongoing urgent support to get aid to where it is needed, but also to help British citizens leave? Our international standing—our ranks of humanitarian experts and our role in UN agencies—means that Britain has influence. We must use it. Alongside our international partners, we need to ensure that the UN agencies have the resources and the expertise they need, and that this is not just for the short term.

As I said last week, we all know of Jewish and Muslim leaders and those active in their communities who seek to bring people together in support of mutual understanding, acceptance and the celebration of shared and diverse religious views and cultures. Yet when someone is afraid to leave their home for fear of attack or abuse, we must stand side by side with them. When someone is attacked, not for what they have said or done but for the very essence of their being, we stand with them. Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia have no place in the UK. All of us must unite in condemnation of those who seek to exploit the pain of the other community.

When we debated the Statement last week, we were rightly totally united in our support for Israel to protect itself against Hamas. We unite for a future where Israel can live free from the fear of terror and where the children of Palestine can enjoy the freedoms and opportunities that we take for granted. The Lord Privy Seal is right to place so much emphasis on the two-state solution, but it can be a reality only when Israel and Palestine have confidence in a peaceful future—a future based on a two-state solution of a safe and secure Israel alongside the dignity of a Palestinian state, a future where peace can be a reality, and a future which together we have to work to deliver.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. I commend the Prime Minister not only for visiting Israel but for undertaking a series of meetings in Egypt. At the beginning of the Statement, the Prime Minister set out the twin tracks of our immediate response to the crisis, both of which we support—namely, supporting Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorist attacks and the need to do so in line with international humanitarian law, taking every possible step to avoid harming civilians.

The Prime Minister takes three principal messages from his meetings in the region. The first is the need to work together to get more international aid into Gaza. We agree, but are baffled and frustrated as to why this is not yet happening at scale. The Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Archbishop of Canterbury have called for a temporary humanitarian ceasefire to allow essential supplies to reach Gaza and to provide time for the negotiation of the release of hostages by Hamas. We agree with this call. Do the Government also agree that such an initiative is now needed and, if not, why not? One of the problems around the supply of aid appears to be the constraints at the Rafah crossing. Given that Gaza has a long coastline and that the UK, the US and other allies have warships in the area, is there any reason why humanitarian supplies cannot be landed by sea? Again, a humanitarian ceasefire could surely facilitate such a move.

The second message the Prime Minister received was that this is not a time for hyperbole and simplistic solutions but for quiet, dogged diplomacy, and that the UK is in a strong position to play a full part in this because of its deep ties across the region. This is surely true and should be the basis of the UK’s response, not just by the Prime Minister and other Ministers but by our diplomats across the region. Is the Minister satisfied that our diplomatic representation is adequate for this task? Have the Government any plans to beef up the number of diplomatic staff who could be engaged in this work?

The third message was to invest more deeply in regional stability and the two-state solution. This again is welcome. Did the Prime Minister discuss with Prime Minister Netanyahu the need to commit to the two-state solution and, if so, what was his response? As the Prime Minister points out, if the two-state solution is to be achieved, this will require more effective governance of the Palestinian territories and a situation where Hamas does not control any of them. Sadly, we are very far away from that today. Worse than that, there are very few practical steps which can be envisaged, in the short term at least, that are likely to bring this more closely to fruition.

The immediate prospects are truly exceptionally bleak. Intensified Israeli military action looks unavoidable. This will cause many civilian casualties in Gaza and probably many casualties among Israeli forces. In the north of Israel, intensified Hezbollah attacks look highly likely.

In planning its next steps, Israel must—at the same time—seek to hit Hamas hard, do so while minimising civilian deaths, and try to avoid igniting a greater conflagration. Getting this right will be exceptionally difficult. I suspect that none of us in your Lordships’ House would like to be a senior military or political decision-maker in Israel today, trying to make those really difficult judgments and strike that almost impossible balance.

Finally, we stand with the Prime Minister in supporting the Jewish community in the UK. We can understand why events in recent days have roused passions on both sides; but now is also a time for tolerance and for determination to seek a way forward that will make a repetition of the events of the past fortnight simply unimaginable.

Israel and Gaza

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 16th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for repeating today’s Statement and for providing updates on the Government’s actions and the co-operation taking place, as I am aware, with other countries. I share his total condemnation of Hamas’s appalling and ongoing attacks on Israel.

When we heard the initial news just over a week ago, the accounts of unimaginable horror and suffering, and of hostages being taken, were deeply shocking. The senseless murder of men, women, children and babies is hard to comprehend. Those images of 250 young people targeted and killed while celebrating a Jewish holiday at a music festival are impossible to understand. As each day unfolds, every Member of this House will have seen film and photographs showing the suffering and horror, in a way that words can never convey.

In Israel, and now in Gaza, innocent citizens are grieving for their lost and injured loved ones; there is so much pain and suffering. It is imperative that both this House and our Parliament as a whole speak with one voice against such terror and for the dignity of all human life; and that we stand with Israel in solidarity and support of its right to defend itself, to rescue the hostages and to protect its civilians. As long as Hamas has the capability to carry out attacks on Israeli territory, there is no safety. Yet what makes this harder to bear is that that is the very reason for the existence of Israel. As the Lord Privy Seal said, it is more than a homeland; it was there to ensure that what happened in the Holocaust could never happen again. Some in your Lordships’ House will have friends and family who have moved to Israel, permanently or temporarily. For many, it provided a sense of belonging and affirmation of their Jewish identity; they wanted security and peace. Yet Hamas has no interest in peace and is not protecting Palestinians.

Let us be clear—the Lord Privy Seal emphasised this point too: Hamas is not the Palestinian people, and the Palestinian people are not Hamas. So, as we support the right, and indeed the duty, of Israel to defend itself and to seek to bring the hostages home, we must also recognise that it is both Israelis and Palestinians who are suffering terribly because of Hamas’s actions. That is where the responsibility for this crisis lies squarely: with Hamas. Terrorism can never be justified; it can never be excused. Hamas is not protecting the security of the people of Gaza as it unleashes terror and then hides behind them. It should release all the hostages.

We welcome the steps taken by this Government to support Israel’s response and the additional aid funding announced today. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said:

“We democracies distinguish ourselves from terrorists by striving for a different standard—even when it’s difficult”—


and it is never more difficult than this.

We also agree with the Government that Israel’s defence must be conducted in accordance with international law. Civilians must not be targeted, and innocent lives must be protected. Humanitarian corridors are required and humanitarian access, including to food and water, electricity and medicines, is needed to save lives. There must be proper protection for those who put themselves in danger to deliver such aid and medical help. Can the Lord Privy Seal provide the most up-to-date information he has on the status of the Rafah crossing in that area?

These attacks are also having a huge impact across the UK. Many of us will have heard desperate accounts from those whose loved ones have been killed or are missing. They are worried for the lives and the future of friends and family in Israel and Palestine. The sharp increase in anti-Semitic incidents, and reports of Islamophobic threats and abuse, must be denounced in the strongest possible terms. When I heard that Jewish schools were closing out of fear for the safety of pupils and that Jewish people were hiding their identity in public, I was not only shocked and angry but deeply saddened. Many Jews and Muslims have worked within the wider community to bring people together, to foster understanding and acceptance of our differences and to celebrate both shared and diverse religious views and cultures.

We must support them and share responsibility with them, because we cannot allow our community cohesion to be destroyed. Over the past week, we have seen images and heard personal, direct accounts of the absolute true horror of these attacks, and it has been deeply distressing.

Let us be clear: we condemn the terror of Hamas and reiterate that it does not represent the Palestinian people. Hamas’s brutality only escalates the problems and destroys lives, hope and the pursuit of peace. We continue to support and strive for a two-state solution: a Palestinian state alongside a safe and secure Israel.

The time ahead will be so difficult and challenging. In absolute defiance of the brutality of Hamas, the UK must stand with Israel, for international law, for international co-operation and for the protection of innocent lives. We remain united in those values.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, we were all horrified to wake up 10 days ago to see the dreadful scenes of violence in Israel. The scale of Hamas’s terrorist activities has been beyond belief, and we condemn it unequivocally. The abduction and degradation of hostages, including women and children, are particularly appalling. We echo demands for the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages, and abhor the suggestion that they should be used as bargaining chips. We think particularly of those British citizens currently missing, who may be among those being held hostage today.

I have no personal connection with the region, but 50 years ago this month, as a student, I made a visit under the auspices of a UN youth and student association to Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. On the day the Yom Kippur War broke out, as a guest of the Israeli Government, I was on a visit to the Golan Heights. I heard and witnessed the start of the Syrian attack in that war. It is therefore a source of profound sadness to me that in the intervening 50 years, so little has been done to deal with the root causes of this conflict.

The impact of the atrocities on families in Israel, but also the wider community abroad, is understandably profound. We stand in solidarity with the Jewish community in the UK, in Israel and around the world, who now feel fear and grief. We utterly condemn the anti-Semitic incidents in the UK, which have tragically increased in recent days. We welcome the additional support the Government have committed to the Community Security Trust and their assurance that the police will take firm action to deal with hate crime and the glorification of terror.

Israel has, without question, a right in international law to defend its territory and citizens, and we fully support that right, but it is also vital that terrorists are now targeted, not civilians—again, in line with international law. Many innocent Palestinian civilians have been killed in recent days in Gaza, and the whole population now live in fear of attack.

They also face an absence of essential supplies. I believe that water supplies have been reinstated, but the same does not, I think, apply to food and electricity. Do the Government agree with the UN Secretary-General’s comment that the entry of supplies into Gaza must now be facilitated—again, in accordance with international law? It is also vital that the Government make humanitarian aid available with immediate effect, and it is good that extra funds are being made available for this purpose. But when the Government say that £10 million is an increase of a third in humanitarian aid to the Palestinians, does the noble Lord accept that this is a third of a figure that has been cut by 90% as a result of the Government’s overall aid cuts, and that a mere £10 million will simply not be nearly enough? Can the Government explain how they intend physically to get the aid to the people who need it?

The Prime Minister said he had spoken to President Sisi about British citizens being able to leave Gaza via the Rafah crossing. The crossing remains closed, but the Prime Minister implied that it might soon reopen, at least for foreign nationals. Is that a correct interpretation of the present situation? Looking beyond the current crisis, the people of Israel and Palestine have an equal right to live free from fear, and the UK and its partners in the international community therefore simply cannot allow a return to the status quo ante. We agree with the Prime Minister that if we are to bring violence to an end once and for all, it is for countries such as ours, which has long-standing ties to the region, to take a leading role in bringing about lasting peace based on a two-state solution. It is vital that the Government look to the longer term today, as well as to the immediate, in this most crucial moment.

G20 Summit

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Tuesday 12th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Security Update

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 11th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Thursday 8th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, before we move on to further business, I will refer to events yesterday. As noble Lords will be aware, the House sat until 4.20 am this morning. In my 26 years in your Lordships’ House, I cannot remember a Committee stage going so late. When the House has sat very late in recent times, it has been because of extreme and legitimate time pressures to get legislation on to the statute book.

I do not think that debating extremely important legislation in the middle of the night is sensible or acceptable in the absence of unavoidable time pressures. It is even less acceptable given that there was no agreement in advance, at least from these Benches and, I believe, the Cross Benches, on what sitting “late” meant. There was also clearly inadequate communication with the Lord Speaker’s office, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, the last Deputy Speaker to be rostered, found himself having to sit on the Woolsack for a continuous six hours.

I therefore have several questions for the Leader. Will he explain what urgency impelled him to believe it necessary for the House to sit so late? Does he believe that it is acceptable for staff to have to work until 4.20 am and then to expect the House to be fully operational by 11 am this morning? Does he accept that, as a self-regulating House, all groups in the House need to be informed in good time of the Government’s proposals for sitting and rising times? Can he give an assurance that the House will not sit into the early hours again except in cases of extreme urgency? Finally, will he agree to an early meeting with group leaders, the Convenor and Whips to discuss how we can avoid such circumstances as occurred last night being repeated during the lifetime of this Parliament?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is quite clear that, while some Members may be looking fresh-faced, bright and breezy this morning, others are looking a bit bleary-eyed. The difficulty with very late—or, I should say, early morning—sittings is that they exclude Members who have contributions to make who cannot remain as late.

This is a complex and controversial Bill that we are discussing, which needs examination and scrutiny. May I put forward three suggestions? First, we still have no impact assessment for the Bill. It has been through the Commons; it is now in Committee here and we have Report to come. It would be very helpful if the noble Baroness could commit that, before we get to Report, the impact assessment will be ready. The guidance on legislation says that it should be ready at the start of a Bill’s consideration; I do not think it unreasonable to ask to have the impact assessment before Report.

Secondly, I appreciate that the Minister is relatively new to his job, but I hope he will come to recognise that the House appreciates full answers, co-operation and collaboration. It is possible to disagree agreeably. That kind of co-operation across the House would help the passage of a Bill that is contentious.

Thirdly, it would be helpful to the entire House if all of us, when speaking—and to coin a phrase from the radio—avoided hesitation, repetition and deviation. My noble friend Lord Kennedy has been giving this a great deal of thought—he had until 4.30 am to do so. It would be helpful to have an early meeting of the usual channels to look for a way forward. We recognise that the Government want to get their legislation through and to proceed in a timely manner, but we also want to have the proper debate and discussion that we need.

I agree that, if we are sitting late, it is a courtesy to Parliament as a whole that the caterers, doorkeepers, Lord Speaker’s office and others involved be made aware of that—if there is any possibility of it happening again.

G7 Summit

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Wednesday 24th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Northern Ireland Protocol

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Tuesday 28th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

“a positive, constructive relationship as partners”

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

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

Counsellors of State Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

COP 27

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Perhaps I will wait a moment for the House to settle as there does not seem to be as much interest in COP 27 as there was in the regency Bill.

My Lords, I welcome that the Prime Minister raised the case of Alaa Abd el-Fattah with the Egyptian President when he was at COP. The Leader of the House will be aware from my intervention last week how concerned we are for his welfare in your Lordships’ House. The news yesterday that Alaa is alive and, although he remains on hunger strike, is now drinking water, is to be welcomed. However, after being on hunger strike and not eating for so long, he is obviously weakened, and his family remain extremely concerned and desperate for Alaa’s release. Following that, and because the Prime Minister raised it at Sharm el-Sheikh, is the noble Lord able to tell us today what further action or representations the Government have made since that meeting? Has consular access now been granted?

Returning to the substance of COP 27, when I heard the Prime Minister’s Statement, I was struck by how optimistic and confident he appears on the issue. Perhaps this is why he initially felt it was not necessary for him to attend. I am all for being optimistic and the need to be hopeful about the future, but such a world-view needs to be rooted in reality. The Prime Minister admits in the Statement, as those who have read it will know, that:

“There is … a long way to go to limit global temperature rises to”


1.5 degrees centigrade, but he then praises the “historic Glasgow climate pact” for keeping “that goal within reach”. I must say that keeping a goal within reach does not sound like such a great commitment when the situation is so very serious. If it always remains just within reach, we will never get there.

The UN reports that the world is currently on course for a catastrophic 2.8 degrees centigrade rise in temperatures—almost double the recommendation—in part because the promises made in Glasgow were not met. In recent times, we have seen the consequences and human cost of climate change. Your Lordships will be aware of the floods, which were seen most recently in Pakistan, that leave death and destruction in their wake, and we have seen temperatures, particularly over the last summer, so hot that life and livelihoods are threatened. So often, those who are most affected are also the least able to prepare for, or cope with, the consequences.

In addition, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the resulting war have shown just how crucial it is that we protect and enhance the security of our energy supply. Without that greater security, costs are going to rise even higher, and blackouts and power cuts remain a threat. In the Statement, the Prime Minister referred to the UK as a pioneer, as being “ambitious”, and as being a leader in the global war on climate change. There is an opportunity to be all those things, and pioneering such generational change, as we tackle the challenges of the climate emergency, could improve and transform our economy and energy resilience. So the Prime Minister’s assertion at COP 27 that we need to “act faster” on renewables is very welcome. However, given that assertion, can the Lord Privy Seal explain why, at the same time, Ministers were repeatedly ruling out onshore wind? On the one hand, the Prime Minister is saying that we are going to “act faster” on renewables and, on the other, Ministers are ruling out onshore wind—this does not make much sense. It is the quickest, cheapest and cleanest of renewables, but it is absent from the Government’s energy strategy. How does this match Mr Sunak’s speech at COP 27, or is it just that he was speaking to a different audience on a different day?

This is not just a matter of global responsibility; it is also a matter of seizing opportunities. Manufacturing and installing onshore wind could provide huge economic and energy boosts. Have the Government made any assessment—it is important that we get an answer on this specific point—of the number of quality green jobs that could be created by reversing government policy and embracing onshore wind? I hope that the Government have also been looking into what boost that could give the British economy in the longer term.

The noble Lord may be aware that my own party has committed to a genuinely world-leading plan for 100% clean power by 2030. That is ambitious, but in the same way as past generations were excited by, and embraced, new technologies for future prosperity, we must do the same. If we fail to invest in new technologies—for example, in green hydrogen, floating wind turbines, gigafactories, new nuclear, clean steel or tidal power—we will fail the next generation on every level. As we face the prospect of another austerity Budget, the Government could use this opportunity to boost green manufacturing. We have such a good record in this country on research, yet we continue to import the batteries—such as those for cars—that we should be manufacturing here in the UK. Can the Lord Privy Seal offer any hope or reassurance that the upcoming austerity Budget will include some long-term economic planning for investment in the technologies of the future and green growth?

Surely the Government have to up their game and bring in a more effective windfall tax on excess profits of oil companies that does what it says on the tin and not return 90p in every pound of investment in tax breaks. Our calculations have found that increasing the windfall tax as we originally proposed and extending it to 2027-28, eliminating that loophole for oil and gas companies, could bring in an extra £34 billion on top of the £28 billion currently expected by the Government. With cuts and tax rises expected this week, why do Ministers not pursue this course of action, which would help our finances and energy security and address our needs and our obligations on the climate emergency?

No one should deny that there is an emergency, and the Statement from the Prime Minister recognises that, but so far, although we have seen a recognition, we have not seen the ambition needed to make that step change towards green energy and green growth. We need to create that new clean industrial strategy for the future. Just saying that something is the case does not make it true. If the Government are serious about leading on this issue—and I hope they are—in planning for a green, clean and prosperous future, we need to see a Budget that not only understands that but lays the foundations to ensure that it happens.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, more than anything else, the Statement demonstrates the value of the Prime Minister going to COP 27 at all. Leaving aside the business of the conference itself, the Prime Minister lauds the fact that his attendance enabled him to meet a raft of world leaders for the first time. Nine are mentioned specifically. It also enabled him to raise non-climate related issues, from the plight of Alaa Abd el-Fattah to the refugee crisis in the channel. Had he not been forced by external pressures to reverse his initial intention to ignore the conference altogether, these opportunities would have been missed. I hope that that the Prime Minister has learned the lesson that, to promote British interests internationally, he has to take every opportunity to meet his counterparts beyond sporadic, bilateral visits. Sadly, however, the fact that the Prime Minister went to COP 27 only under duress has undermined the UK’s reputation as a leader in the fight against climate change. The world simply does not think that the Prime Minister’s heart is in it.

On the substance of the conference, there have obviously been some positive developments, such as the new investment plan for cleaner energy in South Africa. But there are worrying suggestions that both India and China are trying to push back on the 1.5 degree target, claiming that it is unrealistic. Will the Prime Minister use the current G20 summit to press his counterparts in India and China to stick to their climate change commitments rather than reneging on them?

As for activity in the UK, the Statement is extremely complacent. The Prime Minister claims that the Government will

“accelerate our transition to renewables”

but, if this is the case, to echo the noble Baroness, why has he turned his back on the cheapest and cleanest form of renewable—namely, onshore wind? Why are the Government still supporting new oil and gas exploration in the North Sea, against the advice of the International Energy Agency?

The Prime Minister talks about “our green industrial revolution”, but the UK is lagging far behind France and Germany, for example, in investment in new technologies such as battery production and green hydrogen. This is not only bad for the environment but extremely bad for jobs, which, in the absence of our developing competitive facilities, will move offshore. We have already seen BMW’s decision to move electric Mini production to China. What assurance can the Government give car producers in the UK that they will be able to procure batteries manufactured in the UK, given the parlous financial state of the few battery production facilities now planned? The UK also lags behind the rest of Europe in its production of heat pumps, an essential component in driving down domestic energy consumption. Given that this has resulted in an acute shortage of heat pumps, what action are the Government planning to deal with this urgent problem?

The Prime Minister also talks about up to 500,000 high-skilled green jobs, but there is currently, according to PwC, a 41,000 green skills job gap. Where are the new workers going to come from, given the dire state of apprenticeships in green technologies, a lack of labour force planning and a lack of engagement with educational institutions? Do the Government understand that for companies to invest in and retain skilled staff, they need consistency in government policy, not least in respect of price and subsidy? Zig-zagging on policy in recent years has led many companies in, for example, the solar power sector, to lay off skilled workers because they have not had any certainty about their future operating environment.

The next major international conference on sustainability is the UN Conference on Biological Diversity, to be held next month in Montreal. Will the Minister tell us which senior UK Minister will be attending this crucial next step from COP 27? The Prime Minister managed to salvage some of his and the Government’s reputation by finally turning up at COP 27 but, both domestically and internationally, perceptions of the UK Government’s commitment to reaching net zero have been damaged and more action is now needed to prove the doubters wrong.

Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Friday 9th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord True, has spoken for us all in his very moving tribute to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. That we should feel not just grief and sadness but shock at the passing of our Queen at the age of 96 is extraordinary. It is not just our nations that are deeply shaken. Across the world, from great leaders to schoolchildren, we all feel that we have lost something special from our lives. It was so finely illustrated last night as, around the globe, lights dimmed, flags were flown at half-mast and national monuments were illuminated.

As the most recognisable face in the world, Her Majesty has been a fixed point at the core of our national life. As the world has changed almost beyond recognition during the 70 years of her reign, through her experience, her character and steadfast sense of duty, the Queen was able to remain a constant and unwavering presence while still ensuring that the monarchy adapted to the challenges of the modern age. It was not just her longevity and the span of history she lived through but how she represented and served the nations of the UK and the Commonwealth that have earned such admiration and affection.

The noble Lord, Lord True, spoke of that remarkable 21st birthday speech, when she dedicated her life, be it long or short, to our service and, as she said, to make us

“more free, more prosperous, more happy and a more powerful influence for good in the world”.

She saw that commitment as a joint endeavour, as she added:

“But I shall not have strength to carry out this resolution alone unless you join in it with me.”


And we did. That is why we mourn her loss so deeply today.

When Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary was born, few could have predicted the life ahead of her. Her father King George VI’s succession to the Throne was sudden and unexpected. Despite feeling unprepared, his general devotion and commitment to his country, to the Commonwealth and all its people earned him great warmth and admiration, particularly during the trauma of the war years. The then Princess Elizabeth also readily absorbed her new responsibilities. We should not underestimate the impact of her first public broadcast, at the age of 14, on the BBC’s “Children’s Hour” to those evacuated overseas during the Second World War.

Her Majesty later qualified as a mechanic and driver with the women’s branch of the British Army, the ATS. Apparently, the Government did not approve, believing that her most important training should be as heir to the Throne, not as a mechanic, yet her determination in insisting that she wanted to serve her country was an early sign of the great Queen she would become. And, having served in the ATS, on VE Day the two Royal Princesses were as excited as anyone. Her Majesty later spoke of joining the crowds in Whitehall, where they mingled anonymously with those linking arms and singing. In a world without mobile phones or selfies, I wonder how many thought that the two young women celebrating with them looked just like the Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret.

It is wonderful how she reached across the generations. My parents and grandparents would speak of her and her father’s dedication to the country during the war. As the first monarch of the television age, she and the Duke of Edinburgh ensured that her Coronation was the first ever to be broadcast across the world, as she pioneered the Christmas Day televised message. She connected with and was visible to each new generation in a way no monarch has ever done before, even when having to resort to Zoom during the pandemic. Her arrival at the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympic Games, where she appeared to be parachuted into the stadium with James Bond, was as surprising as it was delightful, and the nation was just enchanted by her sharing of tea and marmalade sandwiches with Paddington Bear for her Platinum Jubilee.

That sense of fun enhanced her reputation as a monarch who connected with and understood her people. Of her 15 Prime Ministers, the first was born over a century before the last. At their weekly audiences, she was so much more than a willing confidante with absolute discretion. Her experience gave her a knowledge and an intuitive understanding of domestic and international issues. At home and abroad, she presented the best of us. President Barack Obama, one of the 14 US Presidents of her lifetime, said:

“Queen Elizabeth II embodied the special relationship”.


But she was so much more than a figurehead. Her historic visits to the Republic of Ireland in 2011 and Northern Ireland in 2012 were of global significance and further proof of her diplomatic skills. It is enormously valued that Her Majesty never spoke publicly of her views on a political or policy issue. She maintained a dignified privacy of thought and displayed strict impartiality. If it was frustrating at times, it never showed.

As Head of State, she symbolised that our common values are greater than any divisions. Many in your Lordships’ House will have memories of meetings with Queen Elizabeth that they will treasure and will share during tributes in your Lordships’ House. More importantly, up and down and across the country—indeed, all over the world—people who met her, spoke to her or just saw her in person are also sharing their memories. Our affection for Her Majesty is not the demanded affection of deference to a monarch of the past, but is freely given for a monarch who, in an era of great change and some turbulence, provided precious stability and continuity. Although we are united in sorrow, we are also united in pride and in celebrating the life of a remarkable Queen.

It is the end of a great Elizabethan age. We send our very sincere condolences to all members of the Royal Family on their profound loss, especially to His Majesty. We join the noble Lord, the Lord Privy Seal, in the hope that the love, respect and admiration of your Lordships’ House, the country, the Commonwealth and all across the world, provides some comfort in their loss.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, it is only a matter of weeks since your Lordships’ House met to pay tribute to the Queen on the occasion of her Platinum Jubilee. On that occasion, we knew that the Queen was already in frail health, but nobody contemplated that her reign had such a short period ahead of it. Because the Queen is the only monarch most people have known and was a permanent, reassuring presence in a challenging and rapidly changing world, her death has clearly come to millions as a great shock. For all but the oldest among us, a hitherto ever-present feature of British life has been removed and a deep sense of loss is felt not just by my generation, but by many of our children and grandchildren, for whom one might have thought that the Queen was a distant and possibly irrelevant figure.

What was the basis of this universal appeal? I suggest that it is because she demonstrated qualities that appeal across and down the ages. She was constant. As the world changed, as Prime Ministers and Presidents came and went, she exuded a sense of serenity and calm and, in times of national trauma and tragedy, a sense that these difficulties were surmountable, that they should be met with fortitude and that they would pass. She was unwavering in her commitment to the service of the nation and to her duty to represent its traditions and values, but she was sensitive to changing times, realising that the monarchy too had to change—had to be more open, more accessible and more accountable for everything it did. She was empathetic. For someone whose daily life was as different as it is possible to be from that of the vast majority of her subjects, she had an ability to communicate with them as individuals, to put them at ease and to make them feel truly special.

She had a great sense of humour. This no doubt helped her deal with the vagaries of her own life, but she used it effortlessly to defuse potentially difficult situations and to put the thousands of people she met at ease. She had a zest for life and for the role she had been allotted. Just look at the picture taken earlier this week as she met the new Prime Minister. That smile was genuine and heartwarming. Finally, she appealed to people’s better natures. Every year in her Christmas broadcast, she championed the values of community, generosity, kindness and service to others. We politicians share these values, but the nature of political debate means that we rarely articulate them. The country also shares them and looked to the Queen to champion them, which she unfailingly did.

These qualities were underpinned by two constants in her own life. The first, as we heard, was her marriage to Prince Philip, whom she repeatedly called her rock. For anyone who saw them together, there was no doubting that this was indeed the case. The second was her religious faith. This not only provided a source of strength and comfort for her but underpinned her approach to being the monarch. There is, in the Book of Common Prayer, the evocative concept of an individual’s “bounden duty”. The Queen applied this concept not only to her spiritual life but to her public role. She understood the importance of that duty for a monarch and she fulfilled her duties, one might say, religiously—literally to the end of her life.

As we remember the Queen, we also have in our thoughts, His Majesty King Charles—how strange it is to be using those words—Prince William and all other members of the Royal Family. We send them our condolences and good wishes for the difficult days ahead. We have lived our lives in the Elizabethan age, and how fortunate we have been to do so.

CHOGM, G7 and NATO Summits

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 4th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, and I am sure the whole House welcomes that we are able to put our differences aside to unite in support of Ukraine against Putin’s aggression, just as allies have been able to do so at the G7 and NATO this past week.

Because this shocking war continues, we cannot afford to lose focus on this issue, so we fully welcome the reaffirming of opposition to the invasion and the new steps taken to support Ukraine’s resistance. However, for as much as we should all welcome the unity on display in Madrid and the Bavarian Alps, it is disappointing that the Prime Minister used CHOGM to launch an unsuccessful and completely unnecessary campaign to remove the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth: our colleague and a Member of your Lordships’ House, my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland. He should have been focusing on uniting members rather than stoking divisions, especially when it was clear that his was not a majority view. Can I press the noble Baroness and seek an assurance? Now that this issue has been resolved, I would like her to assure the House that the PM fully recognises the decision of the Commonwealth to support my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland, and, along with others, will give full support to her and the work that she and others will have to undertake. I would be grateful if she could make that assurance, because we all want to ensure the success of the Commonwealth.

This year’s 26th Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Kigali was all the more important given that it had been postponed since 2020. It was hosted by the latest addition to the Commonwealth, Rwanda, so was another reminder of the diversity among members. But it also reminded us of the inequality among members. The communiqué’s focus, therefore, on governance, human rights and the rule of law, sustainability, health, youth, and technology and innovation made for very fitting themes. But the agreements they come to have to lead to some tangible actions, particularly when the Commonwealth is now lagging so far behind on the sustainable development goals. Can the noble Baroness commit to updating this House on progress towards meeting the actions for this year’s CHOGM before the next meeting in Samoa?

The G7 really serves as another reminder that, just as in the same way as Covid impacted each country differently, recovery is also unequal. In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crash the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, offered real leadership in the global recovery, and he sought to bring countries together: to work together, to plan together, to take actions together. The global economy and the cost of living, of course, featured heavily in this summit. It is not to our credit that the leadership the UK offers is on sky-high inflation, and we are the only member of the G7 putting up taxes.

Leaders were right to focus significantly on the events in Ukraine. I am pleased that the communiqué emphasised the condemnation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with members agreeing financial support for humanitarian aid. The noble Baroness may be aware that the World Food Programme has warned that acute hunger globally is expected to rise by 47 million people due to the Ukraine war. What progress has been made in identifying alternate sources of food supplies to tackle what is a global crisis, and will the Government heed the call for the UN to convene an emergency global food summit this year?

Moving on to NATO, I am sure the whole House will welcome that Finland and Sweden are soon to join the alliance. Clearly this was not what Putin intended when invading Ukraine, but he has brought about the very thing that he least wanted: an expanded and stronger NATO. However, as much as the announcement on an extra £l billion in military support by the Government is welcome, it was frustrating to see that being undermined by Ministers having these public rows about defence spending. I similarly welcome the announcement of a further 1,000 troops being sent to Estonia but, if the noble Baroness could say something about how that plays into the cut of 10,000 troops from the British Army over the next three years, it would help to reassure those of us who have concerns that decisions taken by Ministers are going to make it harder for the UK to fulfil the NATO obligations.

I also welcome that allies considered recent actions by China, discussing

“malicious hybrid and cyber operations and its confrontational rhetoric and disinformation”

targets. Can the noble Baroness update the House on the work of our Government to resist such operations, obviously taking into account that we will have to work globally on these issues?

This is a fragile time for the global economy. The risks posed to our collective security are greater now, and the UK must be outward-looking, building alliances through trust. As the Summer Recess approaches, I hope the Minister can give an assurance that, should issues escalate, this House would be recalled to discuss any emerging problems. We hope those do not happen, but it has to be on record that we are willing to do so if it should be necessary.

I also hope that the Government can reflect on the long-term consequences of what has unfolded. If the UK and our allies are to look ahead to a more secure and prosperous future, we must accept that we can do so only through a focus and adherence to international law and order. The G7, NATO and the Commonwealth are all forums that can promote these principles when people work together, but those values have to be reflected at home, not just in summits abroad. First, can the noble Baroness say when we will see the full implementation of the recommendations in the Russia report? Given that foreign donations to political parties were made easier in the Elections Act, we need to be sure—and to be reassured—that the Government are serious about action.

Also, the noble Baroness will surely understand how deeply regrettable it is that the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is being brought forward in violation of international law. That damages the UK’s moral authority and political credibility on the world stage. If there is one message for the Government, it is that Ministers cannot just pick and choose when to abide by international law. In the Statement, repeating the Prime Minister’s words, she referred to the “extraordinary diplomatic assets” that we have. That is true, but there does seem to be a tension: that we are not using those to best advantage, and that we are undermining those who have spent many years developing them as an important asset for the UK. International co-operation and trust are essential. It is not a pick’n’mix just when it suits the Government, and that needs to be a theme running through everything that the Government do on the international stage.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, this Statement is probably unique, combining as it does three consecutive meetings of groups of the world’s leading democracies. As the Prime Minister says, the NATO summit showed a commendable unity in expressing its support to Ukraine. However, as this weekend’s Russian gains on the battlefield have shown, mere promises of more armaments are of little help to the Ukrainian soldiers on the front line. Speed is now of the essence in actually delivering them. Can the noble Baroness say how quickly it will be possible for the UK to get the additional weaponry which we have committed to Ukraine into Ukrainian hands, and into front-line operations?

Clearly, a major challenge in the provision of the latest weaponry is to train the Ukrainians in its deployment. The UK is obviously providing training to Ukrainian personnel in the use of the weapons which we supply, but I believe we have also offered to provide more basic training to very much larger numbers of Ukrainian recruits. Could the noble Baroness update the House on the state of discussions on this proposal, and whether—and if so when—we might expect to see significant numbers of Ukrainians coming to the UK for their military training?

The Statement says that, as part of our increased commitments to NATO, we will offer

“almost all of our surface fleet”

to the alliance. What does this mean for where ships will be deployed? Specifically, does it mean that we will no longer deploy our carriers into the South China Sea, but keep them within the European theatre?

More generally on our defence budget, the Prime Minister says that the UK is likely to spend up to 2.5% of GDP on defence by the end of the decade. Does the noble Baroness agree with the figures produced by the House of Commons Library last week, which show that the Ministry of Defence budget is actually being cut as a result of our soaring inflation, and is on course to have a 5.6% real-terms cut in day-to-day expenditure by 2024-25? Such a cut is, of course, in breach of the Conservative general election manifesto promise to increase the defence budget in line with inflation. When will the Ministry of Defence receive the funding to reverse that real-terms cut?

What thought has been given to where any extra resources might be allocated? The noble Baroness will be well aware of concern across the House on the precipitate fall in the number of soldiers in the Army. Do the Government intend to reverse these cuts, as they increase overall military spending?

On the crucial area of energy supply, the G7 committed to exploring oil and gas price caps. Which country is taking this proposal forward? In particular, what role is the UK playing in developing this potentially important option?

The G7 is committed to countering Chinese influence globally by spending £600 billion of public and private investment over the next five years. What part is the UK playing in achieving this? Specifically, how much public investment do the UK Government plan to allocate to this programme?

The Prime Minister bookended his Statement by extolling the reach and depth of British diplomacy. Although it is true that our membership of NATO, the G7 and the Commonwealth means that we were in the same room as half of the membership of the UN, being present is not the same as being influential. To be influential and effective, your opposite numbers must trust you to keep your word and stick to your agreements, but, under this Prime Minister, they simply cannot do so.

In the extraordinary article by the German and Irish Foreign Ministers in yesterday’s Observer, they state of the Irish protocol:

“Instead of the path of partnership and dialogue, the British government has chosen unilateralism. There is no legal or political justification for unilaterally breaking an international agreement entered into only two years ago.”


Every Government in the world will have seen these words and will be making their calculations. If we break our international agreements once, what is to stop us doing so again? With this Prime Minister, whose word counts for nothing and for whom facts are expendable, our stock internationally is low and falling. All the warm words in today’s Statement cannot begin to reverse this fundamental failing.

Easter Recess: Government Update

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 25th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sorry, I thought that the noble Baroness would be repeating the Statement, as it was made over a week ago in the Commons. I was rather surprised not to have it repeated, so I apologise for my delay in standing up.

For those who did not hear the Statement, they may not realise that it was several Statements rolled into one. I must say that many of us felt quite uneasy that the Prime Minister decided to merge his promised Statement following the police investigation into parties and events at Downing Street with a report about his visit to Kyiv and, at the end, just a few words on the crisis closer to home of soaring costs and prices.

In some ways, it was the tale of two leaders: on one hand, a President who, in facing the most difficult and challenging of circumstances that any leader could possibly face, has been resolute and inspirational and, at all times, has put his country and its people first; and then a Prime Minister who was forced into a humiliating apology for breaking the very rules and laws that he said others had to obey because they were essential.

Across the country, the accounts of personal sacrifices from those who obeyed the rules because it was the right thing to do are heartbreaking. It was not always easy, and for so many, the hurt and sadness remain. Yet even in his apology, Boris Johnson still pleaded that it “did not occur” to him, “then or subsequently”, that he was breaking the rules. In making the Statement last week, the Prime Minister sounded genuinely contrite. Yet following his appearance at the 1922 Committee that evening, Mr Johnson’s former ally, Steve Baker MP, said:

“You couldn’t have asked for a more humble and contrite apology … The problem is the contrition didn’t last much longer than it took to get out of the headmaster’s study. By the time we got to the 1922 Committee meeting that evening it was the usual festival of bombast and orgy of adulation. It took me about 90 seconds to realise he wasn’t really remorseful.”


I want to move on to the other issues in the Statement. On Ukraine, it was mostly about the Prime Minister’s visit to Kyiv, which we welcomed. At every point, it needs to be clear, both to the Ukrainian people and to the Kremlin, that we are united across this House, across Parliament and across NATO in our support for Ukraine. Putin has been forced into a change of tactics after humiliating losses and Ukraine’s extraordinary military determination. Despite their herculean efforts, as Putin continues his illegal, unprovoked and unjustifiable war, each day seems to bring greater tragic consequences for Ukraine and its people.

I think the whole House will welcome the Prime Minister’s engagement with world leaders, the message of solidarity essential. But tonight, I would like to press the noble Baroness further on ensuring that the Government move faster and harder on economic and diplomatic sanctions. This is as urgent as providing military support. Failure to take the necessary actions only helps the Kremlin. Against the backdrop of war crimes, Ministers are still failing to close loopholes on trusts, proxies and ownership thresholds, and the Government have yet to enforce the ban on the export of luxury goods. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether any further sanctions will be laid before Prorogation? Despite so many promises, we are still waiting for the much-needed, urgent reform of Companies House. The issue of stopping oligarchs shielding their ill-gotten gains has been raised in your Lordships’ House on numerous occasions. I know the noble Baroness is not going to give away secrets from the Queen’s Speech, but in some ways, it would be helpful to give an indication of whether this will be a priority in the new Session of Parliament.

The response of the public in support for those seeking sanctuary from the war has been amazing. Yet despite the Home Office telling us that thousands of visas are being processed, the accounts of those struggling refugees lend credibility to the whistleblower working on the scheme who said it has been “designed to fail.” Many in the UK have been daunted by having to make contact themselves with refugees. In other cases, the bureaucracy seems designed to be as difficult as possible.

I do not know whether the noble Baroness read the comments in the press over the weekend or saw anything of the Statement today in the other place, but there are numerous examples of delays and some quite tragic cases of visas not being issued. A university professor, Olga Kolishyk, applied to come to the UK with her two children. One is 11 years old and the other is a baby of six months. Despite being told there would be no problem, as the baby was on her passport, she has now been told by the Sheffield office that both children must have biometric scans in Warsaw, which is 800 miles away from where she is. Another 11 year-old had been waiting so long that his passport expired, and he is now having to start the process all over again; and he also has to go to Warsaw for biometrics. The Government promised to approve applications in 48 hours, yet families who first applied more than five weeks ago are still waiting or have heard nothing.

Many Ukrainians want to stay close to home, as they want to return when it is safe to do so, but those applying to come to the UK are traumatised, usually leaving behind loved ones—often the men in the family who are staying to fight. It is generally older people and women with children who have had to flee their homes with whatever they could carry with them. So, travelling hundreds of miles to Warsaw for biometrics, or even having just to photocopy documents, is in many cases impossible.

Can the Minister provide an update today, and perhaps again later this week and on an ongoing basis, on the number of applications, including how many have been approved, the number who have been informed —there are cases where they have not been informed that a visa has been issued—and how many refugees have arrived here in the UK? Alongside that, it would be helpful if she could provide details of how the system will be urgently improved.

In the Statement, the Prime Minister briefly touched on the cost-of-living crisis, referencing the impact of both Covid and the war in Ukraine. Undoubtedly, these have had an impact—but so have government policies. The energy Statement before the Easter Recess provided little confidence that the Government have a grip on the issue. The quickest and cheapest way of upping energy output and taking the pressure off prices would be onshore wind, but that is not even part of the mix: why? The price of the weekly shop is escalating. Add in the predicted 40% rise in the energy price cap this coming October to dramatic increases in the cost of petrol and other household essentials, and no wonder so many of our fellow citizens are now feeling absolutely desperate. I am sorry, something just flew into my eye—but I think the fly is in a worse state than I am. To paraphrase a former Member of your Lordships’ House and of the Minister’s party, some people in our country have never had it so bad. There is more that can be done. Will the Minister agree to take back to Downing Street the need for an emergency Budget that will urgently and immediately tackle this cost-of-living crisis?

This Statement was a mix of issues that would have been better addressed separately. I hope that, moving to the next Session, more time will be given in your Lordships’ House for us to debate and consider ways forward on all these issues. For now, I hope that the Minister can answer the question that I have posed today. If she is unable to, perhaps she can do so in writing in the days ahead.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, this almost entirely vacuous Statement is in three unconnected parts. The first deals with “Partygate” and is really desperate stuff.

“I paid the fine immediately”


said the Prime Minister, as though this was somehow praiseworthy rather than a legal requirement.

“As soon as I received the notice, I acknowledged the hurt and the anger”


said the Prime Minister, as if, until he received the fine, he was not aware of what the country has been feeling for many months.

“It didn’t occur to me, then or subsequently”,


said the Prime Minister,

“that a gathering in the Cabinet Room could amount to a breach of the rules”,

as though this inadvertent thoughtlessness or straightforward ignorance was an excuse for breaking the law. We are told that there may be more prime-ministerial fines; we read that the Gray report will be excoriating about his behaviour; and we now have the prospect of a long wait until the Commons Privileges Committee decides whether he has misled the Commons. For the Prime Minister, this is death by a thousand cuts; but for the country, it is a continuing shame and embarrassment.

Over recent days, a number of Cabinet Ministers have explained that they support the Prime Minister and have set out their reasons for doing so. I was out of the country for a week, until yesterday evening, and so may have missed any such Statement from the Leader of the House, so I wonder whether she will take this opportunity to inform the House whether she believes that the Prime Minister’s law breaking is as irrelevant as many of her colleagues do, and whether the Prime Minister still has her full support.

The second part of the Statement is about Ukraine. While the Prime Minister’s travelogue, complete with random comments about people bumped into on the streets of Kyiv, is interesting, he has literally nothing new to say. We obviously support the assistance which the UK is now giving Ukraine and share the Prime Minister’s admiration for the courage and heroism of the Ukrainian people. We agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that sanctions could be tightened in some respects.

We also agree with the noble Baroness that the asylum process is as dysfunctional as her examples proved. It beggars belief that the rules are so bureaucratic and inhumane—and that they still have not been made less bureaucratic and humane. I also look forward to hearing the noble Baroness the Leader’s figures for the number of people who have applied, have been accepted and have arrived through the asylum process.

But a lesson from this crisis that the Prime Minister has yet to draw publicly, I think, is that it is a mistake to appease tyrants like Putin, as successive British Governments did over the last decade. It is right that the UK is now prepared to offer long-term support to Ukraine to protect it from any future invasion, but the lesson here surely is that, if we had given the country more support at an earlier stage, there would not have been such an invasion in the first place.

Thirdly, the Statement makes passing reference to the most serious domestic issue facing the country: the cost of living crisis. It says that the Government are “tackling” the long-term impact on energy prices and cites as one of their main achievements that

“we are helping families to insulate their homes”.

The Government should indeed be helping people to insulate their homes, but they scrapped the green homes grant last year and, in the Chancellor’s recent Spring Statement, there was literally nothing new to insulate so much as one single additional home. This is a typical case of prime ministerial hyperbole. It would be great if what he claimed were actually true, but it is not.

Finally, the Prime Minister says that his job is

“to make the British people safer, more secure and more prosperous”.

That should indeed be his job. However, as we now see on a daily basis, Brexit is making the country less prosperous and less secure—and it remains his proudest boast.

So the Prime Minister’s record is to diminish the office that he holds, diminish the standing of Great Britain across the world and fail the British people on the core requirements of government. As I believe he will discover in next week’s elections, the British people have had enough of it. For all our sakes, the sooner he goes, the better.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I echo the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. This is a bizarre situation, in that we said to the House of Commons, “We think, O House of Commons, that you ought to have a bit more power on one of the most important acts of the political calendar; namely, the calling of an election.” It is an act, of course, which affects every one of them intimately whereas it affects us not at all. They have said, “It’s very kind of you to suggest that we have more power, but, actually, we don’t want it.” That seems bizarre and surprising, but if the Commons in their collective wisdom decide that they would rather the Queen retain a power than that they be given one which we have very generously offered to them, it seems churlish of us to insist on it. Therefore, I do not propose that we do.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, we laugh, and in some ways, it is amusing. It is also extraordinary—I am not sure that it is amusing. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act was an Act of its time whose main purpose was to protect the coalition Government, and it succeeded in that to a degree. I was very disappointed to read the response of Ministers in the other place. It seemed to focus on the argument that because all parties agreed that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act must go, there was only one way of doing it. That seemed an extraordinary proposition to make. On the points made by my noble friend Lord Grocott and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, this House had no vested interest whatever in the amendment that it passed. It sought to do so in the interests of the democratic system. The Government’s preferred option was one that we found quite extraordinary.

We enjoy in our Parliament a system of checks and balances in the democratic system. For those of us who do not consider that the Prime Minister alone should decide on the election, there seem to be three alternatives: first, that the courts intervene, which the majority of your Lordships’ House found unacceptable, although I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Butler; secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, that the monarchy would be drawn into that decision-making process, which we would all seek to avoid—I was glad that he quoted both Jackie Doyle-Price and Kevin Brennan, because I thought the points they made in the House of Commons were very pertinent; finally, that Parliament should have an opportunity to be engaged in that decision.

Those of my age who remember Wolfie Smith in “Citizen Smith” will have heard “Power to the people”; the Minister said, “Let us hand power back to the people”, but the Government are actually handing power back to the Prime Minister. There was never any difficulty in the election process—there was always going to be a general election—it is about who decides on the election. The Minister probably watched too much bad TV in his younger days. I find it extraordinary that the House of Commons was prepared to give up that power so easily.

I agree that, as the other place—albeit its majority being the Government’s majority—does not wish to pursue this, there is little point in our asking it to reconsider. However, I repeat a question that my noble friend Lord Collins asked the Minister in Oral Questions yesterday, which he sort of answered in the affirmative. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act was a prime example of legislation being passed for one particular purpose without a great deal of thought, and it has had to be undone for all the reasons we know. Legislation made too quickly for a specific circumstance does not protect the constitution in any way. I hope the Minister will agree with me that constitutional change needs much more careful examination of long-term and unintended consequences. We have got ourselves into a right pickle over this one. Does he accept that, when looking at any significant constitutional change, a period of pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation would provide for better legislation at the end of the day?

But for now, bizarre as the decision made by the other place may seem, we do not intend to pursue this further.

Ukraine

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Thursday 24th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating today’s Statement. I think the mood of the House is sombre but also very angry. We welcome the new measures announced in today’s Statement and assure her of our support to ensure their speedy implementation. Could she pass on my thanks for the briefings I received on this issue?

This morning, as Ukrainians woke to the sound of sirens, military aircraft and tanks, they knew that their worst fears had been confirmed. Despite his false claims, President Putin’s invasion of a democratic and sovereign state is totally unjustified. It is a moment in history, the consequences of which will reverberate around the world.

Putin will learn that his aggression carries a very high price. The Moscow stock market collapsed this morning, the rouble has fallen in value and the human loss is already clear. We make it clear that we stand with the people of Ukraine and reassert that democracy will always triumph over dictators.

Resistance will not be limited to Ukraine. It is backed by the united resolve of democratic nations around the world. As the noble Baroness alluded to, there are also many people in Russia who are horrified by this violent aggression. The free people of Ukraine are supported by the entire NATO alliance in their resistance, many of whom will feel less safe and secure today. The decision to strengthen NATO’s defences is welcome and we must work with our NATO allies in eastern Europe to bolster their security, especially in the light of Estonia’s decision to trigger Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

The noble Baroness will recall that, earlier this week, I asked her for an update on our support to the Baltics. I understand that she was not able to respond then, but if she could give some further information today we would be grateful. We welcome that Sweden and Finland will attend tomorrow’s NATO meeting. This is a moment to show the world that we stand shoulder to shoulder with all those who feel the destabilising impact of this invasion.

The noble Baroness may know that noble Lords from across the House, some of whom are here today, including me, have been actively supporting peaceful protesters throughout Belarus through an adoption scheme of political prisoners. We particularly welcome the announcement of additional measures against Lukashenko’s regime, which is enabling this offensive.

We now must combine military assistance with political and financial support. There is no greater display of solidarity than to expose and tackle illicit Russian finance. The steps announced, including deposit limits, are welcome. The noble Baroness will have our support in implementing these urgently to prevent restrictions being circumvented. We must now go further. Although I accept the need for wider agreement to exclude Russia from financial mechanisms such as SWIFT, I urge the Government to act without delay to seek to achieve such an agreement. Given that the central bank of Russia is known to have developed an alternative to SWIFT payments, we also need to be prepared for any follow-up action.

I am pleased that the noble Baroness the Leader reiterated the UK’s intention to divest from Russian oil and gas. We should support others in doing the same. Many of our NATO allies in eastern Europe are heavily reliant on them, and we need to support them in transitioning from Russian fossil fuels as part of an international focus on energy security.

The noble Baroness will have heard calls on many occasions from Members of this House to bring forward the economic crime Bill, so the Government are right to commit to it today. We offer practical support to ensure that it is implemented. We need tough action on shell companies, urgent reform of Companies House, and zero tolerance for Russian interference and Russian money in our democracy. The noble Baroness will understand that these Benches have called for the Elections Bill to be used as a means of banning Russian donations to political parties. Sanctions have to go beyond just squeezing the Russian economy. They have to be part of an entirely fundamental change in our approach towards the Kremlin, so it would be helpful if the noble Baroness could outline what other legislation—she mentioned the economic crime Bill—will be brought forward as part of the Statement.

Can we say something about humanitarian support, because it is going to be crucial? The Government will have our support in any steps undertaken by our representatives at the UN, working with UNHCR and other appropriate agencies, to prepare for this. We must fully engage in our international institutions to secure humanitarian access under the Geneva conventions, and we must recognise the very great risk of large-scale displacement of people.

As we turned on our TVs this morning, no one could be failed to be moved by the shocking and very distressing pictures of Ukrainians fleeing their homes, some of them unable to carry their possessions with them, their cars stuck in traffic jams as they sought escape for themselves and their families. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that the Government are already engaged with neighbouring allies to offer the UK’s support.

President Putin has made it clear that he sees any ally of Ukraine as an opponent of Russia. He is prepared to act as the world’s aggressor, whatever the consequences. Ukraine, NATO and the Government have our full support in challenging this barbarism, and we will do all we can with them to ensure that Putin fails. He will learn that his actions serve only to strengthen the alliances against his corrupt regime. The spirit of Ukraine will live on in the resistance and, while there will be dark days ahead, we will ensure that the price Putin pays for his aggression will outweigh the doomed pursuit of personal glory.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, when we debated this issue on Tuesday and President Putin’s intentions were already pretty clear, I doubt that we fully comprehended the scale and ruthlessness of what he had in mind. Now we have no such doubts. By his own words, we know that he wants the demilitarisation of Ukraine, which he can achieve only by the successful subjugation of the whole country. We are united in offering our full support to the Ukrainian people in resisting this illegal aggression and, metaphorically at least, we stand alongside them in their defence of shared values, peace, democracy and liberal views.

There is therefore much in the Statement which we welcome. It is encouraging, for a start, that the G7 leaders have been working so closely together today, and we hope that this process continues. Some of the specific measures are particularly welcome. We welcome the exclusion of Russian banks from the UK financial system, the banning of Russian banks and companies from raising funds in the UK, the extension of these sanctions to Belarus, the freezing of assets on individuals and companies, and the banning of high-tech dual-use items as exports to Russia. There are, from the Statement, clearly still many details of how these measures will be worked through, and we will obviously co-operate with the Government on any emergency legislation required to do this.

There seem to be two glaring omissions from the list of sanctions announced this afternoon: the words “Rosneft” and “Gazprom” do not appear. Quite apart from their size, these two companies stand to gain more than any others by the rise in oil and gas prices that Russian action is causing. It would surely be sensible to freeze them from the City of London, and any activity in the UK more generally. Could the Minister explain whether that is really an omission, or if they might in fact be covered under the headline of the 100 banks and companies affected by these sanctions?

The Prime Minister said that the package means that oligarchs in London have nowhere to hide. Given that they are not actually hiding in London but do have assets here, what does this mean? Which oligarchs might be involved? It would, for example, send a strong signal if one of them were Roman Abramovich, one of Putin’s close allies. I say this not just as a Leeds United fan: will he be affected?

The Prime Minister says that the Government will introduce legislation covering unexplained wealth orders before Easter. That is fine, but why are the other measures in the economic crime Bill, particularly the reforms to Companies House, and the register of overseas property ownership, being delayed until the next Session?

The whole Bill is apparently ready. To have potentially to wait for more than a year before it is on the statute book seems plainly inadequate to us.

The Government say that nothing is off the table and specifically cites the SWIFT system as being in that category. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked: what is happening with SWIFT? Are the Government actively pursuing it with their allies, and is there any sense of when the exclusion of Russia from SWIFT might actually take place? Can the Leader of the House confirm whether any other measures are also under consideration, such as a blanket travel ban for all Russian nationals or a more complete trade ban?

In terms of the military situation, it is a positive step that NATO leaders are meeting tomorrow. However, the Prime Minister gives no clue about what he will be proposing to them. For example, will NATO—and, in any event, will the UK—be making more military equipment available to Ukraine? Does the UK stand ready, as we believe it should, to offer more troops and aircraft to NATO if they are requested?

The fog of war has descended on Ukraine. We cannot yet see clearly how events on the ground are progressing. However, we can see enough to know that Ukraine faces the gravest possible threat to its independence as a sovereign state and that the longer-term peace and prosperity of Europe is in the balance. We must now unite, both as a country and with our democratic friends, to defeat these threats.

Living with Covid-19

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister was clearly very upbeat throughout his Statement yesterday, announcing an end to all legal Covid restrictions in England and setting out part of the Government’s living with Covid plan. The pace and the efficiency of the vaccine programme, the justification for the changes, has been extraordinary. I again commend and thank the scientists, staff and volunteers of the National Health Service, and indeed some Ministers, for their collective efforts.

As many in your Lordships’ House have said before, Covid and our necessary response to it has taken an enormous toll on the nation’s physical and mental health, on society as a whole and on every aspect of our economy—we are all desperately keen to get back to how things were. Yet even the Prime Minister admits that Covid is not going to suddenly disappear, which means that this next stage—with a now hopefully much reduced virus—has to be well thought out, manageable and resilient over time.

I would like to probe the background to the decision with the noble Baroness and clarify some of the points about how we move forward. First, as the noble Baroness is aware, the BMA and other bodies do not believe that the decision is evidence led. Can she offer any reassurance to your Lordships’ House and state whether the decision is in line with the recommendations of SAGE, as well as those of the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Adviser?

On these Benches, we are optimistic that we could well be moving on from the very worst of this pandemic. Vaccinations, testing and self-isolation have been highly effective in reducing infections and transmission and thereby reducing the likelihood of new variants. But the SAGE advice is that something worse than omicron will be an ever-present threat. So, with all the restrictions being removed, there is real concern that ending the legal requirements to isolate and stopping free tests on 1 April feel quite arbitrary. So, can the noble Baroness say anything further about the evidence base for the timing of those two points following restrictions being removed, and commit to placing supporting information in the Library? Also, will there be an impact assessment on the consequences of lifting restrictions all at once, alongside the testing and self-isolation, and what mitigations are being considered?

On self-isolation, the Prime Minister draws a comparison with flu in terms of staying at home. Yet we know Covid is much more highly transmissible. If I have understood this correctly, the advice is to make a personal decision on whether or not to self-isolate. But without a legal requirement, what assessment has been made of high-risk workplaces such as care homes and the National Health Service? The noble Baroness will understand that most people want to do the right thing. But some are going to struggle with, on the one hand, guidance telling them to self-isolate if positive, and, on the other hand, pressures—either financial or from an employer—forcing them to work.

Can the noble Baroness also provide further details on the cost of purchasing tests? With rapidly increasing household bills, paying for testing, particularly where an employer might require it, will be an additional pressure for many. The Prime Minister has said that free tests will be available to the oldest age groups and the most vulnerable. What about those working with them? In the Statement, Mr Johnson merely offered that the Government were working with retailers to supply tests, so can the noble Baroness shed any further light on this, including on whether the reports of £3 for each individual test are accurate and whether the price will be fixed?

Also, will there be a greater effort to support UK manufacturers rather than relying on imports? Most of the tests I have had have come from China. Also, what is the Government’s response to concerns about the sale of the UK’s flagship Vaccine Manufacturing and Innovation Centre in Oxford, at a time when vaccines are so important?

The Prime Minister reflected on the eye-watering amount of money spent on test and trace. He said it was more than the entire budget of the Home Office. Given the criticisms of that service, is the noble Baroness satisfied that the budget was well managed and value for money, or will an independent assessment be made of this?

In terms of going forward, despite the success to date of vaccines, only two-thirds of those eligible for a third jab have had one. The advice is that two jabs are not enough to provide maximum protection. With all the regulations being scrapped, how will the Government ensure that everyone eligible for a booster actually gets one? With the evidence that immunity and protection are reduced quite significantly over time, we welcome the rollout of a further booster for those who are over 75. Can the noble Baroness say how long this will be for? Will it be ongoing at least for the foreseeable future, perhaps as people reach their 75th birthday?

In the Statement, the Prime Minister committed to monitoring future outbreaks. That seems sensible. But what was missing from the Statement was what the Government would do if they identified such an outbreak—or even if the emergence of a new variant was identified. Without testing and self-isolation for those infected, I am not clear what the Government’s plan is. So, can she provide any further information on that and the purpose of the monitoring, or write to me if it is not yet available?

It is absolutely critical that the right measures are in place to support people to make the right, proportionate choices going forward. We know now that, moving forward, we have to live with the virus. But that is not the same as ignoring it, and I am really not sure that the Government have the sequencing of events or the messaging right. Following this announcement, it seems that the message that the Covid-weary public can take away is that Covid is no longer a threat, because it is not essential to know whether you have it or not, as there is no testing, and it is not essential to self-isolate if you have. That is going to lead many to conclude—wrongly, as even the Prime Minister has admitted—that the pandemic is now over. So, can the noble Baroness today give us some reassurance of what the Government’s plans are in the face of any further outbreaks or new variants and what the Government are going to do to encourage the public and signal the importance of everyone getting their booster? Also, reassurance on the issue of government monitoring of any new variants or outbreaks would be really helpful, because we need to understand why the Government are doing that and what the plan is if they identify any.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I begin where the Prime Minister concludes his Statement:

“We do not need laws”,


he says,

“to compel people to be considerate of others. We can rely on that sense of responsibility towards one another”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/2/22; col. 45.]

If this were the case, many laws would not be on the statute book and, indeed, many aspects of the regulations that we have had in place over the last two years would not have been necessary. For this Prime Minister to claim that we can rely on the sense of responsibility towards one another shows a remarkable lack of self-awareness. He did not behave responsibly even when there were laws in place, so to remove all legal restraints at one fell swoop seems to me, at best, an extremely risky option. Doing so makes sense only if we are confident that the costs involved are manageable.

It is obviously a great relief that numbers are falling and that serious illness is on the wane, but the death only last week of one of my colleagues, having been in ICU with Covid, is a timely warning to us all that this disease is far from done. While everybody agrees that we have to learn to live with Covid, that is not the same as getting rid of every precautionary measure. We need to ensure that cases continue to diminish, the vulnerable are protected and pressure on the NHS is bearable.

The Prime Minister repeatedly said yesterday that taking personal responsibility requires people to test themselves and to self-isolate if they think they have the disease, but, for those on limited income, including the millions who are not eligible for sick pay, the cancellation of self-isolation support payments will make that an impossible choice. If faced with heating or eating, or paying for a coronavirus test, it is pretty obvious which will be the lowest priority. So, we have real concerns about getting rid of free testing, especially for those who are either vulnerable or have family members who are vulnerable.

The latest testing figures show that, every week, nearly 4 million people are taking regular Covid tests—on average, two a week. This includes people who take tests to protect their elderly relatives and friends, as well as vulnerable workers in people-facing industries such as hospitality who are concerned about their health. If people have to pay for this, we estimate that it could amount to an annual testing cost to an individual of up to £500. Does the Minister agree that this is simply unfeasible for many people and is also, in effect, a tax on caring? While the Prime Minister said that half a million people who are the most severely immunocompromised will get free tests, their carers and families will not.

There is also a more important principle at stake here. The Government have consistently said that the NHS is safe in our hands because it is free at the point of need. However, Covid-19 is a notifiable, highly infectious disease under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 and the Health Protection (Notification) Regulations 2010, which say that medical practitioners must test potential cases under the NHS so that infections can be managed and monitored. Currently, all notifiable disease tests are free of charge but, from 1 April, that will no longer be the case. So, how can the Government claim that the NHS will continue to be free at the point of need? In this case, it clearly will not.

The Statement refers to SAGE’s concern about the future path of the pandemic, which underlines the importance of the survey work carried out by the ONS and Imperial College. Can the Leader confirm that these surveillance operations at ONS and Imperial will continue on a substantial scale, and can she say how quickly full, free testing and tracing can be restarted in the not unlikely event of another variant emerging?

While vaccination remains a vital tool in learning to live with Covid, some people’s immune systems wane quickly after their booster jabs. The Statement says that these people will have access to antivirals and other treatments, but the antivirals must be administered within 48 hours of symptoms starting. Can the Government confirm that such people will get access to rapid testing, to be able to start these vital treatments within the first 48 hours?

Finally, the Statement mentions the UK’s G7 plan for future pandemics. How do the Government respond to comments from the WHO that countries such as the UK are dismantling the precautions needed to ensure a safe reduction in Covid? We will learn to live with Covid, but the Government have a lot more work to do to ensure that we do it with minimal risk.

Ukraine Update

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I also want to put on record my appreciation for the Privy Council briefings that I have had from the Government.

As we have watched events unfold and diplomatic efforts intensify, we have moved between hope that those efforts will succeed and despair that this could end in war. We should not underestimate that this is a moment of huge gravity. At this stage, we do not know how the next few days, or even the next few hours, will play out, but it is clear that this is a dangerous time for Ukraine and, in the longer term, for stability and security across Europe. It is no exaggeration to say that this marks a significant moment in global politics that will have far-reaching implications for future interaction with Putin’s Russia. So let us call this out for what it is: the Russian President has rejected the rule of law and Ukraine’s right of sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The Government have our full support in holding Russia to account. As we heard in the Statement, Putin has sought to create false justification for his actions. Russia faces no threat from NATO or Ukraine. Even at this 11th hour, efforts for a diplomatic solution must continue, but Putin has to know that our values mean that we have no other course but to stand shoulder to shoulder, united with NATO and our allies across the world, in support of the people of Ukraine. Let us be absolutely clear: we will not be divided in that support.

We welcome the military support that has been given to the rightful Government of Ukraine. The pressure they are under in their daily lives and at all times now is absolutely enormous. We can only admire their courage in the face of the threats and the hostile actions. As regional stability weakens, our friends and allies in eastern Europe will feel the closest threat, and we welcome the Government’s engagement with the Baltic states. The UK must always remain committed to the principle of collective defence and that an attack against one NATO ally will always be considered an attack against all. Can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House say anything further today about discussions to strengthen the military assistance provided to our NATO allies in eastern Europe?

On sanctions, regardless of the direction that Putin now takes, a red line has already been crossed. We welcome and support the sanctions announced by the Prime Minister and will fully co-operate in getting this legislation through. But the Government have to go further. Putin needs to understand that his actions carry a huge cost, and that we stand firm with our allies in opposing them. Looking at what more can be done, can the noble Baroness say whether the Government will also consider excluding Russia from SWIFT and other financial mechanisms, and a ban on trading in Russian sovereign debt? We welcome the decision to sanction the five Russian banks, but they apparently represent only a fraction of those which, it has been reported, could be included. Further banks with links to the Kremlin remain active in London and across the West. I do not know how much more the noble Baroness is able to say today, but can she confirm whether work is continuing to prepare for further designations?

Again, as welcome as sanctions on the three named individuals are, we have to recognise that these individuals have already been designated by the United States for over four years. The noble Baroness may not know why we have been so much slower in taking action, but is she able to confirm today that in tackling this issue the Government understand the need to improve co-ordinated action with our allies? Also, what assessment has been made of the impact on Russia’s trading relationship with the rest of the world?

The invasion of Ukraine should represent a turning point for how we interact with Russia, but it is also an opportunity to look at the effects of Putin’s regime in the UK. The Kremlin’s misinformation campaign continues to target the West, with outlets such as Russia Today still able to broadcast its propaganda across the world. Will the Government now take steps to ban RT from operating in the UK?

Similarly, allies of Putin are still able to use the UK to launder dirty money, so why are the Government still failing to act on the recommendations of the Russia report? And, with the Elections Bill introducing new loopholes to allow foreign donations to UK political parties, Ministers have to wake up to the creeping influence of Russian money in our politics. I should notify the noble Baroness that we will seek to amend the Elections Bill to remove these new loopholes, but, in the light of Russia’s recent actions, will she commit today to speaking to the Prime Minister and her Cabinet colleagues about removing these provisions from the Bill, and report back to your Lordships’ House? Failing that, there will be an amendment in this House to remove those loopholes.

The most recent escalation looks set to trigger a prolonged conflict. No one will benefit from that, including the Russian people. We did not seek this conflict, and we always sought peaceful coexistence. But the UK and our allies must ensure that Russia will now feel the consequences of Putin’s aggression, so our sanctions have to be tougher and targeted. We in this Parliament must be as united as we are with our international allies in support of the Ukrainian people.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a very sombre 24 hours. President Putin yesterday set out his view that Ukraine had no legitimacy as a state, and said he was sending so-called peacekeepers—in reality an invading army—into Donetsk and Luhansk. Today, and even since the Prime Minister made his Statement, he has announced that he is recognising the whole of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, and not just those parts of them already under de facto Russian control. Against this flagrant aggression and breach of international law, how well does the Government’s response match up?

We support the broad stance that the Government are taking in opposing the Russian aggression and the measures they have so far taken to provide Ukraine with training, anti-tank weapons and other support. We agree with the Statement that the UK Government—and, indeed, all western Governments—have given Putin every opportunity to pursue his aims by negotiations and diplomacy. However, I am a bit bemused by the assertion in the Statement that

“we will continue to seek a diplomatic solution until the last possible second.”

It seems to me that the last possible second expired last night. Can the Minister explain what more Putin would have to do to make the Government believe that there really was no diplomatic solution on offer any more? Surely, that boat has most definitely sailed.

Earlier in the month, the Prime Minister made it clear that, as soon as the first Russian toecap entered Ukrainian territory, the West would impose sanctions that would really hurt Russia. I know that the situation is far from clear, but Putin has already committed to sending in troops, and there are reports that the first have already been deployed. Germany, by announcing today the suspension of the Nord Stream pipeline, has already acted in line with the Prime Minister’s injunction.

What, then, are the Government proposing? They sanctioned four banks, most of which are minnows. They sanctioned a mere three individuals who, as the noble Baroness has already said, have already been the subject of American sanctions for a number of years. We are told:

“This is the first tranche of what we are prepared to do: we will hold further sanctions at readiness.”


Why are we holding further sanctions at readiness? What are we waiting to happen? What more does Putin now need to do? The truth is that the sanctions announced in this Statement are pitifully insignificant. Putin, if he hears of them at all, will simply be smirking at them.

The noble Baroness has set out a number of things that the Government could do, which I agree with. I would like to set out a number of things that I think the Government should do, and I invite the Leader of the House to explain whether the Government have these measures in contemplation—and if not, why not. They should revoke the golden visas of those Russian nationals who have known links to the Russian regime. They should impose a windfall tax on energy company profits, which is desirable in itself, but would hit Gazprom, which channels its trading revenues through London. They should freeze the assets of Russian companies in London and introduce the register of beneficial ownership Bill, which would shine a light on dirty Russian money in London. The Government could surely get this oven-ready Bill through the Commons in a day: tomorrow springs to mind. I am sure that your Lordships’ House would pass it with alacrity. Certainly, from these Benches, we would facilitate its passage as a matter of urgency.

We know that, in addition to London, there are very large amounts of Russian dirty money in Switzerland and Monaco. We could call on the Swiss Government and the Monegasque authorities to do the same as we might do in shining a light on this money. Perhaps we could ask President Macron to have a word with his colleagues in Monaco. So far, there is no evidence that the Government plan to do any of this—or, indeed, anything of any substance.

When Putin invaded Crimea, he got away with it at no discernible cost. When he undertook the Salisbury poisonings, there was no significant response. He has now committed his latest outrage. If we are to have any influence at all in persuading him and the Russian elite that these illegal, aggressive policies are not simply to be met by little more than a shrug of the shoulders, we need to see much more action contained in this Statement, and soon.

Ukraine

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Wednesday 26th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this is one of those occasions where we start with questions because the Statement is not being repeated. I am sorry not to have the Statement repeated today because it is perhaps one of the very few occasions these days where there is, rightly, a very high degree of agreement between the Government and the Opposition, so the noble Baroness may have enjoyed repeating it on this occasion.

It is also significant that this issue was one of the questions when I was a panellist on BBC Radio 4’s “Any Questions?” programme last Friday. The audience response, first in putting forward that question and then their response to the answers, really highlighted what I think is genuine public concern on this issue.

Earlier today, I watched one of those live video film cams from Odessa. All of us have heard and seen interviews with those in Odessa, Kiev and other areas of Ukraine. People are trying to go about their daily lives and their work, but at the same time, they are living in fear of a Russian invasion as 100,000 troops with tanks and missiles hover at the borders.

Observing all this reminds me, and may remind others, just a little of reading George Orwell’s 1939 novel Coming Up for Air, where there is a pending war clearly in the atmosphere of everyday life. For those now living in Ukraine, it is more immediate and very much at their door. The Russian presence on the borders is unacceptable and unjustified aggression, and we have to be resolute in our total solidarity with Ukraine, with unreserved support for the country’s territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence. As the risk of conflict escalates, we support attempts at negotiation to de-escalate the current situation.

However, this Russian intimidation has not occurred in a vacuum. The annexation of Crimea and support for separatist conflict in Donbass illustrates why we should be so concerned at this further Russian aggression. We welcome all steps, as outlined in the Statement, to bolster Ukraine’s defence capabilities alongside those global efforts to find a diplomatic solution. International solidarity with Ukraine is crucial. Putin will seize on and exploit any division. Russia must be aware that its actions provoke unity that will have consequences both for its economy and its place in the world.

Ministers must prepare for all potential next steps, and that means working with targeted sanctions with allies to confront Russia’s access to the international financial system. Globally agreed sanctions are one of the most effective tools at our disposal, but they have to be agreed and implemented multilaterally. On that specific point, can the noble Baroness the Leader outline how the UK is working with our NATO and European allies to ensure these sanctions are readily drafted and able to be implemented?

On energy, the UK and Europe must also consider our overreliance on Russian energy supplies, including the proposals for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline which could fuel—bit of a pun there—even further dependency. On that point, can the noble Baroness the Leader confirm what recent steps the Government have taken to press for the cancellation of Nord Stream 2? Given recent reports that the United States is in talks with gas-producing Gulf states to increase supplies in the event of Russian invasion—however viable that may be or otherwise—can the noble Baroness confirm whether Ministers are currently engaging with European allies which are particularly reliant on Russian gas? While the impact on our supply may be less, it could well put further upward pressure on prices.

I want to turn to the issue of finance. I think we also have to address the long-term failure of the Government to rid our economic and political systems of the ill-gotten gains used to support the Putin regime. If we take our obligations to global security seriously, we cannot go on allowing ourselves to be the world’s Laundromat for illicit finance. It is astonishing that, more than 18 months after the Russia report was published, none of its recommendations has been fully implemented. We have put forward four proposals, and I hope the noble Baroness can respond on this.

First, we need to reform Companies House, because we need to crack down on shell companies. As a matter of urgency, we should be introducing a register of overseas entities. In your Lordships’ House, we have had debates—I can see the noble Lord, Lord Alton, nodding, as he has raised this issue on a number of occasions—about the origin and extent of Russian money buying up property and assets in the UK. Despite the Government’s Elections Bill that would make foreign donations to political parties easier, we need tougher regulations on overseas political donations. The Russia report was cross-party and at its core was our national security. It has to be implemented in full.

While we hope that all diplomatic efforts and threats of sanctions will lead to Russia changing course, the reality is that, whatever the outcome, we should have long ago addressed these issues. To be clear, we cannot stand up to Russian aggression abroad while facilitating Russian corruption at home. The Government need to get a grip and implement these measures. It would be helpful tonight if the noble Baroness could confirm that the Government will do that or explain why not.

As I said at the very beginning, at the heart of this are real people trying to live their lives, to go to work and to raise their families. They are having to stockpile food. They do not know what tomorrow brings. Ukraine should be free to determine its own future without fear or interference from Russia. It is up to the UK and our democratic allies to support that. However, we cannot escape the fact that, in recent years, Russia has produced a clear pattern of aggression which should have meant that we were better prepared for this moment and our ability to respond. As much as our immediate focus should be on deterring Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and acting accordingly if it does so, the recent actions of the Putin regime must represent a wake-up call for the UK, Europe and NATO.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, as the Statement makes clear, the situation in Ukraine is now extremely perilous. The precise intentions of Russia are unclear, but if it were to launch a major invasion, as the Statement makes clear, the consequences would be horrendous. The Prime Minister set out the three strands of action which any attack would provoke from the UK and our allies: first, tougher sanctions on Russia; secondly, further steps to help Ukraine defend itself; and, thirdly, an increased NATO presence to protect our allies on the eastern front. These are all sensible and necessary, but I would like to concentrate on the issue of sanctions.

The Statement talks about imposing co-ordinated and severe sanctions against Russia should an attack take place. Clearly, economic sanctions are one area where we can really impact on the ability of the Russian regime to continue business as usual. It is, of course, unfortunate that sanctions are being discussed by the EU and the US with the UK often not being in the room. This means in reality that we will have no option but simply to follow what they decide. In practice, this may be of relatively little consequence, but it demonstrates how being outside the EU reduces Britain’s influence. More generally, it has been notable how small a diplomatic role the UK has played compared to France, Germany and the US. Having a Prime Minister who is spending several hours a day attempting to persuade his own Back-Benchers not to end his own political career does not help, nor does the Foreign Secretary’s peculiar sense of priorities, which puts a visit to Australia ahead of being involved in European and broader international discussions on Ukraine.

Whatever common sanctions are adopted, the UK has an ability to take unilateral action that can have a major impact on the kleptocratic Russian regime. This is by moving against Russians and their money in the UK, particularly in London. A number of measures need to be taken, but three could be instituted immediately. First, the Conservative Party is a major beneficiary of Russian money. This includes 14 members of the current Government, of whom six are in the Cabinet, including the Chancellor. The Conservative Party could decide today to stop taking donations from wealthy Russians, many of whom have links to the Putin regime. Will it do so? Secondly, one of the reasons so much Russian money is laundered in London is that it can done secretly. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has already alluded to this. For six years, the Government have promised to introduce a register of beneficial interests in overseas companies. Indeed, yesterday the Prime Minister stated—incorrectly, incidentally—that the Government were already doing so, but they are not. My colleague Layla Moran MP has just introduced a Bill to this effect in another place. Will the Government now fast-track this Bill, given that it enacts government policy, so that it can be in place before the end of the Session? Thirdly, Russian oligarchs benefit from “golden” visas which enable them to buy the right to live in the UK. Will the Government now stop this practice?

The Government are going to be faced with some extremely difficult judgment calls in the weeks ahead, as events on the Ukrainian border unfold. The measures I have just proposed are simple, easy to effect and would hit the Russian elite where it hurts most—in their pockets. The measures are all long overdue in any event, but the current emergency makes them even more necessary.

President Putin’s understandable desire to keep any vestige of democracy at bay in Russia means that he is willing to threaten, bully and, if he thinks he can get away with it, act illegally to preserve the regime. However, he acts only having weighed the costs. By the range of actions which we now take, or signal that we will take, if he crosses the Ukrainian border, I hope we can persuade him that the game is not worth the candle. Sanctions form a key part of those costs, and the Government should start acting on them without delay.

Covid-19

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Thursday 20th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this pandemic has taken a huge toll on the physical and mental health of the nation, on businesses, on leisure and on our economy. Across the UK, people have made heroic efforts to care for, serve and protect others, from the staff and volunteers who have delivered an amazing vaccination programme to the NHS and to those who have kept schools, shops, hospitality and public services running, as well as all those who have stayed at home—and have not had parties—in order to protect others, and have missed out on special times with friends and family.

So we are all keen to get back to living and working as normal as quickly as possible. We welcome the overall fall in cases, hospitalisations and the death rate. This follows the success of the vaccine and the care that so many have taken in testing and in following the rules.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced that plan B measures will lapse throughout the UK. We do not want to see restrictions in place any longer than necessary. In response to a question yesterday from Keir Starmer, Mr Johnson agreed that he would publish the scientific evidence behind the decision. Can the noble Baroness today confirm that this has now been published and is publicly available and will she commit to ensuring that it is available in the Library of the House of Lords as soon as possible? I think she will understand, given the recent scandalous events in Downing Street with varying accounts from the Prime Minister, that public confidence can now be assured only when back-up evidence is available.

Although there are fewer cases and deaths across the country than there were last week and scientists are optimistic that omicron has peaked, does the noble Baroness accept that we still need to be cautious? In some parts of the country, cases are still rising though we hope they will start to fall. The health service, underresourced even before the pandemic, is facing enormous pressures with huge delays. Many appointments for surgery and treatment have been cancelled. The WHO and many scientists predict that there may be further variants into the summer and daily deaths are still over 350. The British Medical Association, representing those in the NHS front line, is concerned that given these factors the Prime Minister

“risks creating a false sense of security”.

I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could respond to this: what advice is now available for those shielding or people who are clinically more vulnerable regarding the move from plan B back to plan A, including on working from home and using public transport?

What is clear with all these factors is that we need a credible plan on how we can live with Covid, including any new variants that may emerge. The Government have to look past the current maelstrom they are experiencing and the focus must be on resilience to any future pandemics or future variants.

I do not know what the Government’s plan is—I hope the noble Baroness does—but we can offer some advice on the way forward that I hope she can respond to. The vaccination programme has proved its worth. We would retain an army of trained volunteers to always be available to support the National Health Service. We also have to work with other countries and international organisations to provide vaccines across the world, if we are to end the cycle of another new variant emerging just as we think we have dealt with the last one.

We know testing works. There has to be a national supply of test kits to avoid shortages so tests can be available when and where they are needed. Ideally, it would be good if the Government could look at the UK manufacturers, which are so keen to provide these.

I do not know how many times we have to say this, but the Government really must increase sick pay and extend it to all workers. It should never be a choice between keeping others safe by staying home or being able to pay the rent and the energy bills.

We cannot just keep talking about ventilation in classrooms, or indeed workplaces. I know the schools’ ventilation programme has eventually started—and that is welcome—but the Government have to move more quickly to ensure that all children can stay in school. Can the noble Baroness say when this programme will be completed and what percentage of classrooms or schools have now been included and seen their ventilation improved?

There are also a number of common-sense measures that, while not ideal or enjoyable, do not impinge too much on our daily lives—such as mask wearing in busy crowded spaces and basic hygiene measures to protect from infection transmission—that we should not be too quick to discard. Will the Government continue with public health messaging to enable this?

Finally, the death toll in the UK from this virus is devastating. It is over 150,000, which is one of the worst rates in the world. Despite the shocking errors in test and trace, the lack of NHS readiness at the start of the pandemic, and the problems that we saw with PPE supplies and contracts—which may be subject to ongoing legal proceedings—the vaccination programme and the adherence of the public, though not Downing Street, to public safety measures have been real game changers. Those two things—the public’s response and having a vaccine—have really made a difference.

At this point all our decisions must be based on moving forward with care, using sensible proportionate measures to learn to live with Covid. We need to do all we can to ensure that we do not again end up playing Covid hokey-cokey in lifting and then reimposing restrictions that none of us wants to see. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness can address some of these points. The key thing is that we welcome this but urge caution as well.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, we obviously share the relief being felt across the whole country that the peak of the omicron wave seems now to have passed. However, Covid is not over. Yesterday, the ONS reported that one in 20 people in England caught Covid last week and government-reported cases still number over 100,000. The NHS remains pressured, with around 2,000 admissions per day, and last week there were 1,900 deaths.

We clearly need to learn to live with Covid, but that is not necessarily the same as going back to life exactly as it was before Covid. We need to remember that continuing levels of Covid, even at reduced numbers, will continue to fill some hospital beds. This delays treatment of everybody else, which is particularly significant given the 6 million people on the NHS waiting list.

This is the backdrop against which we have to judge yesterday’s announcement. The exact timing clearly has more to do with Conservative Party management and saving the Prime Minister’s premiership than concerns about public health or boosting the economy. While ending some of the restrictions, such as Covid passports, is to be welcomed, we have some reservations elsewhere, particularly on masks.

As everybody knows, masks are a cost-effective precaution that help reduce transmission of the virus and consequently reduce the pressure on the NHS and its staff. People have been asked to make tough sacrifices throughout the pandemic but, in our view, requiring people to wear a mask on public transport and in the shops a little longer to protect others is a small price worth paying. There are many, especially the clinically extremely vulnerable, who are concerned about travelling on crowded public transport or using the shops. Keeping masks in those crowded places will allow them to get on with their day-to-day lives with confidence in a way that they have not been able to do for virtually two years.

The Prime Minister said that

“we will trust the judgment of the British people”

on whether to wear masks. Given his own complete lack of judgment and moral authority, I suspect the consequence will be that mask wearing on the Tube and on trains will collapse. Before the latest restrictions, mask wearing on the Tube was under 50%. Today it is about 90%. Next week, I bet it will be back to 50% or less. In our view, to have permitted this at this point is a mistake.

As for masks in schools, we all want to keep schools open but with huge numbers of pupils still out of school, it remains hard to do so in some cases. As long as the evidence shows that masks are helping reduce these absences, we support heads who want to retain masks in their schools. If individual heads decide to do this beyond the end of this week, will the Government support them?

The real issue in schools is, of course, the Government’s failure to provide air purifiers in classrooms. I echo the noble Baroness’s question: how far have the Government got in their admittedly inadequate plans to improve the number of classrooms that have such air purifiers?

On ending the requirement to work from home, while going back to the office will be good and right for many, we would encourage employers to consider the wishes of their employees—as many of them are already doing. Can the noble Baroness say what policy the Government are adopting towards their own employees? Will they require all civil servants to return to their former work patterns or will they, like many private sector employers, show more flexibility?

More generally, this Statement—which unfortunately we did not have the benefit of hearing—is suffused with the kind of hyperbole and exceptionalism that we have come to expect from this Prime Minister. Given his abject failure to stick to the rules himself or to ensure that his own staff behave responsibly, to many ears this tone sounds more than usually ill-judged. It is too much to expect sincere humility from this Prime Minister. He should go.

Covid-19

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Thursday 6th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, to most of us, it was obvious that plan B restrictions had to remain in place. As the Labour Party, we fulfilled our responsibilities to act in the national interest to support these when the Prime Minister faced such strong opposition from his own Benches. No one likes or enjoys these restrictions, but when they are needed to protect public health and the delivery of health and other public services, they will have our support. Internal party politics or personal ambition should never be a factor at these times.

In his Statement, the Prime Minister rightly praised everyone working in the health service and social care and the volunteers for their work on the vaccination programme. Their work is very impressive and, generally, the public response to getting the vaccine is equally impressive.

The Prime Minister now has to get a grip on those issues which could derail plan B. He has an opportunity to finally get a grip on the pharmaceutical interventions which could ultimately bring the pandemic to a close. Our lives are more global than ever. We have to do all we can to prevent further waves and new mutations. That means vaccinating beyond our own shores. The UN Secretary-General has warned that the world is far off track from meeting the WHO goal of vaccinating 70% of people in all countries by the middle of 2022. What steps are the Government taking to increase global supply to the COVAX scheme and what support is being given to increase vaccination capacity in low-income countries when the doses arrive?

At home, there is also more that the Government themselves could do to end the Government’s cycle of restrictions. Can the noble Baroness outline today what steps they will take to drive up vaccination rates in the 12 to 17 age group, and if not, please can she write to me? The noble Baroness will be aware of the report about recent new orders from the Government’s Antivirals Taskforce. Is she confident that all antivirals on order will be effective against omicron? Given the incidence of transmission in schools, can she say anything today by way of an explanation about why the Government are taking so long to act on the SAGE advice about recirculating air and ventilation? SAGE first mentioned it over two years ago, and it seems that the Government are dragging their heels at a crucial time.

On testing and self-isolation, the new requirements on a daily lateral flow test for critical workers are welcome. However, the Government have to ensure that the capacity exists to facilitate it. Local services across the UK are already buckling because doctors, nurses, carers and teachers cannot find the tests to meet current requirements. I have to say to the noble Baroness that I welcome the commitment to 100,000 tests per day in England for critical workers. However, can she tell me what percentage of critical workers that covers? I looked at how many workers are employed in England in the food manufacturing industry, and it is something like 400,000, and something like 120,000 workers are involved in providing bus services. I am not quite sure where the 100,000 tests will go and whether they will be adequate to meet demands. I went online this morning to try to order lateral flow tests, and they are still not available. Just when the Government say that we need to test more often, they go into short supply. That kind of lack of joined-up thinking undermines public confidence.

Can the noble Baroness the Leader also confirm what modelling the department has produced on test demand over the course of the current wave? When do the Government estimate that the current shortage of tests will end? There has to be a long-term plan for testing capacity. Given that we all agree that we will have to learn to live with some degree of Covid, can the noble Baroness tell us what steps the Government are taking to scale up the manufacturing of tests here in the UK? I am quite interested to know the proportion of current tests that are produced here in Britain. She will have seen the reports from a company that is already supplying to the EU, has the capacity and wants to supply to the UK, but we are importing tests from China and we have a shortage. Something about the Government’s plans to address that in the short term would be welcome.

In addition to the scaling up of testing, it is equally important that the Government take action to ensure that those who test positive are able to self-isolate. We are now two years into this pandemic. When will the Government finally introduce sick pay provisions so that people do not have to choose between isolation to prevent others getting the virus and putting food on the table or paying the rent?

In the immediate term, we need to see real leadership from the Government on alleviating the pressure currently placed on the National Health Service. An increasing number of trusts are declaring critical incidents. Greater Manchester has been forced to halt non-urgent surgery and the West Midlands Ambulance Service has asked retired workers to return. Can the noble Baroness tell the House what support is being offered to trusts which have declared critical incidents and what action is being taken to prevent others being in that position as well?

We cannot ignore that the NHS is struggling, not just because of the pandemic but because of a decade of mismanagement previously. We entered this pandemic with the longest waiting lists on record, and so we need to hear from the noble Baroness and the Government what action will be taken, and clear targets to reduce waiting lists and waiting times. Waiting for treatment or surgery when you are in pain or unable to work severely affects the nation’s mental as well as physical health. The Commons Health and Social Care Committee has warned that 6 million people are currently waiting for treatment, so can the noble Baroness say something about what assessment the Department of Health and Social Care has made on the impact on the mental health of patients of that uncertainty about getting the treatment or surgery required?

We are seeing now that progress is being made, but there is still some way to go before we can be confident that we can all be living that normal life again. The country cannot afford any further mismanagement or slow responses from the Government.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I begin by expressing my support for the extraordinary work being done by NHS staff and all those—including pharmacies and volunteers—who are helping to make the booster programme such a success.

The decision to scrap the requirement for a PCR test following a positive lateral flow test clearly makes sense, given the delays which are regularly occurring both in sending out the PCR test and then in receiving the results of it. I know of cases where these waits have been of a week or longer, which has meant that they have not arrived until far too late to be of any use to the individuals concerned.

The new relaxed rules for travellers entering or re-entering the UK apply to those who are fully vaccinated, but this definition does not require people to have had the booster jab. Have the Government any plans to require a booster jab, not least to incentivise travellers to get the booster before they travel?

Despite the scale of the testing programme, there have been and remain serious delays in getting test kits to local pharmacies, schools and individuals. I repeat the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about the Government’s current assessment of the ability of the supply chain to deliver the number of tests to fulfil the Government’s own targets.

Despite the Government’s support for Operation Moonshot—do people remember that?—to create a domestic production capacity, only one British manufacturer is making kits which meet UK standards. Others, as the noble Baroness said, are making kits which pass EU standards but not our own, and as a result they are exporting all their kits. What plans do the Government have to expedite approval of further UK manufacturers and reduce our dependency on kits made almost exclusively in China?

Can the Leader assure us that the Prime Minister, in his efforts to remove as many restrictions as possible, is not considering following the strategy of the United States by reducing isolation to five days without two negative lateral flow tests? There is considerable evidence that many people shed significant amounts of virus on days six and seven and later, making them still contagious and a threat to public health, so making any reduction would be dangerous.

It is clear that hospitals and ambulance services are struggling at the moment, with 24 critical incidents already declared and people with a possible heart attack being advised to get a taxi or a lift to hospital. The NHS was clearly underresourced to cope with a pandemic such as this, not least due to its having lost thousands of beds over the past decade. Can the Leader say what assessment is being made of the resilience and ability of our health services to deal with future pandemics?

It is clear that there will be further disruption for many school pupils who have yet to catch up on their studies following the closures over the last 18 months. Will the Government therefore expedite the catch-up programme and start by providing every parent with a £30 catch-up voucher for every day their child misses school?

The Prime Minister repeated the government injunction yesterday for people to

“carry on working from home whenever they can”.

I fear that the Government are not supporting their own policy when it comes to your Lordships’ House. I accept that we can legislate really effectively only when we are here in person, but we know that we can vote effectively from home. Next week, we are asking people to take journeys on public transport of up to five hours and more to sit in an office, often not even in the Palace itself, simply to vote. This poses a potential threat to them and their families. It has been argued that reverting to virtual voting would pose a reputational risk to the House. I believe the opposite, and anecdotal evidence supports that view. I hope that the commission will look at this again as a matter of urgency and that the noble Baroness the Leader will now support this sensible change.

COP 26

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Tuesday 16th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

There seems to be some disruption; I do not know whether we are being haunted. If the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, could mute, that might be helpful—just on this occasion, I hasten to add.

This is the decisive decade for tackling the climate emergency. Although we better understand the seriousness of the issue, the real threat to progress is no longer denial but delay.

For film fans—bear with me on this—when Rick said the immortal words to Ilsa in “Casablanca”, “We’ll always have Paris”, he could not have imagined how apt they would be, 80 years later. The Paris summit in 2015 built an international alliance to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees. The Prime Minister says in the Statement that COP 26 succeeded not just in keeping that 1.5 degrees target alive but in going further. I hope and want his optimism to be justified, but it feels more like the 1.5 degrees target is on life support. Meeting it would mean halving global emissions by 2030. The challenge for COP 26—so that we would always have Paris—was to close the gap between that aspiration and the reality of the pledges made. If Rick and Ilsa could do it, so can we. But did we?

We have to be honest about what has been achieved. Progress has been modest. We saw encouraging agreements on methane, deforestation, and the sales of petrol and diesel cars. Too often, however, the real delivery that will make a difference will come too late. According to the Climate Action Tracker, the pledges made at Glasgow for 2030, even if fully implemented, represent less than 25% of the ambition required. Rather than limiting warming to 1.5 degrees, we are now on track for a devastating 2.4 degrees rise. That is not just a number: it really matters. It could lead to billions of people facing extreme heatwaves, millions forced to leave their homes, and increased threats to both the natural wonders of the world and overall security. The Prime Minister kicked off the conference by saying that it was “one minute to midnight” on the doomsday clock. Can the Leader tell the House what time it is now, and whether we will still have Paris?

For years, coal has been the elephant in the room at these summits, so having an explicit reference in the agreement for the first time is really important. Who could not have been moved by Alok Sharma’s emotional reaction to that last-minute change to “phase down”? That really illustrates that hopes were cruelly dashed, despite the Prime Minister’s approval in the Statement. The raw emotion that we saw from Alok Sharma was also palpable among the Pacific Islanders. For many, climate change is genuinely existential, so even the announcement that 190 countries and organisations had agreed a timetable to end the use of coal does not bear scrutiny. Of those 190, only 46 were actually countries, of which 23 were new signatories and 10 do not even use coal. It is a coalition that includes NatWest and the national grid but not China, the United States or India.

There then came climate finance. It is a moral plight on developing nations that the 2009 commitment to provide $100 billion a year to emerging economies still has not been delivered; it will not be until 2023. That failure to deliver is self-defeating because it damages trust and prevents a high-ambition international coalition being built.

With his now typical overexuberance, the Prime Minister lauded the net-zero commitments made. Yet Saudi Arabia, for example, is still increasing oil production, despite its 2060 net-zero claim, and Australia will not even legislate for its 2050 net-zero target. We all know the importance of trade deals, but will the Leader explain why the Government dropped the Paris temperature commitment from the trade deal that we now have with Australia?

I had hoped that the Statement would refer to Thérèse Coffey’s welcome boast at the summit of the UK being

“the first country to legally require pension trustees to assess and publish the financial risks from climate change”.

I am sorry that it was not in the Statement, but the Leader of the House may recall that it was a Labour-led amendment in your Lordships’ House, supported across this House, that secured that historic commitment. We are pleased that we were able to be helpful, so that the Government could boast about that achievement at COP.

For the next 12 months, we have the COP presidency, and that gives us a key leadership responsibility. But the Government’s ability to step up and deliver is called into question by the Climate Change Committee’s recent report to Parliament, which said that the Government had been

“too slow to follow its climate promises with delivery”.

We cannot just put climate policy in a separate box: all government policies need to be linked to climate commitments, including trade deals. Yet Rishi Sunak’s Budget failed to mention climate change; it did not secure the necessary green investment, but it did give a tax break for domestic flights. That we were the only G7 country to cut overseas aid when seeking international co-operation on climate clearly damaged trust at COP.

When we wanted to focus on the summit issues and the climate emergency, many of us found it very difficult to watch the Prime Minister seeking to assure the world’s media that the UK was not corrupt, following his political shenanigans away from the summit. It was not exactly Mr Johnson’s finest hour.

Looking forward, I hope that the Leader is able to update us today on how Ministers can get a grip, reorder their priorities and invest in the green recovery. Can she give us an assurance that the net-zero test will be applied to all future decisions? Given what was said at COP 26, what is the Government’s renewed plan for phasing out fossil fuels, including rewriting the planning framework to rule out coal and say no to the Cambo oil field?

In conclusion, there was some welcome progress at COP 26 but it could have, and should have, achieved far more. Real action, not more rhetoric, must now follow, because the world just cannot wait any longer.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the Prime Minister that those who thought that COP 26 would be a failure have been proved wrong. There were agreements on forests, methane, cars and finance, and there is undoubtedly some momentum among Governments and the private sector to move more quickly than previously.

Alok Sharma clearly worked extremely hard to achieve even more substantive progress, and he and his team deserve our thanks for all their efforts. By contrast, the Prime Minister seems to have played no concerted role at any point over the last two years. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, his second visit to COP seemed to consist only of a press conference dominated by the question of whether the UK, under his watch, is now a corrupt country.

The Statement itself demonstrates the Prime Minister’s addiction to hyperbole. The world, he says, is “calling time on coal.” Really? When is that time? The declaration on coal is positive but, as it stands, is consistent with India and China continuing to use very large amounts of coal for decades ahead, decades which the world simply does not have. The Prime Minister says, we have

“ticked our boxes on cars, cash and trees.”

I fear that, for him, that is exactly what we have done: enough to enable him to claim that a success has been achieved, with no recognition that the agreements in these areas, although very welcome, are partial and will need continuing global pressure to achieve their stated goals.

As the dust settles on the conference, the key questions in every sector contributing to climate change are, “How do we build on the progress of COP 26?” and, “What role can the UK play?” I will concentrate on just three areas: finance, China, and the UK’s own carbon reduction strategy.

On finance, it is important that companies set targets and keep to them and that we do not facilitate the funding of climate-threatening activities. On the former, can the noble Baroness confirm what carbon reduction plans the UK will require companies listed in the UK to set in future, and what sanctions there will be to ensure that they are fulfilled? Does she agree that choking off finance for new fossil fuel exploration and development is potentially crucial? If so, will the Government commit to banning new stock exchange listings of fossil fuel companies and funds? Will the Government also press for a change in the capital adequacy rules, so that they reflect the climate change risks attached to lending by banks to fossil fuel companies? Does she accept that this could in effect price out the viability of such loans in future?

On China, the Prime Minister has expressed his frustration that they did not make further commitments at COP 26. He rightly accepts that he is not in a position to tell President Xi what to do, but there seems to have been a retreat in the diplomatic resources and effort put into climate change diplomacy, not just with China but globally. China’s stock has been weakened in the eyes of the island states, and much of the developing world, by their unwillingness to move more quickly. Surely this is something we should be tapping into via our Diplomatic Service to encourage those countries to put pressure on China, which in the past has so assiduously sought their votes at the UN and in other international bodies. Will the diplomatic resources devoted to climate change be increased to allow this to happen?

Domestically, the Government’s policy, despite the targets, is characterised by a lack of consistency and ambition. Will the Government now make it clear that they oppose any further coal or oil extraction in this country? Will they up their game on insulating homes and installing heat pumps? Will they give real impetus to developing working carbon capture and storage schemes, which have been promised for so long but not delivered? Will they stop doing counterproductive things, such as the reduction in air passenger duty?

The Prime Minister, quoting Aristotle in his Statement, says that

“virtue comes ... from habit and practice”

and implies that he favours virtue, at least in our approach to climate change. Will he therefore heed his own, or rather Aristotle’s, words, cut out the hyperbole and more assiduously practise what he preaches?

G20 and COP 26 World Leaders Summit

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement to the House. Ten months ago, in his new year message, the Prime Minister, with his usual optimistic rhetoric, declared that with the G7, COP and other global summits ahead of us, 2021 would be

“an amazing moment for this country.”

Yet as the winter nights draw in, I am sure that I am not the only one who feels that perhaps Mr Johnson overpromised and has not made the most of the available opportunities. As world leaders leave Glasgow, we all want COP 26 to be a success. You could say that we need it to be a success. The G20 could have been a springboard for the agreement that we need.

The noble Baroness is right, therefore, to tell the House that two weeks of COP remain, but Ministers cannot rely on warm words alone to deliver the outcome that we all need. On the climate crisis, Covid recovery and much more, it increasingly feels as if the Government are exposed and do not have a plan, despite their promises and commitments. While I appreciate the Minister’s frankness in saying that there is far more to be done, I implore the Prime Minister to use this moment—it is just a brief moment of opportunity—to show real leadership and, more importantly, the direction that is needed.

The Rome G20 started in much the same way as the G7 earlier this year, with Mr Johnson yet again, unfortunately, distracted by ongoing issues relating to the botched Brexit deal. The small steps agreed in Sunday’s communiqué are welcome, and I cannot emphasise enough that we want COP to succeed. Judging, however, by the Statement—if I have understood correctly from listening carefully to the noble Baroness—it is not entirely clear that even the Prime Minister is sure about what was agreed in Rome. Page 1 of my copy of the Statement says:

“We all agreed to seek to restrain the rise in world temperatures to 1.5 degrees centigrade”.


On page 2 it has been downgraded from an agreement to a “shared aim”. By page 3 it is back to “a commitment” on a target, while by page 4 it is downgraded again to an “aspiration” or an “ambition”. Either the Prime Minister is confused or he has someone writing his Statement with a thesaurus to hand.

Together, the G20 nations represent 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions. As the noble Baroness understands, the world is reliant on their actions towards net zero. If they fail, it will be the small developing countries that pay the price. That is why we need a plan for implementation, whatever the word used for it. I did not hear a plan, strategy or road map today. Where is the plan?

Can the noble Baroness confirm whether the Prime Minister personally advocated for a 2050 net-zero date in the communiqué, or was he satisfied with the inclusion of “around mid-century”? Given the Government’s own record on new coal mines and oil exploration in the UK, did our domestic policy undermine our ability to negotiate a stronger line? The noble Baroness may recall that the FCDO previously announced a climate diplomacy fund to prepare for the summit. Can she update the House on how that money has been spent? I am happy for her to write to me if she is unable to answer today.

On international development, we are grateful to the G20 for reiterating that the consequences of climate change are already being felt by the world’s poorest and most vulnerable. But, as much as I welcome the acknowledgement in the Prime Minister’s Statement of the impact on important coral reefs, I would like to have heard more about the devastating and deadly human impact of our collective failure to act. But given the Government’s attitude to development aid and the cuts made, perhaps we should not be surprised. I wonder whether other countries raised this with Mr Johnson, especially those that have seen the pandemic as a reason to increase international aid.

On a similar note—again, I am happy for the noble Baroness to write to me if she cannot answer this—she will be aware that the Chancellor recently announced that the IMF’s special drawing rights will now be reclassified as international aid. This might sound like an accounting dodge, but it is important: it means that millions of pounds of support to developing countries will be lost. Given that the UK is the only major donor to do this, can she explain why the Government have taken this route?

On Covid vaccinations, for much of the developing world, the threat from the climate crisis is rivalled only by Covid-19. According to Amnesty International, while 63% of people in G20 countries are vaccinated, the figure in low- and lower-middle income countries is just 10%. We welcome the G20’s commitment, as previously agreed by the World Health Organization, to vaccinating 70% of the world’s population by the middle of next year. But, again, we come back to the plan: there is a lack of clarity about how this will be achieved.

I do not know whether the noble Baroness has had the opportunity to read the 10-point plan to produce and distribute vaccinations globally produced by the Labour Party. She might find it helpful. But can she outline for us the Government’s plan which backs up the commitments made?

On a note of optimism, the rubber-stamping of the global minimum corporation tax could pave the way for a fairer global tax system. But we come back to the issue of the plan: this is still a long way from implementation. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether the legislation has been drafted to give effect to this commitment? What steps are our representatives taking to develop the accompanying global framework at the OECD? The proposal represents an opportunity to build a new economy in the aftermath of the pandemic, but we also must take a lead in responding to the more immediate threats of rising inflation and the shortages we have seen. The noble Baroness may recall—although she may not be aware—that in the wake of the 2008 financial crash, the Labour Government, led by Gordon Brown, put forward a global plan to limit the damage and pave the way for recovery. That is the kind of leadership the UK needs and should provide again.

It is all very well, and is to be admired, for the Government to have aims, ambitions, and targets, and to work with others to secure commitments. But, coming back to my central point, unless there is a plan or detailed strategy to turn those commitments into reality, it is just warm words. If the Leader answers just one question today, can she tell us: where is the plan?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Leader for repeating the Statement. Before I move on to COP 26, perhaps I might ask her a couple of questions about the G20 announcements.

First, the PM highlights the target of vaccinating 70% of the world’s population against Covid by the middle of next year. He then boasts about the fact that the UK is providing 100 million doses towards this effort, of which 70 million will have been donated by the end of 2022. Can the noble Baroness confirm that to date only 5 million doses have been delivered? Does she accept that, given the overall numbers required to meet the target, which the PM supports, run into several billions, just under 70 million doses from the UK by the middle of next year is simply inadequate? The WHO estimates that some 82 countries are at risk of missing the target, so will the UK be more ambitious and commit to increasing the number of vaccines it provides, so the target might stand a chance of being met?

The Prime Minister highlights the resolve of the G20 to work together to ease supply chain disruption. The declaration from Rome simply makes that statement with no hint of what the leaders intend to do about the problem. Can the noble Baroness explain what international action is planned and whether the Government intend to make any proposals to their G20 partners on how to resolve these problems? In relation to supply problems in the UK, could she update the House on the number of HGV drivers from the EU who have taken up the Government’s offer to work in the UK for the next two months? I think the last published figure was 27. Has it increased? On the assumption that we have not seen any significant increase in driver numbers, what assurances can she give that there will not be further disruption to the supply of presents and food in the run-up to Christmas?

On COP 26 and climate change, the agreements announced in Glasgow on deforestation and methane are very welcome. But does the noble Baroness accept that without the active participation of China in such programmes, and the general unwillingness of China to set targets commensurate with meeting the 1.5 degree target, the chances of hitting that target are remote. To date, the Government do not appear to have any strategy, working with like-minded international partners, of putting effective pressure on China. Does the noble Baroness accept that unless such pressure is brought to bear and there is further movement from China, COP 26 cannot result in a successful outcome?

Today’s announcement on sustainable finance is potentially extremely significant, because if it becomes more difficult for firms in the coal- and carbon-intensive manufacturing sectors to finance new projects, many of these projects simply will not happen. More generally, the announcement by many global firms and financial institutions that they will align their investment and lending with the Paris climate goals could, if executed, do more than anything else to reorient the world economy towards a net-zero model. But the track record of companies which have made such commitments in the past is not encouraging. In a number of high-profile cases, banks which have promised, for example, to divest themselves of fossil fuel investments have broken the rules which they set for themselves; and they have not applied the rules at all to some asset classes. What legal requirements do the Government plan to place on companies and financial institutions listed in London, or based in the UK, to set net-zero plans? What sanctions will apply if they either fail to set them in the first place or, having set them, simply fail to implement them?

At the weekend the Prime Minister said that the score was 5-1 against the chances of Glasgow succeeding. Yesterday he claimed that the forces of climate action had pulled back a goal, or possibly two. The fact this Government have allowed the score to get to 5-1 against is a telling indictment of the casual way they have approached this summit. Failure over the next few days to change the scoreline further would be a disaster not just for the Government but for the planet.

Health and Social Care

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Thursday 9th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, yesterday we saw in the House of Commons quite an extraordinary sight. The very day after an outlined policy announcement on social care, the Government rushed through a vote for a 10% increase in national insurance contributions that will not even be used for that purpose until 2023.

There is a no doubt that addressing social care is a critical and complex issue, and one that is expensive to address. However, what we heard in the Prime Minister’s Statement was not the oven-ready plan he promised two years ago. The danger for the Prime Minister—and, unfortunately, for the country—is that this now feels like an impetuous decision made for political reasons when there are so many who are willing to work across parties, professions and interests to find a consensual way forward. Despite the usual hyperbole, we did not hear a plan for dealing with a system crumbling under strain; nor did we hear a guarantee that this money will go into social care.

Despite this measure being flagged as a social care policy, the Prime Minister announced that, for at least the next three years, the bulk of the money raised by the levy will be spent on the NHS to “clear the waiting list backlog”. Yet the Secretary of State for Health seemed very uncertain that this would work. Waiting lists were already at record highs even before the pandemic struck, and our health and social care services had been left weakened and exposed when the virus hit.

Where would that leave both the NHS and social care services? To me, this feels just a bit too close to the Prime Minister’s Brexit bus tactics. Remember: Brexit was going to deliver £350 million a week to the National Health Service. Already, care sector experts and leaders are critical of using the NHS as a political fig leaf to break a manifesto commitment and make the introduction of a deeply controversial tax palatable, as well as using it to cover up many mismanagements and misjudgments during the handling of the pandemic. If the Prime Minister’s tactic of a rushed vote was to avoid scrutiny, it has failed. On an issue of this magnitude, scrutiny is essential. It is not just about holding the Government to account; it is about trying to get the best policy outcomes.

At the election, the Government promised to ensure that no one needing care would have to sell their home to pay for it. Can the Minister repeat that commitment today? The cap benefits those who live in the most expensive parts of the country or have the most expensive houses, but someone who has a house worth £100,000, for example, will still have to pay £86,000 for their care, even with the cap. That cap does not include the associated care home living costs, which are not covered by the cap and often far exceed the personal care costs of residential care.

The Chancellor’s explanation yesterday, which I hope that Minister will not attempt today, was that people needing to raise money for care need not sell their homes while they are still alive because they can get a loan that is then repaid when their estate is sold after their death. That is nothing new. Deferred payments were already available. Did anyone really think that this was what the Government’s promise of not selling homes meant?

I think that most people understand that good services cost money, but it is the unfairness of these tax rises that is wrong, especially with the lack of a proper plan or guarantees. Two and a half million working families face a double whammy: a national insurance tax rise and a £1,000 per year universal credit cut which even the Government’s own analysis has said will have a catastrophic impact. So many of those who kept us going through the pandemic—the medical teams, the care workers, the shop workers, the cleaners, some of the lowest paid workers—will be paying more, but they are the ones who will benefit the least.

The Government have not listened to warnings or proposed alternatives for supporting social care, nor have they addressed the rising demand. Conservative Governments in the years prior to the pandemic have cut the social care budget by £8 billion. At present nearly 300,000 people are on local authority waiting lists for adult social care services in England because of the funding pressures and delays in assessments for social workers. Yet we heard absolutely nothing yesterday about the role of local government. It would be helpful if the Minister could say how much funding will be provided to support local government in delivering social care. She must understand that despite being on the front line, it is concerned that the NHS will absorb the extra money and that the social care allocation will be swallowed up by the cap costs.

The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services has said that a chronic shortage of care workers means that more than one in 10 people assessed as needing care in their own homes were instead offered care in residential facilities, often against their own wishes. This is a stark reminder of why we need the investment now. A well-thought-out plan would, as we have repeatedly said, involve a real reform of services that allows people who wish to do so to stay in their homes for longer. There is nothing in the Prime Minister’s Statement about how we use technology, how we improve home adaptations, how we build and adapt more lifetime homes and how we support care workers. Can the Minister tell us whether there has been any engagement with charities and campaigners who deal with these issues every day of their lives, with the national forum, with policy makers, with service users or with carers?

It is a huge frustration that the long-promised White Paper on reforming social care and integrating it with healthcare has again been kicked into the long grass. All Ministers have said is that it will be published later this year. Would it not have been logical—a response to this would be appreciated—to publish the White Paper, set a timetable to consult and then discuss and engage in order to provide a transformative plan that includes how we support an army of unpaid family carers, how we ensure that working-age adults with disabilities have more control over their lives and how we tackle the workforce crisis and support care workers? Instead, we have an unfair funding plan, no reforms and no guarantees.

None of us underestimates the scale of the challenge this issue presents in funding and providing the proper services the country needs. Unfortunately, the fear now is that in the Government’s rush, they have missed that opportunity to seize the real prize for the British people. There is a better way to do this.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, according to the Prime Minister, the package of proposals in this Statement represents

“a project of our era equivalent to the creation of the NHS and the welfare state.”

How, then, do the proposals measure up to this challenging claim?

Taking the spending side first, the Statement covers three separate but related areas. First, there is the implementation, at last, of something like the Dilnot proposals for placing a cap on the contribution that individuals need to make towards their social care. This principle was legislated for by the coalition in 2014 and its implementation is long overdue. Secondly, the Government are making a major investment of about £10 billion per annum for the next three years in the NHS to deal with the backlog of elective procedures. Undoubtedly this is necessary, but not necessarily sufficient. Yesterday, the Prime Minister failed to give any assurances about the rate at which the backlog of procedures would be reduced. Can the Minister today give any further indication of timescale on this?

Thirdly, the Government claim to be making more resources available to state-funded social care beyond Dilnot. This is arguably the most pressing problem of all, with 112,000 vacancies, massive staff turnover rates and providers teetering on the edge of financial viability. Sadly, the Statement was almost silent on the substance. Instead, all details about the future of social care are yet again pushed back into the long-promised White Paper, for which no publication date has been set, as the noble Baroness pointed out. Can the Minister confirm that there will be no immediate increase at all in funds available for social care, not a penny? If so, how does she expect care homes and domiciliary care providers to survive over the coming months? Over the whole three-year period covered by the Statement, exactly how much additional central government funding will flow into adult social care provision unrelated to the Dilnot reforms, bearing in mind that the current annual cash shortfall is somewhere in the range of £6 billion to £14 billion?

After the first three years, the proceeds of the levy are supposed to go increasingly towards social care. However, given that, on the basis of previous experience, overall NHS spending in future is likely to be greater than that currently budgeted for, there will undoubtedly be pressure for this additional level of NHS funding to continue, even after the pandemic catch-up is more or less complete. What assurance can the Government give that over the medium term, the bulk of the revenue raised by the levy will go to social care, as promised? When later this year does the Minister expect the White Paper to be produced? We have heard so many assurances that it is almost here, nearly here or will soon be here. We are a bit sceptical.

The Government document states that they want to

“make care work a more rewarding vocation”.

How will these announcements allow care providers and local authorities to increase the wages of the many thousands of care workers stuck on zero-hours contracts and the minimum wage? Do the Government really believe that offering a few training courses will solve the recruitment and retention problem in this sector? The Government say that they will

“ensure that the 5.4 million unpaid carers have the support and respite that they need”.

How much additional funding over the next three years will now be available to fulfil this promise?

The Government say that they will move towards equalising the amount paid by self-funders and those funded by local authorities. Do they plan to do this by reducing the amount paid by self-funders or by increasing the amount paid by local authorities? If it is the latter, where will the money come from?

I turn to the new hypothecated health and social care levy. Many people are indignant that a major manifesto promise has been broken, but why are they surprised? For this Prime Minister, a promise is not a binding commitment; it is simply a holding position, until it becomes easier to do something else. More surprising than a broken promise is that the Treasury has agreed to introduce a hypothecated tax—something that it normally never countenances, because of all the inflexibilities that it brings. Why has a new, unprecedented, hypothecated tax been introduced here? The obvious reason is that the Government know that they will have ever-growing demands for future spending in health and social care, for which tax rises will be required, and they see this tax as a vehicle for doing that in future. Can the noble Baroness confirm that, for this Parliament at least, there will be no more increases in the levy?

All in all, does this Statement amount—as the Prime Minister claims—to the equivalent for our age as the creation of the NHS and the welfare state? For those trying to run a care home, act as an unpaid carer or subsist on a minimum income, such a boast will ring hollow. Beveridge, Attlee and Bevan must be turning in their graves.

Afghanistan

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, just so there is no confusion, the Lord Privy Seal has not repeated the Statement; we have to rely on having heard the Prime Minister say it. I am a little disappointed that the Statement is being considered at the end of business today, given the importance of this issue. The Government made two Statements in the House of Commons; I had expected them to be repeated between the two Second Readings and was somewhat surprised this morning to find that they were so late, as it may affect the number of Members who are able to take part.

Having watched the very distressing evacuation scenes, I think we all have nothing but praise for the heroic work of the British troops, our diplomats and our civil servants, who were operating in incredibly difficult circumstances. They were having to manage a chaotic situation, following a series of failures and miscalculations by the Government. It was interesting that the Prime Minister’s Statement referred to them facing “every possible challenge”; it must be said, one of those challenges was a failure of political leadership, being utterly unprepared for what was to come. That withdrawal had been more than 18 months in the making, but the Government were unprepared, had been unwilling to plan and seemed unable to take a lead. Even in those final weeks before the fall of Kabul, Mr Raab failed to speed up evacuation efforts, failed to issue warnings to British nationals and failed to prepare the department’s crisis response. Even when he gave evidence to the Select Committee, he was rather hazy on the numbers of those, both Afghans and UK citizens, who have been left behind.

The Government have previously said that it was not realistic to stay beyond the US deadline. I think we all accept that, but I have put this question to the noble Baroness—I see she is taking note of what I am saying— I think twice before on previous Statements: what representations did the Government and Ministers make, mainly to the Americans but also others, on the management and timescale of the withdrawal? I am not clear about this and am trying really hard to get to the bottom of it: did the Government ever go back and say to the Americans and NATO, “This will be terrible under this timescale. It will be a disaster. We understand that you are moving US troops out, but can we reconsider how it is done?”

In the final days, as the Taliban entered the city, both Mr Raab and Mr Johnson—the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary—were away on holiday. I am not against Ministers taking holidays—we all need holidays—but there is an issue here of timing and priorities. We know that this is a Government clearly out of their depth, but those chaotic final days of the UK’s role in Afghanistan should not be allowed to undermine in any way the achievements of the past 20 years. The sacrifice of British veterans was not in vain. Their incredible efforts with allied forces facilitated stability and progress throughout Afghanistan, and we should all be proud of their service.

Unfortunately, recent events have opened up old wounds for veterans across the UK. The Government must recognise this and allocate the essential resources and establish the right support structures for them. I say to the noble Baroness, I welcome the additional funding announcement, albeit overdue, but that must sit alongside a strategy to confront the structural barriers that veterans are facing in the employment market, in healthcare and in their daily lives. It would be helpful if she could now confirm whether the Office for Veterans’ Affairs will still face a 40% cut in its budget this year. There must also be recognition for the more than 1,000 UK personnel who took part in Operation Pitting, which airlifted 15,000 people as the country fell to the Taliban. Unfortunately, as she may be aware, troops are not eligible to receive medals as this mission did not meet the 30-day service rule. I think most of us feel that, in these specific and special circumstances, surely that convention should be waived and we should reward the heroic efforts of troops who took part in Operation Pitting.

With the airlift now over, the focus must shift to the lifelong support that we can offer to those Afghans who worked side by side with our troops. I am disappointed that the Government still have not outlined the full details of the Afghans citizens resettlement scheme. We look forward to receiving them. Many of those evacuated are still uncertain and in the dark about their immediate future, let alone their medium- and long-term future. Can the Leader of the House outline when the resettlement scheme will begin and how many people are expected to join it? Can she also say something about how many evacuated Afghans are currently being housed in hotels and other temporary accommodation and how many have been moved into permanent or semi-permanent accommodation? Given that councils—I cite Greenwich Council—have already written to the Government asking for help in supporting refugees and are trying to do their best, what support has been made available to local authorities?

As we look to Afghanistan’s future, we cannot abandon those who have been unable to escape. The Government have to explore all opportunities to support the establishment of viable and safe routes for those who are now in danger. The PM said in his Statement:

“We will insist on safe passage for anyone who wishes to leave”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/21; col. 22.]


I want to probe what “insist” means. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary said that the Taliban had offered assurances in this area, but he could not expand on that. It would be helpful if the Leader could say tonight what assurances have been received and what degree of confidence the Government have in those assurances.

We also have to confront the reality of the impending humanitarian crisis, where 40% of the crops have been lost through drought. While funding is important, efforts need to be made—perhaps the Leader could say more about this as well—to ensure that food and life-saving medicines are allowed into the country.

On security, human rights and many other issues, the UK needs to work with other countries and NATO to craft a clear diplomatic road map that seeks to protect the gains of the past 20 years. I am thinking specifically, but not exclusively, about the progress on the rights of women and girls. I am sure that, like me, the Leader has seen distressing accounts over the past few days of how women peacefully protesting the basic rights that those of us in this House take for granted have been met with aggression and violence. The efforts of the UK at the UN to secure a Security Council resolution are welcome, but they have to be followed up with prime ministerial intervention. What is the UK’s plan for ensuring that the Taliban are held to their word? What did the Prime Minister agree during his meeting with Secretary-General Guterres? Does he have any plans to continue to engage with the P5 on the implementation of the resolution that was passed at the meeting?

We cannot allow Afghanistan to be a safe haven for terrorism again and neither can we sit by as the Taliban tear down the basic rights that the Afghan people have enjoyed. The Government’s incompetence has let down the Afghan people who have so bravely worked alongside our personnel for two decades. That incompetence also puts us in danger. The security implications of recent weeks are grave and long-lasting and we cannot afford to ignore the risks that we now face. The humanitarian crisis, the displacement of people and the proliferation of extremism can now grow in Afghanistan. While our response should be driven by the need to help the Afghan people, we must also understand that a failure to do that for them will endanger us all.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I echo the Prime Minister’s commendation of the courage and ingenuity of everybody involved in the Kabul airlift. It was indeed the most impressive achievement.

This is a remarkably thin Statement. It does not contain any new facts or commitments to the people of Afghanistan, either in the UK or in Afghanistan. In terms of Afghans who want to come to the UK, in the Statement the Prime Minister repeated two promises: first, that for those to whom we have already made commitments, we will do our best to honour them; and, secondly, that beyond that we will work with the UN and other aid agencies to identify those we should help, as well as

“Afghans who have contributed to civil society or who face particular risk”

because they have stood up

“for democracy and human rights or because of their gender, sexuality or religion”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/21; col. 22.]

I support those commitments, but fear that the first is unachievable in the foreseeable future and that the second offers false hope to many thousands of people. The first is unachievable because we have no means to get people who have a right to come to the UK out of the country. They cannot fly out, and many of the border crossings are, in effect, closed to them. To echo the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, how much confidence do the Government have that the Taliban will give those people safe passage? Do they even know how many of them there are? How are they planning, in the absence of any diplomatic presence in the country, to facilitate their departure?

On the second commitment, the number of people in the categories which the Government wish to help runs into the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands. How does the Government’s commitment to welcoming them into the UK square with their absolute limit of 5,000 refugees over the coming year? How will they decide who to prioritise when confronted with such large numbers of people who they say are technically eligible for visas and who are desperate, for their own safety, to leave the country now, not at some point over the next five years? The Government’s response to requests to take more than the 5,000 is that it is beyond the country’s capacity to do so. This claim does not withstand scrutiny. Even the Prime Minister accepts that the Government are inundated with offers of help from charities and ordinary citizens, and the Government appear to be doing nothing to require the large number of local authorities which are not offering to take a single refugee to play their part. Will they do so now? The fact is that the 5,000 one-year cap and the longer-term 20,000 cap have nothing to do with need. They are, frankly, the minimum that the Government think they can get away with, and they should do better.

The Prime Minister says that the UK will use

“every economic, political and diplomatic lever to protect our own countries from harm and to help the Afghan people.”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/21; col. 22.]

Again, that is a positive statement, but what does it amount to? On economic support through development aid, how do the Government intend to ensure that funds can be channelled in an effective way? How closely are they working with the UNDP, which seems to be developing pragmatic working relations with the Taliban? Will they make the disbursement of aid funds contingent on the Taliban keeping its promises; for example, in respect of safe passage or human rights?

On political and diplomatic levers, it is good to see the Foreign Secretary engaging—at last—with the Qatari and Pakistani Governments. In his Statement, the Foreign Secretary sets out some of the issues he discussed in those meetings, but not the outcomes. Can the Leader give the House any specific examples of action that will flow from that series of meetings?

In relation to dealing with the Taliban Administration, the Government say that they will now engage with them, which I am sure is the right approach, and they have appointed a non-resident chargé d’affaires in Doha. While that is welcome, it must surely be desirable to work towards re-establishing a physical diplomatic presence in Kabul. There are clearly challenges in doing so, but to what extent are the Government working with other western Governments, who also need to re-establish their position in Afghanistan, to facilitate that? Have they, for example, spoken to the EU, which is looking to set up a single diplomatic presence in Kabul? There will surely be administrative and security benefits in co-locating with such an office. Are the Government considering that possibility?

More generally, the Afghan debacle has shown the need for the UK to recalibrate its whole foreign policy stance and, in particular, to rebuild relations with the US, through NATO, and with the EU. The Statement is silent on these larger issues, but, frankly, until we address them, much of the micromanagement of the next phase of our involvement with Afghanistan is bound to be more difficult to deliver, making it more difficult for us to deliver on the promises that the Government have already made to the people of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 12th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Therefore, when the Prime Minister says that he will use

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

what does that actually mean in practice on the ground?

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

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

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

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

The recent NATO summit communique said:

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


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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

“every diplomatic and humanitarian lever”

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

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

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

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

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

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

G7 and NATO Summits

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Thursday 17th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Thursday 13th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Integrated Review

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

how will these cuts assist in achieving that?

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

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

“Our approach will place diplomacy first.”


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“in recognition of the evolving security environment”.

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

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

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

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

Covid-19: Road Map

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Tuesday 23rd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I certainly appreciate the different tone and style of this Statement from previous ones from the Prime Minister, so I am sorry that it is not being repeated in your Lordships’ House. I hope that once we return to more traditional ways of working we can also return to hearing Statements, as well as responses.

We know that nobody likes Covid lockdowns and restrictions, but not liking is very different from knowing when it is essential. I have said before that far worse than lockdowns are repeated lockdowns where infections rise because we have been too slow to start and too quick to get out. Yesterday, the Prime Minister started his Statement—his third announcing restrictions coming to an end—with two key words, describing the road map back to living and working more normally as being undertaken “cautiously” and “irreversibly”. That is crucial, because we need this to be the last lockdown.

As we emerge from the restrictions that have made life so difficult, our whole country needs to have confidence in the process, so Mr Johnson’s assurances that this will be led by facts and science, with four stages, not aiming for specific dates but moving forward as the evidence allows, is welcome. We know that there will be those, perhaps some of them taking part in today’s debate, who will press the noble Baroness the Leader that each stage must be quicker and less cautious. I urge her and the Prime Minister to resist. The change in approach to ensure that we move only forward and not back means that we can now be optimistic, just cautiously and carefully so.

We must also recognise the amazing efforts that have led to such a successful vaccine rollout. The brilliant endeavours of scientists, the impressive leadership of our NHS and the support of volunteers have made this a game-changer. Without that rollout, although I speak as someone who was not yet had their first jab, we would not be able to have this road map back to normality, but I seek further clarification from the noble Baroness on some key issues.

On schools, a 10 year-old child will have lost about a fifth of their school time because of this pandemic. The educational, emotional and physical toll is significant, so we need pupils, parents, teachers and other staff to have confidence in the way this is being done, and that it addresses their concerns. Yesterday, Keir Starmer highlighted the problem that beset many schools and children in the autumn, when whole classes or year groups found themselves having to isolate in response to individual cases. Given the knock-on impact such developments have had on family members, including the additional pressures on working parents, do the Government consider that it now makes sense, with all children about to go back to school, to deliver a rapid rollout of vaccines to all school staff? Could the noble Baroness also say something about how the testing regime will work for those working in schools?

The test, trace and isolate system has been the Achilles heel of pandemic planning. The world-beating system we were promised never emerged, with too few people being contacted and inadequate support for those who need to isolate. The noble Baroness will be aware of the recent SAGE report that says that most people do not isolate when they should and that many people avoid even going for tests in case they are told not to work. This holds back the recovery for all of us, so I hope she can assure us that a review of self-isolation payments will take place in the light of the Prime Minister’s Statement.

On a related point, one in four UK households does not have a car, and as restrictions are lifted many people will have to use public transport. Given the lack of guidance in the Statement and the accompanying documents, could the noble Baroness say more about plans to minimise the risk to drivers and other transport workers?

On businesses and jobs, the Statement provides a degree of certainty for many businesses about their route back. For some that will be April, but for others not until mid-June at the earliest. Pubs and restaurants will not be able to serve customers indoors until 17 May. That is more than a month after when they will have to start paying business rates and more than two weeks after furlough, which covers 1 million of their staff, ends. Surely support for this sector should be extended in line with the Prime Minister’s timetable. I am sure the noble Baroness will also understand the need for reassurances for those in the food and farming sectors who are reliant on seasonal workers for the picking and harvesting of essential and popular crops.

Next week’s Spring Budget is an opportunity to develop confidence in life after lockdown and the Prime Minister’s announcements need to be co-ordinated with the necessary support to make the strategy work. I understand that the noble Baroness might want to kick any answers on the economy to beyond the Budget, but we need reassurances today that these issues will be fully considered. I would include in that consideration of retraining those workers aged over 50 who have been affected so that they are not forced into early retirement. Please address the serious problems of the Kickstart Scheme, which is currently helping only one in every 100 young people trapped in long-term unemployment. And a real plea: can the Government cancel the planned cut to universal credit, as it will have a dire impact on struggling households?

Also, can the Government look again at sectoral deals, including proper support for the vast army of freelancers across our creative sectors? I suspect the noble Baroness might not have read the Guardian report last weekend that many of those whose skilled work behind the scenes is essential to live events are finding themselves becoming homeless and reliant on food banks.

I have just one additional point on that road map. Given the emphasis on the responsibilities of local authorities, which include enforcement, advising businesses and testing, I hope the Chancellor will be forthcoming with additional support for councils.

One aspect that has not been reported on quite so much is the impact on court cases, with some serious criminal cases facing possible delays of up to four years. Could the noble Baroness explain—either today or I am happy for her to write to me—why the Government are still failing to act to ensure the rapid rollout of more Nightingale courts and lateral flow testing at all courts?

But, looking forward, we all need this plan to work. There is obviously a sense of déjà vu when talking about lifting restrictions—as I said, this is the third Statement the Prime Minister has made on that—but this time there are two game-changers: first and very obviously, the extraordinary efforts making the vaccine rollout so successful, but also the Prime Minister’s different approach in learning, we hope, from past mistakes in planning this route map and using the evidence to chart a cautious advance. I am generally optimistic that we are turning a corner, but we need to remind ourselves that infections today are still as high as they were in the autumn and we need to be alert to ensure we do not at any point find ourselves falling back.

Could I ask the noble Baroness about two House-related matters? Would she agree that your Lordships’ House might benefit from a full and proper debate on the lessons already learned over the past year? That would also be an opportunity for the Government to respond to the December 2020 report of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy and its concerns about the profound shortcomings in the UK’s biosecurity and national security systems. As so many experts have said, we cannot treat this pandemic as an isolated incident, and we would want to build on the knowledge and expertise now required to inform our response if needed in the future. Does she agree that we must start planning our own route map to return to more normal ways of working in your Lordships’ House?

As we proceed “cautiously” and “irreversibly”, to quote the Prime Minister, we all hope that this is truly the final lockdown.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the Government’s proposals for moving out of lockdown are being made possible by the extraordinarily impressive vaccination programme. As someone who has now had their first vaccination, I wish to echo the tribute given by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to those who have developed the vaccines at breakneck speed, to those who manufacture and distribute them and to NHS staff and volunteers who are administering them so efficiently and cheerfully.

The Prime Minister says that the measures are being driven by data rather than dates, yet very specific dates are being set for each stage of the easing. The Covid response document says:

“The indicative … dates in the roadmap are all contingent on the data and subject to change.”


The implication is that change might be in both directions and that, if the data are better than expected, either the dates to trigger each step might change or the activities that are allowed in each step might change. Is this correct?

It is obviously welcome to parents and children alike that schools are to reopen soon, but bringing the whole school back in one go, particularly when secondary schools will be required to do very regular testing, seems a very big ask. Why did the Government reject the approach adopted by my colleague Kirsty Williams in Wales, allowing some classes to come back this week but phasing the return to allow it to happen more smoothly?

On local elections, the document says that the Government will

“enable a broader range of campaign-related activity from 8 March”.

What does this mean? Up to this point, the Government have, without any medical justification, sought to ban parties from even delivering leaflets. When will we know what will now be allowed?

The resumption of care home visits is very welcome. But if the care home patient has been vaccinated and all the visitors are required to take a rapid flow test, why are they also required to wear PPE, given that face masks will significantly reduce the quality of many visits, especially for those with dementia?

From 29 March, six people or two households will be able to meet outdoors, but we are told to “minimise travel” until step 3 begins on 17 May. What does this mean for the vast majority of possible family and other reunions, which can take place only if people travel by car or public transport to meet each other? For example, can I and my wife travel 50 miles to have a socially distanced walk with another household in our family over Easter, as we would very much like to do, or does the minimising travel rule mean that the Government are telling us not to? This is a straightforward, practical question, to which millions of households now need a clear answer.

On how we operate in Parliament, the Statement says that the Government will conduct a review of social distancing that will

“be critical in determining how Parliament can safely return in a way that I know honourable Members would wish.”

Can the noble Baroness give any indication on the timing of this review? The document accompanying the Statement simply says that this will happen before step 4. Does that mean that the Government believe that the earliest that social distancing rules in the Chamber might be relaxed is 21 June?

On providing support for those hit financially by the pandemic, it seems perverse not to say now what continuing support will be given. People are asked to wait until the Budget, but surely the Government could have outlined the principal measures that they intend to take now to avoid another week of sleepless nights for many business owners in the retail, arts and hospitality sectors. For the Prime Minister to say that the Government are not going to “pull the rug out” from under them is simply not good enough.

Finally, on track and trace, the evidence remains that a large proportion of those told to self-isolate do not do so because of financial necessity. The £500 support scheme is clearly failing in its purpose, yet the Statement and supporting document propose no remedy. Will the Government now commit to repaying lost earnings up to a sensible limit to enable the isolate element of test, trace and isolate to work effectively for the first time? If not, why on earth not?

The Statement and the growing success of the vaccination programme give the whole country hope for an eventual return to something approaching normality. Despite the many specific questions and doubts that we might have on the details of the provisions and the timetable, we can certainly share the Government’s hope that by late June a large degree of normality can indeed be resumed.

Covid-19

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Thursday 28th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I always think that it is shame that we are not able to hear the Statements in the House first.

When I heard the Prime Minister’s Statement, I was struck by how quickly it moved on from reflecting on how we have got to this point straight to vaccinations and quarantine. Obviously, the focus must be on the future, but surely at every stage we need to reflect on what has gone before—both on the successes and on what we would do differently.

More than 100,000 people across the UK have died. That figure is chilling. Each death has been mourned, often in shock and despair. In the 11 weeks since 11 November, the number of deaths has been higher than in the previous eight months. So when the Prime Minister says that the most important thing that we can do to honour their memory is to persevere against the virus with even greater resolve, he is only partly right. It is the absolute minimum that we must do.

We agree that we must use the expertise, energy and commitment of every agency and resource of government to ensure that our lives can start to return to normal as soon as possible. But there are two other ways in which we must respect the memories of those who have died: first, by recognising and learning the lessons of past mistakes and, secondly, by preparing for the post-Covid economy and the society of the future.

Such a worldwide crisis is unprecedented. The scale and severity of the pandemic would be challenging for any Government. Britain is the first country in Europe to suffer 100,000 deaths, with one of the highest death rates in the world. Add to that the deepest recession of any major economy and the lowest growth, and we are on course for one of the slowest recoveries of any developed nation. We recognise that the Prime Minister is trying to manage competing pressures from those who want to put health first and those calling for restrictions to be lifted early because of the economic impact. However, as we have said so many times, these are not competing issues; it is impossible to have a healthy economy without a healthy population and we will not emerge from the economic crisis with a further hokey-cokey approach to lockdown, where we start too late, stop too early and then start all over again.

With so many across the UK struggling mentally, physically and economically, Boris Johnson should reflect on his reaction to those who raise questions and concerns, or offer advice. Early last month, Keir Starmer questioned the Prime Minister on whether the Government’s four-day window for lifting restrictions over the festive period was appropriate, with the R rate rising. In response, the Prime Minister shouted that Labour wanted to cancel Christmas, before bowing to the inevitable a few days later. Again, last month, when schools in some London boroughs sought to stop transmission by closing early, they were threatened with legal action—by a Government that then took that same course of action. The Prime Minister has never properly addressed the times when he has been too slow to accept the advice from SAGE. Even if it is a different viewpoint, which does not chime with his position at that time, Mr Johnson should consider the merits of the suggestions and comments put to him. We want, and we need, the Government to get this right. It is no exaggeration to say that lives, and livelihoods, depend on it.

The way out of this nightmare has now been provided by amazing scientists, our National Health Service, the Armed Forces, and hundreds of thousands of volunteers. The vaccine programme is making incredible progress—a truly national, and an unprecedented, effort. The Government are of course right to focus on the rollout. There will be problems and glitches, so transparency and clarity are critical to success, and I have three questions for the Minister on that point. Can she tell us how the Government are ensuring the even distribution of vaccines around the country? How are they working with local government and other public bodies to ensure efficient targeting and take-up, particularly in the priority groups? Can she also tell us how quickly, when best practice is identified, it is communicated elsewhere?

Reports today that cases are falling, but not fast enough to ease the pressures on the NHS, bring home just how important it is that the test and trace scheme is effective. At a cost of £22 billion and rising, we were promised a world-beating system, and we desperately need it to succeed. I still think it would be helpful to your Lordships’ House if the Government permitted the Minister’s colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, to answer questions in the House on test and trace. In her absence, I ask the Minister: given the failures of test and trace in the autumn, what lessons have been learned since?

The Minister will be aware, as I am, of the changes to counting methodology. An individual who tested positive, having come into contact with others, four of whom then tested positive, would previously have been counted as one identified contact, because that person was the contact who passed the disease on. Under the new counting rules, that individual will now be counted as four identified contacts. I do not understand the reasons for that. The figures may look better, but no additional people will have been contacted. Even the Government have admitted that this change will result in duplicate counting. Can she explain why the counting is being changed but the process is not? The Government have confessed to spending almost £1 million a day on private consultants for test and trace. Is this really the best they can come up with?

We desperately want schools to be safe, and we agree that this is complex. We will look at the details of the Education Secretary’s plans for the Covid support premium, including how it will be allocated to help children catch up on missed education. Can the Minister tell me how the Government are dealing with gaps in online provision? On the previous Statement, I asked her how many children still did not have adequate access; she replied about how many people did have access. Yes, I agree that that is impressive, but the immediate priority is those who do not. Can she answer that same question today, or write to me with the number, and about immediate plans?

The Prime Minister has suggested that some schools might return in early March. Can the Minister therefore comment on Labour’s proposal—echoed, incidentally, by both the Children’s Commissioner and the Conservative Chair of the Commons Education Committee, Robert Halfon—to use the window of the February half-term to vaccinate school staff and other key workers? With the weekends either side, there will be a clear 11 days in which that could be done. We must appreciate that, if it were done, it would have an impact on the initial plans for a rollout. This is part of my point about clarity and transparency. Ensuring that everyone knows and understands how, when and why the vaccine is being rolled out will reassure, and assist with public confidence.

Finally, we know very little about how the Government’s quarantine plans will work in practice, including who will be responsible for enforcing them and how. I listened to the Home Secretary’s Statement, and I have to say that it provided more questions than answers. So I have two questions for the Minister today. Given reports that only three in every 100 people quarantining are contacted, how is that figure being increased, and what agreements have been reached with the hotels that will be accommodating those quarantined? I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness’s answers, and I trust that, where she does not have full details, she will write.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, this Statement marks the most sombre milestone. One hundred thousand deaths is an horrific figure. Our hearts go out to the families of all those who have died and to all those who are currently suffering from the disease, either at home or in hospital. We must also pay tribute again to the staff in the NHS and in care homes, who are fighting the battle against Covid on a daily basis, often under the most extreme pressure.

On Monday, in announcing the 100,000 figure, the Prime Minister said that the Government “did everything we could”, since the pandemic struck, to minimise its impact. This simply is not true. Among the many things the Prime Minister chose not to do was to take SAGE’s advice, on 21 September, for a circuit-breaker of restrictions. Instead, he did nothing for three weeks and then introduced a watered-down version of what SAGE had recommended. Many people died as a result. I know it is a big ask, but I ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to suggest to the Prime Minister that he would have more credibility in the future if he stopped misrepresenting his actions in the past.

I have not, until now, been a huge fan of the immediate initiation of an inquiry into the handling of the pandemic because I thought that all our efforts should now be going into fighting it. However, as the Government clearly do not believe that they have made any mistakes, despite all the evidence to the contrary, I can now see no other way in which a light can be shone on past failings to ensure that they are not repeated. When do the Government intend to make good on the Prime Minister’s commitment, some six months ago, that an inquiry should indeed be held?

Today’s Statement repeats some past mistakes. Most obviously, the restrictions on arrivals to the UK from 22 countries where there is a known variant of the disease are both too little and too late. The requirement to spend quarantine in a hotel is a good one; it has been extremely effective elsewhere—Australia, for example. But given the weakness of the policing of self-quarantining, it surely makes sense now for all arrivals in the UK to quarantine in a hotel. The measure is too little, and it is certainly too late. We should have been doing this months ago.

The Statement is understandably upbeat on the progress of the vaccination programme, and we congratulate all those who have worked so hard to develop the vaccine, and now to deliver it. But it is curiously silent on the other principal pillar of the fight against the virus—the track, trace and isolate system. That system may have become a bit more successful at tracking and tracing, but it remains very largely ineffective in persuading those who are asked to stay at home actually to do so.

The reason for that is undisputed. A large proportion of those affected simply cannot afford to take the time off work. The Government’s response so far, in terms of financial support, has been pathetically inadequate. We hear that arguments are still under way within government about what to do next. Given that they spent £22 billion on the track and trace system but peanuts on the isolate system, surely it is now time to introduce a system that makes up for people’s loss of earnings if it is to stand any chance of being successful. So when do the Government intend to announce a new compensation scheme that might actually work?

Looking forward to the easing of the lockdown, the Government say that nothing will happen for at least another six weeks. But they completely fail to set out the criteria against which they will make their decisions in mid-February. That failure has both practical and psychological costs: practical because nobody can begin to plan for the reopening, and psychological because all that people can see in front of them is a further long period of lockdown, with no clarity on the conditions that will allow its easing.

Why is it impossible to set thresholds of case numbers and hospital occupancy, above which restrictions will remain, but below which they might—not will, but might— be reduced? Why cannot the Government say in advance of mid-February how, and by what stages, the opening of schools and the economy as a whole will proceed? In that way, school leaders would be able to plan now for a resumption of normal classes and would not need a further two weeks while a decision was taken to open up. The idea that parents need two weeks’ notice for their children to go back to school is just nonsense; given the stress they are under, two days would be more than long enough.

Will the Government therefore bring forward the point at which they tell schools the basis on which they will reopen, whenever the actual reopening date proves to be? Will they equally signal to those businesses which are now unable to operate the triggers that will enable them to do so?

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Thursday 7th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I think it is appropriate to begin with a comment on the shocking and extraordinary events that unfolded on our TV screens last night. Today we are discussing the impact of a global virus on the UK and the drastic and difficult measures needed to tackle it. At the same time, the United States is having to contend with an additional virus of lies, misinformation and conspiracy theories that have infected the very heart of its democracy. Last night was perhaps predictable, given the toxic atmosphere that has characterised President Trump’s term of office and the clear attempt by him and his close allies, including some involved in UK politics, to poison democracy.

It is right to condemn the violence of last night, but to do so without also condemning the cause of such violence is an empty gesture. Given that the Conservative Government gave the extraordinary honour of a state visit to President Trump and given his close relationship with the Prime Minister, Mr Johnson is in a strong position to lead that condemnation. To do otherwise would be a failure to defend democracy.

I hope that the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal, being the only Cabinet Minister speaking in Parliament today, as the House of Commons is not sitting, will also condemn the actions, comments and tweets of President Trump. She should be clear that we stand alongside those Senators and House Representatives, Democrats and Republicans, who have defended and preserved the rule of law.

Tackling the Covid virus here at home needs that same resolve and determination of purpose. It is disappointing that our current way of working means that Ministers no longer read Statement repeats, particularly on matters of such grave importance. When events are so fast moving, and the government response changes so often, it would be helpful.

With the Covid virus mutating and infections, hospitalisations and deaths rising at an alarming rate, we must all abide by the new lockdown rules and play our part in trying to minimise the impact on our fellow citizens. As far as I am concerned, that is not for debate. I am appalled by those who have tried to downplay the impact. Since Monday we have seen 2,278 Covid-related deaths in the UK and over 180,000 new cases recorded. The position is now worse than in April and we all know that winter is a more dangerous time for viruses to spread.

Our National Health Service risks being completely overwhelmed by this new variant, which is at least 50% more infectious than the original. An increased number of infections means not just greater prevalence of the virus, but also the possibility of further variants. The last Statement from the Prime Minister on Covid, when he announced the so-called winter plan, was just six weeks ago, although, with all that has happened and the policy changes we have seen, it feels much longer.

We understand that policies change in response to events. However, too often policies are changed at the last minute, then again and even again, when others with greater expertise and knowledge have been issuing warnings for weeks. Many of us heard with incredulity the Home Secretary claim:

“The Government has consistently, throughout this year, been ahead of the curve in terms of proactive measures with regards to coronavirus.”


This is an extraordinary claim when the Prime Minister’s actions have often lagged behind the advice of the Government’s own scientific advisory body, SAGE. Yes, we support the proposed measures, but the Government have to understand that it is in the national interest to raise concerns and make suggestions. We will press for further economic measures for individuals, businesses and jobs. This is vital for their survival now and the post-Covid recovery.

I know that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House understands that public confidence and support are essential. Lockdown restrictions might buy time by reducing the number of infections, but they are not a cure. The only game in town is now the vaccine. The new vaccines bring great optimism, but also challenges. The rollout needs to be swift, efficient and successful. This will be a huge logistical exercise so the Government must fully exploit all the experience and expertise available. We must all give our support.

The Statement announces that there will be updates online. Can the noble Baroness confirm that this information will provide details for the whole of the UK? Will she ensure there is an opportunity to ask questions of Ministers in the House? She will understand the need to ensure there are not local or regional disparities that leave some areas more vulnerable than others. In the Statement, the Prime Minister said that

“pharmacies are already working with GPs to deliver the vaccine”

but she may have seen the reports that major pharmacy companies with expertise in vaccinations have said that their efforts to support the scheme have been rebuffed. Can the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal comment on that?

On schools, teachers, parents and pupils are in despair at the Government’s incompetence. The constant chopping and changing of policy is mind-blowing. A start to rebuilding some confidence would be an apology to the London Borough of Greenwich and other authorities threatened with legal action by the Department for Education before Christmas for daring to act ahead of the Government’s decision to do the same. The focus now has to be on protecting pupils’ education.

On home schooling, could the noble Baroness update us on three issues? First, what progress has been made to relieve the financial burden of many families facing increased data charges? Secondly, how many pupils still do not have access to an adequate digital device and what further action is being taken to ensure that all pupils have access to the tech equipment they need? Thirdly, what are the Government doing to ensure that all school leadership teams are supported in their attempts to increase the online learning offer to home-schooled pupils? These are vital to stem the clear gap in provision between independent and state sector schools.

There is some progress in the Statement about financial support. However, as the Chamber of Commerce and others have warned, it does not yet go far enough. I have previously raised the issue of the self-employed, including our world-renowned creative arts sector. What are the plans to support our arts, music and performance industries? Alongside performers, an army of support staff, writers and many others add real colour to our daily lives, and we will all need a bit more of a splash of that when the pandemic has passed. I also make my now regular plea for the hospitality sector. It is among the hardest hit in this hokey-cokey year of lockdowns. Can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House outline any Government plans for pubs, bars and restaurants to ensure that they can function properly once restrictions start to be lifted again?

Given the further lockdown, it is harder for many to remain in or seek regular employment. When will the Government make further announcements on support for those in the private rental sector facing the possible threat of eviction? Will the Government now halt their pernicious plans to cut universal credit by £20 a week in April? It has been estimated that failing to do so could put 300,000 more children into poverty—a legacy no Government should want.

The noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal will be aware that Health Service Journal reported an official briefing by NHS England yesterday which suggests that

“London’s hospitals are less than two weeks from being overwhelmed.”

Can she tell your Lordships’ House whether NHS England expects the same impact on hospitals elsewhere in the UK? What national response is planned?

Even when concerned or exasperated by delays in action or failures in the available economic support, we have supported the Government’s efforts to tackle this awful disease and find a way out of the pandemic. It is challenging and we will continue to give that support. That also includes asking questions and raising issues of concern in the national interest, so that we can play our part in seeking to eradicate this virus and prepare the UK for the post-Covid recovery.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I begin by associating myself with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in respect of recent events in America. This is probably the most sombre Statement we have heard on Covid. Despite all the restrictions of the past nine months, the incidence of the disease and the numbers of hospital admissions and deaths are at record highs. These terrible figures make today’s measures inevitable and we support them.

The difference between the first time we went into lockdown and today is, of course, the arrival of the vaccines. This is what can give the country some hope. The key challenge now posed to the Government, the NHS and the whole country is how to get as many people vaccinated as speedily as possible. The government targets are extremely ambitions. While such ambition is commendable, the failure to achieve so many past targets, particularly in relation to test and trace, make us somewhat cautious about simply accepting them. If they are to be achieved, every possible resource must be brought into play. In this respect, there are legitimate questions to be asked of the Government.

First, we clearly need more qualified health professionals to administer the vaccines than those currently employed by the NHS. Many retired doctors and nurses are desperately keen to get involved, but they are finding that the bureaucracy required before they can get started is ludicrously burdensome and disproportionately prescriptive. Both the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary have said in recent days that they would look into this, so what is the Government’s target for producing a new, streamlined application process for such retired medics? The Government will not meet their targets without them, so they had better get a move on.

Secondly, I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and ask why more pharmacists are not planned to be involved. They have an extremely good track record in administering flu jabs. What reason is there for not involving in the Covid vaccination programme any pharmacy that takes part in the national flu vaccination programme?

Thirdly, particularly at the larger vaccination centres, there appears to be a need for volunteers to support the medics in managing the flow of those being vaccinated, helping, among other things, to sort out their transport requirements. Last year, some 750,000 people volunteered to help the NHS to deal with the disease. Is this volunteer pool being activated to help facilitate the vaccination process?

If we need every possible resource to be brought to bear, we also need to ensure that everybody who needs a vaccination actually gets one. In recent weeks, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has explained that, unless you are enrolled with a GP, you will not be covered by the programme at all. That is simply not good enough. Particularly in the inner cities, there are vulnerable groups, such as the homeless, who are unlikely to be registered with a GP, and unless the Government act those groups will fall through the cracks. Will the Government undertake to work with relevant homeless, refugee and other charities that are in touch with these registered groups to make sure that they do get registered and vaccinated in due time?

I fully accept that the Government need to be rigorous about the priority order in which they undertake the vaccinations. However, do they accept that there is a strong case for vaccinating teachers and other school staff at a relatively early stage, possibly placing them in category 7—that is, when all the over-65s and the most vulnerable have been vaccinated? This will facilitate the resumption of the education system and give those who work in our schools the protection that they deserve.

Even if the vaccination programme goes to plan, the economic costs of Covid will be dire for many individuals and businesses. The Government have taken many welcome steps to support those affected, but there are two areas where I believe further action is needed. First, we know that many individuals who should be self-isolating fail to do so because they cannot afford the loss of income that this would involve. The Government established a scheme involving a payment of £500 for those on low income, administered by local authorities, but this is not working properly. Not enough funds have been made available—we suggest that full salary support should be offered in any event—not enough of those affected even know about the scheme, and many of those who need support are not covered by it. Could the Government undertake an urgent and fundamental review of the scheme, because at present its failure seriously undermines the whole test, track and trace system.

Secondly, it is now clear that for many businesses, particularly in retail, hospitality, the arts and accommodation, the impact of Covid will last far longer than anybody ever feared. For those who cannot trade at all, even the current government support will simply be inadequate because they cannot escape their overheads, so many fundamentally sound businesses will go under unless the support packages are improved and lengthened. Will the Government now commit to an enhanced support package arranged to last until the summer? Will they modify the job support scheme to include those who were previously excluded?

The Government have consistently responded slowly, overpromised and underdelivered. Trust and faith in government requires the Government to level with people, not just on the current threat but on the realistic, unvarnished possibilities of dealing with it. Only on that basis will we all be able to work together, as we wish to do, to see off this terrible scourge.

Integrated Review

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 23rd November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the first duty of any Government is the safety and security of its citizens. The Statement on defence spending is obviously welcome news. The Prime Minister’s announcement of what he called, without any sense of irony, an end to the “era of retreat” is necessary, given that the Conservatives’ last two defence reviews have led not only to spending cuts of £8 billion but to a reduction in the size of the Armed Forces by 40,000 full-time troops.

The enormous international uncertainty we face today reflects the diversity of the dangers we face: adversaries investing heavily in new military; the devastating effects on our health and finances of the global pandemic; economic and security uncertainty as we hurtle towards the end of the Brexit transition without knowing if, when or what the deal will be; technological developments such as AI and sophisticated internet communications that we previously only imagined; and a climate emergency—while the Government’s seeking to write into legislation the right for Ministers to break the law has done little to enhance our international standing. So, there are huge challenges.

However, these uncertain and dangerous times also provide an opportunity for the Government to outline a new vision of the UK’s place in the world. We have been here before: soon after the Second World War, the leadership of Clement Attlee and his Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin was instrumental in setting up NATO. Its enduring strength in providing collective security serves as a constant reminder of what the UK can achieve on the world stage. In 2002 the significance of our landmark International Development Act was recognised throughout the world, and during the 2008 financial crisis we worked globally to secure an economic rescue plan. I know I am not alone in wanting us to show such global leadership again, because when we have the vision and the moral imperative, the UK is a force for good in the world. We must ensure that our Armed Forces are properly funded and that they are integral to that vision.

It was almost 60 years ago that Dean Acheson, a former US Secretary of State, observed that Britain has lost an empire but failed to find a role. We ceded that issue with our membership of the EU but, as we leave, the need to define our place in the world again becomes key. This is why it is so disappointing that the Prime Minister’s Statement fails to provide the strategy to meet the many challenges we face today. For a Statement on an integrated review, it does not feel very integrated, lacking both a wider foreign policy context and clarity about the Government’s priorities. For example, other than passing references, the Statement fails to mention the security implications of climate change and how we will respond. Can the noble Baroness tell the House when the MoD’s climate change and sustainability strategy will be published?

Also, there is no commitment in the Statement to the Conservatives’ election manifesto pledge to maintain 0.7% GNI on aid. Following the abolition of the Department for International Development, this could have been an opportunity to restore confidence in how we see our international role. The former Prime Minister David Cameron’s statement that abandoning the 0.7% pledge would be

“a moral, strategic and political mistake”

was endorsed by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Richards, a former Chief of Defence Staff, saying that this spending is hugely in the UK’s interests. The benefits that such funding has brought across the world reinforce why an integrated strategic approach is so important, and again bring home why those cuts to the budget jeopardise Britain’s soft power and influence. We have had many debates on this in your Lordships’ House and that soft power is critical to how we meet the threats faced and define our place on the international stage.

People need to be placed front and centre of our defence strategy, whether our brave Armed Forces personnel or those working in supporting industries. With the current jobs crisis, we welcome the commitment in the Statement to 10,000 new jobs every year. Can the noble Baroness say where these jobs will be and how they will be recruited and monitored? Will she today rule out any more personnel cuts across the Army, the RAF and the Navy? Can she also say what lessons the MoD have learned from previous overspends and mismanagement?

Last year, the Public Accounts Committee reported on the disastrous failure of the deal with Capita for Army recruitment. That contract has seen costs soar up to £677 million in 2018 and yet it has failed to deliver, leaving the Army understrength. The PAC also highlighted problems with other contracts and added:

“We are disappointed to see the MoD replicate the contract management errors that our Committee sees all too often across government.”


Our military deserves better and increases in spending must be matched by rooting out such scandalous wastes of public money.

I also ask the noble Baroness about the certainty of this funding and its impact on other areas of public spending. The costs of the pandemic are eye-wateringly large. Government borrowing between April and November was £215 billion and is projected to rise further. The deficit continues to grow. The announcement that the defence budget will grow by 4.2% above inflation each year means that, by 2024-25, it will be £7 billion higher than at present, in real terms. That is a significant increase, as she is aware. With the spending review this week, there are strong indications that the Chancellor will impose a public sector pay freeze, including for military personnel and those who have been at the heart of tackling this pandemic and protecting the public. Post Covid, we need to invest to regrow our economy and protect jobs. We all know that difficult decisions will have to be taken. Can the noble Baroness, without pre-empting the Chancellor’s Statement, tell the House whether the additional costs of defence spending will be met from increased taxation or cuts in other areas of public spending?

In his Statement, the Prime Minister is correct to say that

“our national security in 20 years’ time will depend on decisions”

that he is making today. Unlike the extensive consultation in 1998, the call for evidence for this review lasted just one month. We expected to see the integrated review published this month and I understand it has now been delayed until next year. I do not know if the noble Baroness is able to explain the reasons for the delay, but I hope that she will tell your Lordships’ House that the delay will allow for engagement and consultation with all involved. Doing so will have an impact on the likely success of such an integrated review and strategy. We need an ambitious strategy to develop new international relationships and protect our country against serious threats in the years ahead. Defence spending is essential to this, but the Government still need to address the strategy and identify the diverse threats to peace and stability. Doing so requires a coherent, co-ordinated plan with, at its core, a vision of the UK as a moral force for good.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for answering questions on the Prime Minister’s Statement. The Prime Minister begins by saying that he

“will update the House on the Government’s integrated review of foreign, defence, security and development policy”

but the Statement does nothing of the sort. It is simply a statement of increased military expenditure, particularly on the Navy. The Prime Minister has successfully wrenched the nation’s credit card from the Chancellor’s possession long enough to provide for significant additional expenditure on defence kit. In themselves many, if not all, of the items on the shopping list are clearly desirable. Who could possibly object to having more frigates or drones, better AI or the National Cyber Force? But it seems more than somewhat bizarre to be announcing this additional spending in advance of the completion of the integrated review. Could the noble Baroness explain to the House exactly when that review will be published?

It is particularly worrying when we hear repeated rumours of a cut from 0.7% to 0.5% of GDP spent on overseas development. Can the noble Baroness the Leader confirm that these rumours are simply untrue? If she cannot, what is the rationale to spend more on military kit and to cut the aid budget? How could robbing Peter to pay Paul in this way possibly lead to a net gain in our credibility and reputation, taking account of the soft, as well as hard, power we wield as a nation?

The Statement waxes lyrical on the need to fight terrorism, and no one can disagree, but the best way to fight terrorism and protect our security as a nation is in the closest possible co-ordination with our nearest allies. Is it therefore not reckless of the Government to have completely failed to address security co-operation with our EU partners, as part of the Brexit negotiations? Does leaving the EU systems for sharing information on criminals and terrorists, and the European arrest warrant, not present a body blow to our ability to identify, track and trace individuals who pose a direct threat to our security?

There is no update or set of principles on foreign policy, just a general statement that the world is an increasingly dangerous place. This a pretty thin basis for detailed defence procurement priorities. In the Statement, the Prime Minister says that new technological advances will

“surmount the old limits of logistics”,

but there are no advances that mean that fighting ships do not require refuelling or that sailors do not require feeding. When one of our carriers is deployed to the Far East, for example, how is it to be provisioned and, given that the new frigates will not be built for a number of years, how will it be protected?

While there is quite a lot about the Navy in the Statement, there is nothing at all about the Army. What does this mean for Army expenditure? For example, are the Government committed to keeping troop levels at their current levels and are rumours about reducing the number of tanks correct? How does this increased expenditure fit into the Government’s overall public expenditure plans? We will be hearing more from the Chancellor later this week but, given the weakness of public finances, the expenditure being discussed today simply cannot be funded by increased borrowing. To echo the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, which other areas of public expenditure will fall or which taxes will rise to pay for this?

The noble Baroness will no doubt say that she cannot give an answer to these questions because that would pre-empt Wednesday’s Statement—but today’s Statement pre-empts Wednesday’s Statement. The truth is that the Prime Minister has done what he does best: making exaggerated claims for future policy developments, while leaving the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pick up the bill. That is the fundamental problem with this Statement. It is isolated from the integrated foreign, defence, security and development review and from the overall tax-and-spend strategy of the Government. With its soaring rhetoric, Boy’s Own breathlessness and glowing references to past glories, it runs the risk of being isolated from any realistic assessment of Britain’s place in the modern world.

Conduct Committee

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, for presenting the report today. He does a service to the House in doing so, and I am grateful to him for his comments. The comments made by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, are useful, particularly in reference to sanctions, and I wonder if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, has considered or looked at them. He talked about mediation, which will come to the heart of my comments about the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. Prevention is always better than cure, and if there is a way to prevent or mediate, when there are problems, it would be helpful for the committee to look at. It strikes me that it is the kind of issue that might be appropriately raised and taken further in the Ellenbogen report, as we are currently looking at that and there are workstreams on it.

The noble and learned Lord made particular reference to Peers’ staff, and there are very few staff working for Peers, as he will know. If somebody is found by the committee to be treating staff badly, is there a mechanism by which they can be denied a pass to employ staff on the parliamentary estate? I do not know if that is possible, but it has to be looked at.

I also understand that ongoing work is looking at whether third-party complaints can take place so that, while an individual may feel unable to make a complaint due to a power relationship with an employer, someone else can do so on their behalf. That would be a welcome step. On the issue of devolved Parliaments, this issue tends to rise in the same way as it does with MPs, but I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, will respond to that.

I found the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, disappointing and less constructive. I understand that he prides himself on being courteous, so he thinks he does not need the training. I did not feel I needed much training either, and my parliamentary time has not been as lengthy as his—I have only been here a mere 23 years—but having undertaken the training, I found it worth while. There are things we can all learn in our relationships with others, those we work with and those we work alongside. It is not a criticism of anyone at all to suggest such training around how the modern workplace works and what employees can expect of us. Not just direct employees, but those who work around the House, are entitled to the courtesy and respect of everybody else here. The noble Lord nods at me, but I do not know the alternative. It is fair to say that everybody should do it—or does he just want to single out people he thinks may not have shown that respect for others? The approach of asking everyone to do it is a fair one; it is respectful to the staff of this House.

One thing I would pick up with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, if he could look into it, is that there are those who say that they found the training not quite as relevant as it could be. It dwells on the role of Members of Parliament and the relationship that Members of Parliament have in the House of Commons with their staff and those they work with. It might be worth looking at the training to see if there is anything bespoke about the work of the House of Lords, so it is directly relevant to the relationships we have here, which are often different, because we do not have the same direct employment issues. Obviously, I would have thought that everybody should welcome that we make it a priority in this House that everybody we work with and alongside has the right to be treated with the utmost respect and courtesy at all times.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, says it is a sad day when people need to be trained how to behave. It is—but, unfortunately, it is not the case that Members of your Lordships’ House always behave in an acceptable manner. I undertook this training with a group of people from both the Commons and the Lords, staff and Members, including one of the most senior members of the noble Lord’s party from your Lordships’ House, who is one of the most courteous people in Parliament. During the course of the training, a number of real-life examples of the kind of harassment that has happened in Parliament was explained by the facilitator. The noble Lord’s colleague said, “I can’t believe that’s going on”, and he could not, because he does not behave like that any more than the noble Lord would. But the truth is that it is going on, and it goes on in all parties.

I have to say that some of my colleagues, when they get very tired towards the end of a session, behave towards other people, not just colleagues, in manners that are, frankly, unacceptable. We have somehow, in this day and age, got to bring ourselves up to a system of behaviour that is expected of everybody in whatever workplace or situation they find themselves in.

I do not think the noble Lord should think this is a terrible imposition. I get pretty irritated when I wash my hands and see on the wall a laminated sheet telling me how to wash my hands. I sort of think, “I do not need to be told how to wash my hands, because I have been doing it for quite a long time.” This is just another variant of that, because clearly some people do not know how to wash their hands, or else we would not have the spread of coronavirus that we have. I urge the noble Lord to be sympathetic towards it and recognise that, in reality, Members of your Lordships’ House have behaved, and do behave, in some cases, towards staff and others in manners that, in this day and age, are, frankly, unacceptable. The only way in which we are going to be able to begin to get them to realise that it is unacceptable is to have them think about it—and the way in which you have them think about it is to put them before this sort of training.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, our procedure at the moment is to assume that Members watched the Prime Minister yesterday when he made his Statement or have read its content. One thing I would say at the outset is that the scale and depth of the crisis mean that mistakes and misjudgments have huge consequences. That weighs heavily on those making decisions, but there is a common national interest in doing all we can to get the right judgments, decisions and policies. When making such difficult decisions, there must be an evidence base behind them, and we must take account of the immediate situation and the longer-term impact on our nation’s collective health and future prosperity. More than that, we must learn from this time and offer hope about the kind of society that we will have post Covid. We are therefore supporting the Government’s proposal, with some questions, but that does not mean that we think the Government have handled it well.

I am not clear what changed between 21 September when SAGE recommended this kind of national lockdown, 13 October when Keir Starmer called on the Government to follow the SAGE advice, and last weekend. On the day when SAGE called for national restrictions, there were 11 deaths and 4,000 confirmed cases. When the Prime Minister made his statement to the nation, there were 326 deaths and more than five times the number of daily infections. That was not unexpected, nor was it inevitable.

The basis for this decision was there in September, when the Government’s own scientists recommended a short circuit-break. That was ignored. It was there again two weeks later as new cases of Covid started to become rife across parts of the north-west and elsewhere, but it was again ignored. It was also there when my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition, Keir Starmer, suggested nearly three weeks ago that the Government extend the then upcoming school half-term to tackle the spread of the virus head on. At that point, it was not just ignored but ridiculed and attacked. The weekend leak and the rushed press conference, with charts that you could not even read on the TV, must have been precipitated by something else, given that those projections had been available for weeks. Can the noble Baroness tell us what precipitated that announcement?

Given all that, I am surprised that the Prime Minister showed such little humility in his Statement. So many government announcements, such as the world-beating track and trace system and briefings of a vaccine within weeks, have proved to be enthusiastic and exuberant overconfidence. We do not need that; we need realism, honesty and an ongoing evidence-based strategy.

These proposals for a month of national restrictions are not where anybody wants to be. Let us be clear: we all know how difficult and disruptive these restrictions can be, both socially and economically. The Government have taken some action but, as Ministers have acknowledged, there is more to be done for families, individuals and businesses to help them cope now and prepare the nation for the future.

However, there are some things worse than these restrictions. One, as advocated by some, would be to do nothing; the other would be the failure to use this time to test, trace and isolate, and to prepare for a safe route back to a more normal way of living and working. Despite the huge amounts of money involved, fixing test, trace and isolate did not happen over the summer.

We will not be able to eradicate the virus via a mass vaccination programme that will be ready in four weeks, but we must have test, trace and isolate sorted. If we do not do enough tests and get the results back very quickly, we cannot trace. If we do not trace—at present, we are tracing only six out of 10 contacts—we cannot effectively isolate; and if isolation is to be effective, it has to be meaningful, with meaningful support for those in isolation.

I have a few questions for the noble Baroness about the support that is needed. First, I welcome the fact that the Government have pulled their plans to cut support for the self-employed; it is a limited extension to April, but it is to be welcomed. We also welcome the extension of furlough, but this really shows the mismanagement of the issues surrounding governing by leak. The announcement came on the day when furlough was due to end; the Job Support Scheme was meant to start on 1 November. To be eligible, employees must be on an employer’s payroll for a minute before midnight on 30 October. However, people had already been made redundant in the expectation that furlough was going to end. Employers will still be expected to cover pension and national insurance contributions, reflecting the changes made in August, not the scheme in March. Can the noble Baroness confirm that she understands that the Government need to stop these last-minute cliff edges, because they just add to the stress and difficulties for businesses and individuals?

On another related issue, given the plight of the newly unemployed, are the Government now giving any consideration to reinstating their previous bans on rental evictions and home repossessions? Also needed is a winter strategy to help food banks ensure that nobody in our country, including the so-called newly hungry—former middle-class earners—go without the basic provisions they need.

When other areas facing restrictions, including those initiated or imposed by the Government, asked for additional support, they were told in no uncertain terms that it was not available. The Mayor of Liverpool City Region, Steve Rotheram, said that the Government had been “unequivocal” in refusing to provide more than two-thirds of the pay of hospitality workers across the north whose businesses were forced to close under tier 3 measures. The First Minister of Wales, Mark Drakeford, said the Chancellor had rejected his request to pay subsidies for wages when Wales went back into lockdown. He said:

“I got an answer quickly to say that was not possible for a number of technical reasons and so, no.”


Clearly that was not the case with the announcements that have been made now.

Rather than just apportioning blame, this tells us that what is needed is a longer-term strategy to deal with the current situation, and a longer-term exit strategy that tapers support in a way that allows businesses to plan ahead with at least some degree of confidence. We all know that nothing can be said with certainty, but can the noble Baroness confirm whether there is long-term strategic planning for different scenarios at the heart of government decision-making so that the Government and businesses can prepare?

I also want to raise something very specific about the hospitality and retail sectors in the weeks and months ahead. As we know, the festive season over the run-up to Christmas and the break itself in normal times gives a real boost to their income. They need that this year more than ever. However, with Michael Gove indicating that this will go on much longer than four weeks, what advice do the Government have for how those businesses should plan for December? Should they spend money on marketing materials, menus, staging, food orders and extra staffing, because the Government have said this will end on 2 December? If they do all this and we need an extension to the current lockdown, how might the Government support them in dealing with financial losses? I do not expect an answer from the noble Baroness on the details today, but I would like to hear that the Government have factored that in and are planning for that scenario, should it arise—we hope it does not.

We need businesses to survive and people to remain employed in order to prepare for the future. None of us has a crystal ball to predict what will come next, but there are three things that we need to do: trust the public, give them honesty and realistic predictions about what is likely to happen, and give them the support that they and the country deserve.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, in responding to the Prime Minister’s Statement, there is a great temptation simply to dwell on the Government’s sloth and incompetence in now introducing more draconian measures than they would have been required to do if they had followed SAGE’s advice in late September and introduced a short circuit-breaker lockdown then. If they had done so, many lives would have been saved, many jobs would have been preserved and many businesses, which will now go bust, would have survived.

However, in accepting the lockdown now, the important thing is to look to the future rather than the past. I have three general suggestions. The first is to be more balanced about the evidence. It is extremely difficult for the non-specialist to know exactly what the current trends really foreshadow. For example, at the weekend the Government produced a range of options, including one which spoke of 4,000 deaths a day, yet the projection on which that was based was already a month out of date last Friday and predicted 1,000 deaths a day by the weekend against the 200 that actually happened. Meanwhile, the measures on the ground in Liverpool appear to be working, with the R number now well under one. The Government need to stick to the data on the ground, which justifies the lockdown, as the Liverpool experience shows, but does not justify hyperbolic claims about future levels of deaths.

Secondly, the Government need to be clearer about what happens next. The Prime Minister said yesterday that the lockdown would end

“without a shred of doubt”—[Official Report, Commons, 2/11/20; col. 43.]

on 2 December and that the tiered system would then be reintroduced. However, they are completely unclear about the basis on which decisions on that will be taken. They should set out now the parameters regarding the prevalence of the disease that they intend to follow in making decisions on future restrictions, so that individuals and businesses alike can begin to plan ahead on an informed basis or, at the very least, will know the basis on which the Government intend to take decisions.

Thirdly, the Prime Minister needs to start acting like the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, not just of England. Frankly, it is ludicrous that the nations of the United Kingdom are so out of step in the timing and content of the restrictions that they have introduced. My colleague Ed Davey suggested recently that the Prime Minister should discuss with the devolved Administrations how to reach a common approach to Christmas. So he should, but he should also, as a matter of course, discuss regularly with them a co-ordinated approach to fighting the disease more generally. Failure to do so will not only cause further confusion but further undermine support for the union itself.

I have a number of specific questions for the Government. First, even where people are contacted by the track and trace system, the proportion who self-isolate is disappointing, with some estimates of compliance as low as 10%. A principal reason for that is the loss of earnings that people suffer if they do. The Government have introduced a scheme for paying those on low incomes in these circumstances but it simply is not working properly. Can the Government ensure that at the point when an individual is told to self-isolate, they are provided with details about how to claim the compensation, with the Government then paying up quickly?

Secondly, will the Government commit now to paying for free school meals during the Christmas period? It is simply unacceptable at this point for them to cut off a lifeline for the poorest children in the country. It is equally unfair for Manchester United fans to expect Marcus Rashford to act as the conscience of the nation as well as perform his day job.

Thirdly, will the Government give some financial certainty now to those sectors that will be unable to operate profitably for some months ahead? In particular, those offering tourist accommodation cannot expect to operate profitably, even if the lockdown is lifted, as hoped, during the winter months. Without further bridging support, many otherwise perfectly profitable businesses will simply not survive. Will the Government now provide a bespoke lifeline for them?

Finally, will they upgrade the carer’s allowance? Yesterday, in response to a question in another place from my colleague Ed Davey, the Prime Minister said that he would “look at” the proposal that the carer’s allowance be upgraded by £20 a week in line with the increase in universal credit. I urge the noble Baroness to give the Prime Minister a nudge to ensure that that happens without delay.

We will discuss the details of the new regulations at some length tomorrow. There are many inconsistencies in them that should be corrected, as the earlier discussion in the House on the opening of churches demonstrated only too clearly.

The Government’s chaotic approach to combating the virus has left people feeling confused, depressed and fearful for the future. The country knows that the Government have to perform an extremely difficult balancing act between combating the disease and permitting economic and social activity to continue. People are sympathetic with them as they face that dilemma. However, that sympathy is wearing pretty thin. People will grudgingly accept this lockdown but if even that grudging acceptance is to be maintained, the Government will need to be more transparent, fair and ahead of the curve than they have been until this point. They simply have to up their game.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I doubt that the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, shares my admiration for Harold Wilson, but even he will recognise that his oft-quoted comment that a week is a long time in politics is very relevant today. With the pace of events over the last couple of days they must have felt like at least a week. I expect that the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal might be relieved not to be repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister in the Chamber today.

The Statement on Monday, announcing a three-tier system of restrictions, is already wilting under close examination and the publication of the scientific advice received by the Prime Minister. In the Statement, the Prime Minister said that we needed to “go further” than the existing restrictions. He is right to consider and announce further actions, but the scale and rate of infections is increasing. There are now more people in hospital, including ICU, than there were in March when we went into lockdown. On the positive side, our knowledge and ability to treat have improved, but we have a clearer understanding of how devastating this illness is for so many.

The Prime Minister referenced the Government’s advisory body SAGE in his announcement, but if you go back and read it again there is a very serious omission. This was clearly no accident; it was calculated and deliberate. Unlike earlier Statements from the Prime Minister and members of his Government, this one makes no reference to following the scientific evidence or to evidence-based policy-making. We now know why. The minutes of the SAGE meeting of 21 September, published after the Prime Minister’s Statement on Monday, are very clear about the scale of the challenge and the action needed—not suggested—to tackle it. Its warnings are stark:

“not acting now … will result in … catastrophic consequences in terms of direct COVID related deaths and the ability of the health service to meet needs.”

The report then lists a range of short-term measures to be considered for “immediate introduction”. That was on 21 September, three weeks ago, and it said “immediate”: not next week or next month.

Since then, the Prime Minister has made two announcements of new restrictions but has failed to act on, or share with Parliament or the public, the advice that his Government have received. Let us be clear: any restrictions are difficult; none is pain free. But surely the worst kind of restrictive measures are those that are piecemeal. They fall short of what is required and, therefore, go on longer without the level of impact that is needed. The Prime Minister has, therefore, twice announced measures knowing that they fall short of what the scientific advice says is essential.

The seriousness of this cannot be overestimated. He knows that his measures are inadequate, as evidenced in an article in today’s Telegraph that says that the Government are now considering the circuit break that was recommended by SAGE three weeks ago and called for by my colleague and Leader of the Opposition yesterday. At the same time, the world-beating test, trace and isolate system that the nation was promised has failed to materialise. After the Government have spent £12 billion, SAGE has concluded that that is having “marginal impact”.

For those who are suffering lockdowns, desperately missing and worrying about loved ones, worried about their own and their families’ health; for the self-employed, the now unemployed and struggling businesses, to go through that pain without the gain, with the Government ignoring the scientific advice, is deeply shocking and unacceptable.

It has to change. The stop-start approach has failed; we have to break that cycle. It is so much harder to deal with the economic consequences unless there is public confidence in the Government’s ability to protect the nation’s health. I get upset and quite angry when it is suggested that this is a binary choice between our health and the economy. That is plain wrong. It is so evident that they are two sides of the same coin and totally interlinked.

Last night, having considered the scientific evidence and consulted widely, Keir Starmer called on the Government to reset their approach—to introduce that circuit breaker alongside the other measures deemed necessary by the scientific experts, along with the essential economic support, and to get a grip of the test, trace and isolate system. That is not a single measure; it is a complete package of health protection, economic support and future planning.

I have a couple of questions for the noble Baroness, who is a member of the Cabinet and of Cabinet committees. I appreciate that the details of Cabinet discussions are not published, but can she confirm that members of the Cabinet were informed of the SAGE advice of 21 September? Following that, can she explain the rationale, which must surely have been discussed in Cabinet, in ignoring that advice?

Too often, the Government’s approach has been very centralised, and effectiveness has been lost through a failure to properly engage, consult and support local authorities. What action is being taken now to ensure local capacity, knowledge and experience is being effectively utilised, particularly in test, trace and isolate, with the necessary resources being provided for that? I refer to all local authorities, not just those in tiers 2 and 3, because this has to be a nationwide engagement.

The costs of tackling the crisis and preparing for the post-Covid future are huge. Obviously, we need to ensure such large amounts of money are used to the greatest effect. Many in your Lordships’ House have been in government or in positions of authority where difficult decisions have to be taken. No one is pretending this is easy, but it is even harder when members of your own party are pulling in different directions. There is only one thing to do in those circumstances; it is not possible to steer a middle course and try to placate different views. You just have to do what is right, because that is what true leadership is really about.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for responding to questions on the Prime Minister’s Statement. Although we are discussing a Statement barely 48 hours after it was made, things on the ground, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has said, have moved on apace since Monday. Infections have risen, deaths have risen rapidly, and people have become more confused and more worried.

In the Statement, the Prime Minister said the Government are seeking to balance the

“objectives of saving lives and protecting the NHS while keeping our children in school and … protecting jobs and livelihoods.”—[Official Report, Commons, 12/10/20; col. 23.]

What he did not do was level with the British people about what his scientific advisers have been proposing. We now know that last month, SAGE urged an immediate circuit breaker of more restrictive measures, because, as the noble Baroness said, and in its words,

“not acting now … will result in a very large epidemic with catastrophic consequences.”

That was several weeks ago. No action was taken, and we do now have a “very large epidemic” on our hands. That is why my colleagues in the other place and those on these Benches support the leader of the Opposition’s proposal for a short circuit breaker, to give time to get firmly in place some measures to get the virus under control, in the hope that we might have some relaxation—albeit possibly temporarily—at Christmas. I have never seen the Prime Minister as one of nature’s Roundheads but as things stand, he looks set to succeed and follow Oliver Cromwell by cancelling Christmas as we know it.

The one welcome change in the Government’s position over recent days is that they have been willing, for the first time since March, to have a serious dialogue with civic leaders in those areas most heavily affected by the virus. This is extremely welcome but long overdue. However, it needs to go much further. The national test, track and trace system is failing, and failing badly. A large proportion of people who have been in contact with someone who has tested positive are still not being contacted. Some 27% of those asked to isolate do not do so. Will the Government now effect a step change in the role they give to all local directors of public health to implement the track, trace and isolate system in their areas? Will they do so across the country and not only, as currently envisaged, in very high-alert areas; and will they give them the resources they need to do the job properly? If they do not, I fear we are simply going to see a large increase in the number of areas requiring the highest level of restrictions.

The Prime Minister’s Statement seems to bring clarity to an extremely confused picture, but it simply does not. It is completely unclear, for example, on the criteria the Government will use to decide which areas fall into the “very high”, “high” and “medium” categories. Can the noble Baroness tell the House what those criteria are?

The Prime Minister said the measures announced on Monday could lead to additional measures if local government leaders agreed. What measures do the Government have in mind? What happens if the Government think additional measures are needed and local leaders do not? Equally, if local authority leaders think that more restrictive measures should be imposed in advance of any government initiative—as is now the case with Essex County Council, and which is, I believe, the policy of the Mayor London—what will the Government’s response be?

The Government have briefed that they are preparing to open some of the Nightingale hospitals. It is widely believed in Yorkshire that, as far as the Nightingale hospital in Harrogate is concerned, this will not happen, because the hospital simply does not have the staff available to allow it to operate safely. Can the noble Baroness assure the House that this is not the case?

The country is now at a very dangerous point. The Government are at odds with their own scientific advisers, many council leaders and many of their own Back-Benchers. Their rules are complex and, in some cases, perverse. Track and trace is a shambles: it has lost the confidence of the majority of the population. It is time for a reset.

Clerk of the Parliaments

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Wednesday 30th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for reading out the letter and for saying that there will be time later in our calendar to thank the Clerk of the Parliaments for his service; there will be an opportunity for further comments then. I am grateful to the Clerk of the Parliaments—to Ed—for the timing of his announcement. That is clearly for the benefit of the House and not for his own benefit, because he will be working throughout the football season and will miss the opportunity to see quite as much of his beloved Charlton as he would like; and because he will be cycling to the House throughout the cold, wet winter, as I know having regularly seen him clad in Lycra. It is helpful that he has set out a timetable and we are grateful for that. We look forward to working with the noble Baroness to choose his successor and to pay appropriate tributes in due course.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, this is extremely sensible timing. Ed Ollard, unlike most of his predecessors, however distinguished, will be remembered for change and for that we are extremely grateful. The time will come for us to pay proper tributes, but the process that has been outlined is sensible. It will give us a chance to think about the options going forward. We hope that Ed will enjoy his remaining few months as much as I know he has enjoyed the previous few months.

Covid-19

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I assume that noble Lords have read the Prime Minister’s Statement, given that in our new circumstances, the noble Baroness does not repeat it. Many of us would have seen it made yesterday in the other House. It is clear that we are now at a point which the whole House would have hoped to avoid. The warnings from the Government’s own advisers are very stark, so when restrictions are needed, they will have our support because we need to avoid any confusion and have clarity in communication. However, perhaps I may raise a few issues with the noble Baroness.

I turn first to testing. The Prime Minister pretty much dismissed this yesterday. The lack of a comprehensive, even world-beating, test, trace and isolate system is making the nation’s efforts to tackle the virus more difficult, but yesterday the Prime Minister said:

“Testing and tracing has very little or nothing to do with the spread or the transmission of the disease.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/9/20; col. 822.]


Surely the point of having the world-beating system that we are waiting for is to reduce the number of people who will be infected. What is that about? I heard the Prime Minister trying to explain what he meant at Prime Minister’s Questions but, despite a lot of words, I did not understand his explanation, so it is now the turn of the noble Baroness. Perhaps she could try to explain what the Prime Minister really meant. Does his comment that testing and tracing has very little or nothing to do with the spread of the disease mean that that is now the Government’s view, or did the Prime Minister get it wrong and the Government are still committed to a world-beating test, trace and isolate system?

On the new restrictions, we appreciate the difficulties in getting them right. Can the noble Baroness assist your Lordships’ House in understanding the rationale behind them? In many of the areas currently managing more restrictive measures, we have not seen the fall in the number of infections anticipated or hoped for. Were those results factored into the decisions taken for the rest of the country? It would also be helpful if she could say which rules the residents of those areas are now following. Is she confident that the actions being taken now will be effective and at what point will the Government make a judgment on their effectiveness?

Also, can she advise me on two sets of circumstances on which I would like some clarity? If I decide to go out for a curry tonight and I take five other noble Lords with me, that follows the rule of six and the six of us will be able to enjoy our meal in the restaurant. However, if two of those noble Lords come back to the House for the last business, does that mean that our group of six is now four, so two other noble Lords, perhaps from the Cross Benches, can join us for dessert? Is the rule of six the rule at any one point or can the six change during the course of the evening?

I am asking my second question for a friend. If a couple I know are at home with their two kids asleep in bed upstairs, does the rule of six mean that they can have only two friends round to socialise in their home, or can four friends come round? Again, what does the rule of six mean in those circumstances? Can six people be together or do the children, asleep in their beds, count as two of the six people in the home? That is the level of clarity that the Government will have to provide, and if the noble Baroness can respond, that would be really helpful.

On the furlough scheme, the noble Baroness will be aware of how valuable it has been to viable businesses that just need to get through this period so that they can survive until better days. The Government are bringing the scheme to an end for all businesses in all circumstances at the same time. Surely we can do better than that. The noble Baroness may have heard Paul Nowak of the TUC speaking earlier on Radio 4’s “Today” programme. He called for a smarter, targeted version of furlough. She may have heard him offer to work with the Government to bring employer and employee representatives together to help design a scheme that has the kind of flexibility needed to respond to struggling industries—and struggling areas—and will help companies and workers alike to get through what will clearly be a difficult time in the months ahead. That seems a wise, practical and pragmatic suggestion. Will she take it to the Prime Minister today and bring his response back to your Lordships’ House?

The Prime Minister also said yesterday that schools can access the tests they need and that every child with symptoms should automatically get a test. Of course that is right, but if the system is not in place yet, when will it be, and what is the current turnaround time for schools to get the results back?

Finally, this is a terrible virus. Many are suffering from the consequences of long-term Covid infection and others have lost loved ones, while people have had their lives restricted in trying to avoid getting it. The consequences of making the wrong decisions are enormous—literally matters of life and death. We know that there is pressure on the Prime Minister from all directions on what the appropriate course of action is, but these decisions can never be predicated on placating one group or another. We just have to do what is right. I hope that the noble Baroness can answer my questions today—I can see her riffling through her papers—but if she is unable to do so, I hope she will write to me over the next couple of days.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for agreeing to answer questions on the Prime Minister’s Statement yesterday.

The Government now face four tough challenges in combating coronavirus. The first is how to act proportionately to drive down infections and deaths while at the same time allowing as much economic and social activity as possible to continue. This is an extraordinarily difficult balancing act but, if the threat is as severe as the scientists believe, I find it surprising that the rule of six remains intact and allows, for example, individuals from six different households to meet in a restaurant, possibly for several hours, with zero social distancing. If I were a generous-hearted soul, I could invite five noble Lords for breakfast, five different ones for lunch and five different ones for supper. That sounds a lot to me. Can the noble Baroness confirm that Professor Whitty argued for stronger measures than those now being proposed? The rules also appear inconsistent. Why can 30 people attend a funeral but only 15 a wedding? That seems bizarre. Can the noble Baroness explain the science behind that decision?

The second challenge is how to identify those with the virus quickly and then isolate them from the rest of the population. Sadly, the Government’s track record on test, track and trace is hopelessly inadequate. It is miles behind the system devised in Germany, where, for example, anyone entering the country by car can have a prompt test at the side of the motorway, the results of which are quickly relayed to a working app, and where localised delays in getting tests done are so rare that they become major news stories. To argue that the German success and our failures have anything to do with our attitudes towards freedom is both risible and insulting. The Government are at least trying to be clearer on those who have priority in getting a test in future. But does the noble Baroness accept that it seems illogical to exclude from the priority list ancillary staff who work in hospitals, care homes and schools? Surely a caretaker, cleaner or member of the catering staff is just as capable of spreading the virus as a doctor, care worker or teacher.

The third challenge relates to persuading the public to adhere to the rules, and the Government have this week strengthened the stick and the carrot. On the stick, the Government have proposed increased penalties, but they are no good without more effective enforcement. The Prime Minister said yesterday that the Government will provide the police and local authorities with the extra funding they need to do this. But will he really live up to his promise? Up to now, the Government have provided extra resources to local government at levels well below what they believe they need to do their Covid work effectively. Will the noble Baroness confirm that the Government will now make funds available to police forces and local authorities at a level that they, not the Government, judge to be required to do their job properly? On carrots, the Government have announced a new £500 isolation support payment for people on low incomes who have tested positive or been told to self-isolate. What is the definition of “low income”, and how quickly and by what means do they intend to get this extremely sensible initiative up and running?

The fourth challenge relates to the additional economic damage that the new restrictions will bring. The hospitality, arts and sport sectors will be particularly badly hit. We are told that the Chancellor and Business Secretary will bring forward further plans to help support those most affected. But the new restrictions bite from tomorrow. So when will the promised new business support measures be announced and take effect? Businesses have a very small cash cushion to keep them going while the Government decide what they are going to do to support them.

Finally, the Prime Minster expressed the Government’s willingness to give the Commons every opportunity to scrutinise government decisions. This is a sound principle but, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, forcefully pointed out, Parliament has effectively surrendered its scrutiny role over Covid legislation. The principal Covid Act was passed with barely any debate, and the delay in debating statutory instruments means that by the time we do discuss them they have been in operation for many weeks in most cases. So the scrutiny is, in effect, meaningless.

This deficiency, however, could easily be rectified by the Government. Will the noble Baroness assure the House that future statutory instruments such as the one coming into force tomorrow will be debated at the earliest opportunity? In the specific case of those new rules, and in light of the completion of the debate on the Agriculture Bill yesterday, can she give any reason why the House should not discuss the new statutory instrument tomorrow, in advance of it coming into effect, rather than at a later date when it will already have done so?

For the Government’s measures to work, individuals across the country have got to believe that they are necessary and proportionate. The scientists can set out the objective evidence, but only the Government can decide on the response. Bringing Parliament and the nation with them will be vital in the months ahead. To achieve that, they will need less bombast and more openness. I hope that we might now get it.

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

I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their comments and questions. I assure the noble Baroness that the Government remain committed to the test and trace system, and it will clearly play an important part in our efforts to continue to tackle the virus. I am sure she will be pleased to know that the test and trace app will be rolled out nationally tomorrow, further enhancing that programme. It is designed to work alongside the traditional contact tracing services and testing to help people understand if they are at risk. On her questions about the rules, my personal interpretation is that she could indeed invite two noble Lords to join her for curry if two had left, as the rule is about six people. Children are counted as individuals, so they are counted as one of the six.

Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness talked about evidence. Certainly both the Government and the scientific advisers looked at a range of evidence in order to come up with the package that we have.

The noble Lord and the noble Baroness quite rightly talked about the economic impacts, which we are all extremely aware of. They will know that through the measures we have taken so far we have protected 12 million people and jobs through the furlough and self-employed schemes, at a cost of £40 billion. However, I entirely accept their points about the impact that this virus is still having, and the impact it is still having on our economy. I can certainly assure the noble Baroness that my right honourable friend the Chancellor, and those across government, are working with employers, representatives, unions and businesses to continue to work out exactly what the best form of support for businesses in all sectors is. We keep that package under constant review.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about the prioritisation of testing. He is absolutely right: at the moment prioritisation is for those who work in acute clinical care, broader NHS staff and people in care homes, and targeted testing for teaching staff. He is obviously quite right to mention other individuals who work within these settings, and we will keep the prioritisation under review. As we increase our testing and look towards the 500,000 tests that we hope to get to by the end of October, we hope to be able to offer tests much more widely and include more people within that prioritisation.

On face coverings, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, talked about indoor settings with lots of people. That is why we are now mandating face coverings in indoor settings and enclosed places which are freely accessed by the public, where it may not be possible to maintain social distancing. He will be aware that we already had those measures in place for shops and supermarkets and on public transport. It is for that very reason that we are now extending the mandatory wearing of face coverings to hospitality settings, taxis and private hire vehicles—again, in enclosed settings where it is particularly difficult for people to maintain social distancing.

The noble Lord also asked about extra funding for the police and local authorities. We have already announced an initial £50 million to support the range of enforcement activity we would expect to see in relation to the new rules that we have just announced. It will be up to the police to decide how they wish to deploy that—for instance, it could be used for increasing patrols to enforce social contact rules, deploying police to high-risk areas where there is rising concern, and providing more support to local authorities and NHS Test and Trace where quarantine and self-isolation breaches are being escalated. Of course, those are just some of the ways in which this funding could be used at a local level.

In relation to the new payment that was announced, the £500 is targeted at those on low incomes and who cannot work from home. It is an additional payment, on top of statutory sick pay and existing benefits or support, such as universal credit, employment support allowance, local housing allowance or hardship fund payments. It will become available for those who are required to self-isolate from 28 September. Local authorities are working quickly to set up these support schemes, and we expect them to be in place by 12 October. Anyone who has had to self-isolate from 28 September will receive backdated payments. That is, I hope, the detail of the new scheme.

The noble Lord talked about parliamentary scrutiny, which is of course extremely important. Each SI has undergone full scrutiny, in line with the requirements of its parent Act. We have been using the appropriate parliamentary procedures for considering regulations, including waiting for the JCSI and the SLSC to report on them before they are debated. On Monday, we will have a more general debate, in line with the commitment we made, on the Coronavirus Act itself.

The noble Lord asked about tomorrow. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton—who is sitting there—will be well aware, we have two days of full discussions on coronavirus SIs, so I do not think we can criticise the House or anyone within it for the work they are doing on this. We will be discussing the SIs that were to be in the Grand Committee in the Chamber. We are dealing with them in order: there are deadlines within which we have to discuss these SIs, and that is the order in which we are taking them. I hope the noble Lord will accept that, as well as the fact that we have two coronavirus Statements today, we are taking this very seriously and ensuring parliamentary scrutiny.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Thursday 25th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister’s Statement was targeted at a nation desperate to return to a more normal way of living as soon as it is safe to do so. We support that aim. The past few months have taken an enormous toll on individuals and communities. Some, long after most of us will be getting back to work, school and socialising, will still be coping with grief and loss, with mental and physical health issues and, of course, with financial hardship.

The Government have to balance and weigh up the risks of both action and inaction as they plot the path out of lockdown. It is not easy; these are judgment calls. The fundamental change in the Government’s response in the Statement is to move further towards individual decision-making and responsibility through guidance and away from legislation.

I appreciate the need for some flexibility in the system and the wisdom of basic common sense—perhaps such as not going out for a drive to test one’s eyesight—but alongside the benefits of flexibility, it inevitably creates some mixed messages and a lack of clarity. So, as we have come to expect with announcements from this Prime Minister, we need further details and I hope the Leader of the House will be able to help with that.

I want to say at the outset, though, that the tone of the debate is really important. When urging others to act responsibly, Mr Johnson has to understand that this also applies to him. When debating the Statement, my friend and south coast parliamentary colleague, the Hove MP Peter Kyle, sought advice from the Prime Minister. Bear in mind the scenes that we saw on beaches yesterday. My honourable friend asked how, in the absence of an app for tracking and tracing, we can keep places such as beachfront bars safe where it is impossible to get customers’ addresses. In response, Mr Johnson bellowed that elected representatives should “show some guts”. That is a pretty unhelpful and offensive response. I am sure that the noble Baroness will disassociate herself from comments such as that, but, more importantly, can she shed any light on the very sensible question asked by my honourable friend?

On the wider issue of that missing app, the leader of the Opposition, Keir Starmer, also sought clarity from the Prime Minister yesterday, but to little avail. So let us try again. Having been promised a “world-beating” app by 1 June, it is a bit strange now to be told by the Prime Minister, after spending £11.8 million, that we do not have an app—and, he says, neither does any other country. That was news to Australia, China, Germany, Singapore and South Korea. But the Prime Minister still says that we can do better.

Mr Johnson was asked, given that around 33,000 people are currently infected with the virus and around 10,000 people have been tracked and their contacts traced, what has happened to the other 23,000 who are infected? Yesterday, the Prime Minister did not have an answer, but now, 24 hours later, the Government will have had time to find out. So can the noble Baroness update the House on how many of the other 23,000 have now been tracked and had their contacts traced? It is not a trick question; it really is fundamental to understanding how we will navigate through the next few months. We need a system that is effective and has public trust, so that people will co-operate and isolate when told to do so. We need a system that allows local authorities and communities to respond quickly and efficiently to any localised outbreaks of Covid. Without that, we run a serious risk of a second wave.

The Prime Minister also said each step out of lockdown will be “conditional and reversible”. That is a sensible and proportionate response. On what criteria will decisions be based, and will the criteria be published? The reintroduction of restrictions could be local or national, and action will have to be swift, well planned and enforced.

The role of local authorities will be crucial, but council leaders have reported to me that they have had no guidance from the Government on how local lockdowns could work, what powers they will need to enforce them and, crucially, who would make the decisions to impose any restrictions. Would it be the council or does it have to be the Government? Therefore, can the noble Baroness either confirm that such discussions are already scheduled or reassure your Lordships’ House that Ministers will immediately initiate urgent discussions with the Local Government Association and local authorities to ensure that they have the powers and resources they need?

Yesterday, a group of the country’s leading health experts called for an urgent review to ensure that the UK is prepared for what they called the “real risk” of a second wave. In an open letter, the chair of the British Medical Association and the presidents of the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of GPs urged Ministers to examine

“areas of weakness where action is needed urgently to prevent further loss of life”.

We all know the consequences of failing to prepare, plan and learn the right lessons. The Prime Minister has said that caution is his watchword. Can the Leader confirm that the Government are undertaking a preparedness review? If she does not have the details on that, I am happy for her to write to me.

We all know how important it is to get the economy moving again, and that is reflected in the Statement. We want to do so safely. Can the noble Baroness say something more about how the one metre-plus measures to protect staff and customers will be monitored and enforced? What resources are being made available to assist employers in providing such measures? What recourse to immediate action will employees have if they feel that their safety is at risk?

Finally, on getting back to school, my good friend Sam Parker, now aged eight, is very keen that his year 3 class gets back to school next month. I think that his parents would like that as well. On behalf of Sam and other children who are itching to get back to that more formal learning environment, can the noble Baroness say whether new guidelines will be issued to head teachers in England and when further information will be available?

Also, yesterday the Children’s Commissioner, Anne Longfield, said that she thought it was ridiculous that schools were opening after theme parks. She expressed concern that education had become a lower priority. Can the noble Baroness explain why theme parks have opened before schools?

Over the past few weeks and months we have become used to scientific and medical experts publicly talking about their advice to government and answering questions from the public and the press. That has been really important in maintaining public confidence. For the majority of us who are not experts but rely on them, it has been really helpful as we try to understand the judgments the Government are having to make. Any unlocking carries risks. We know that it has to be done in stages, with careful planning based on scientific evidence. Can the noble Baroness assure us that the package of measures announced is welcomed and supported by the Government’s own emergency advisers SAGE, as well as the CMO and the Chief Scientific Officer?

Finally, given that the daily press conferences for announcements and updates have been abandoned, I assume that we will return to the normal process of Statements to Parliament, such as this one, which I certainly welcome. Can the noble Baroness confirm that we will receive regular Statements on progress?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for answering questions on this Statement.

I welcome the broad thrust of the Government’s proposals because as the risks of catching Covid-19 have diminished, the economic and mental health costs being incurred by many people are increasing. At some point, the costs of remaining in lockdown were bound to be greater than those of lifting it, and that moment appears to have arrived.

As far as the detailed proposals are concerned, the Prime Minister says that they are based on the principle of,

“trust the British public to use their common sense.”

“Trust the people” is of course an old Liberal slogan, so I cannot but applaud that, but the problem about using one’s common sense is that there is no universally agreed view of what common sense constitutes in any particular circumstance. Everybody will disagree with the Government on what it means in specific instances now, and I will mention just two of my own. I do not understand why local cricket clubs cannot re-open when so many other sports are operating, and I do not know why cathedrals and large churches are not allowed any choral music at all, even though individual choristers could stand apart from each other and many metres away from the congregation. These are relatively small issues, but they matter a lot to those affected. What is the process for keeping such inconveniences under review? Will the Government look at further small steps that would seem to many to be an application of the common sense which the Prime Minister claims is the hallmark of his policy?

Going forward, the two bigger challenges are support for the economy and dealing with any new outbreaks. Today’s Statement is not primarily about the economy but it has major economic implications, not only for those working in sectors where the lockdown is effectively being removed, but also for those where it is not. My only plea to the Government is to be nuanced in any stimulus they give to the economy, and to concentrate on giving continued support to sectors that at present cannot begin to return to normal, such as the performing arts, where a failure to be generous now could lead to a long-term hollowing out of the sector.

There is also the issue facing those who are currently shielding, who will not be able to return to work safely at the end of July, because their workplace will not have adequate anti-Covid-19 measures in place, due to the intrinsic nature of the work. Working as a chef is one example. Will the Government extend the provision of statutory sick pay for such people? If not, how are they supposed to make ends meet?

The second big challenge is how to deal with any resurgence of the disease, which is likely to begin with localised outbreaks. In this respect it is instructive to look at what has happened in Germany. The recent outbreak at the Gütersloh meat processing factory saw 1,500 cases out of a workforce of 7,000. This led almost immediately to the lockdown, for a week, of a district of some 360,000 people, and the rapid deployment of some 100 mobile testing teams to identify further infection among the population as a whole. My concern is that a similar outbreak here would not be met with a similarly decisive response.

If such an outbreak happened in England, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, who would make the decision to lock down the equivalent of a London borough or a district council area? How quickly could such a decision be made? What capacity exists for large-scale local testing in such an area, and what contingency planning has already been undertaken by the Government to ensure that there is a decisive response?

At present, the “track, trace and isolate” policy is based on a national system of telephone callers who have no knowledge of local areas, no local credibility and therefore limited powers of persuasion. It is backed up by an app which, at best, will not be ready for months, and in any event is now not the most important thing that is going to happen but

“the cherry on top of the cake”.

Will the Government now refocus their “track and trace” efforts towards a more locally led approach, and will they change tack and commit to being open with people when significant new outbreaks occur in specific local settings—for example, in meat processing plants, as has happened in two or three cases in the UK already?

While loosening the lockdown and opening up more of the economy is welcome, it will only remain welcome while we avoid a generalised second wave of infections. This is perfectly possible with a rigorous, locally based “track, trace and isolate” system. At present, however, neither I nor anybody else believes that such a system is in place. Until it is, the Government run the risk of making the same hash of coming out of the pandemic as they did of going into it.

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

I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their comments. Both rightly asked about the “test and trace” system. It has been important to learn as we have developed this new technology, which is why it has undergone testing on the Isle of Wight and in a series of field tests. This has uncovered some issues with the app, particularly the Google-Apple framework. We are now bringing together the app and the Google-Apple solution so that we can carry out contact tracing and make it easier to order tests and access advice and guidance on self-isolation.

On 18 June, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced that NHSX has begun the next phase of development in building this app, and we will conduct a national rollout only when we are confident of having got it right. The noble Baroness is right that other countries have started to roll out apps, but they too—Singapore, for instance—have found very similar issues with the compatibility of this data. Germany has had 12.2 million downloads, but as we have said, you need about 60% of the population for this to be a fully functioning rollout, and downloads are not the same as rollout. I am not saying that there are no issues, but a lot of countries are grappling with this. We are making progress and will continue to do so.

The noble Lord and the noble Baroness rightly asked about local outbreaks, and the noble Lord referred to specific examples. I can confirm that there are ongoing discussions with local authorities. Each local area has its own local action committee and its own arrangements to choose how it wants to run its local outbreak plans. Decisions will be supported at a local level by the Joint Biosecurity Centre—which is also tracking data and will be involved—Public Health England and NHS Test and Trace. We have made £300 million available to local authorities to work with NHS Test and Trace in developing local outbreak control plans, which will identify and contain potential outbreaks in places such as workplaces, ensure that testing capacities are effectively deployed and help the most vulnerable in isolation. We are in discussions with local authorities about what enforcement powers are available and what more can be granted. As has always been the case, if multiple cases appear in a specific setting, a specialist team from the local authority or Public Health England will help to manage the outbreak. A lot of work from central and local government is ongoing throughout this pandemic, and it will continue.

The noble Baroness asked about the one-metre rule, particularly in respect of businesses. It is for each business to carry out its own risk assessment, in consultation with workers, to inform their actions and the mitigation steps they may take if they move to the one-metre-plus rule. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness will have seen that a significant amount of detailed guidance has been published since the Prime Minister’s Statement. Obviously, employers have a duty under the law to protect the health and safety of their employees, and if there are concerns about employers’ steps, employees should get in touch with their employee representative, union, local authority or the Health and Safety Executive. We have announced an additional £14 million for the Health and Safety Executive for extra call-centre staff, inspectors and equipment.

I hope that the noble Baroness can assure her eight-year-old friend, whose name I am afraid I have forgotten—

Global Britain

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Thursday 18th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the life of Dame Vera Lynn, who has died today aged 103—I can see the shock on the face of the noble Baroness the Deputy Speaker at that. In the most difficult of times for this country, she symbolised enormous resilience, optimism and hope. We send our condolences to all her family, friends and fans throughout the country and across the world; she was genuinely a national icon.

Turning to the Statement, the noble Baroness will be aware of the wide distress and anger in response to the Prime Minister’s announcement that DfID is to be merged with the FCO. It is largely because of comments from Mr Johnson and others that this feels more like a hostile takeover then a genuine merger.

I want to deal with the implications but also comment on the timing of this announcement. Looking at the hugely important issues on the Prime Minister’s desk, we see the response to Covid-19, particularly the serious problems with track and trace and how our outcomes compare poorly with so many other countries; the massive rise in unemployment and increased poverty, which has led to a screeching and humiliating, if very welcome, U-turn on free school meals; and the urgency of our trade deal negotiations with the European Union. I therefore find it quite remarkable—not in a good way —that Mr Johnson considers it a priority, now of all times, to reorganise Whitehall departments. I suspect that I am not alone in thinking that this rush to announce is an attempt to distract attention from government failures.

Even when this is viewed as a stand-alone decision, it fails the test of good governance and good policy. To understand the concerns about the change, the Government need to understand why DfID was set up with the status of an independent Whitehall department with a Cabinet-ranking Minister and why, after years of political hokey-cokey, with upgrades and downgrades for the department depending on the colour of the Government, it became widely accepted and built on as the best way to address the issues by all subsequent Governments and Prime Ministers—until now.

Mr Johnson talks about value for public money. That is why DfID was set up in first place, in the wake of the Pergau Dam scandal, when the Secretary of State was found to have acted illegally in funding an excessively expensive energy project, financed by British taxpayers, to secure a major arms deal. That had a significant impact on the commitment to ensure that trade and aid should not be linked.

Yet on Monday 11 February last year, the Prime Minister said on the BBC’s “Today” programme in relation to the aid budget:

“We could make sure that 0.7% is spent more in line with Britain’s political, commercial”—


and then he added “diplomatic” interests. He even cited Japan as a model, in how it had used the aid budget to promote Japanese railways.

While I am on the issue of value, the transparency index—an independent assessment of the effectiveness of aid spending across the world—praises DfID as being “very good” and in the top three, while the FCO languishes near the bottom of the league with a poor rating. The Foreign Secretary announced in a radio interview this morning that we would get “more bang for the buck”—an embarrassing approach to aid policy. It is why we are concerned and why this proposal has been criticised, including by three former Prime Ministers.

The great benefit of DfID is that it has earned a reputation for integrity and has built up trust that it will provide help and support in the areas of greatest need. We should always confront head on the suffering in our world—whether it is poverty, disease, famine or conflict—not just for sound ethical reasons but because it is in our national, as well as the global, interest to do so. We ignore such suffering at our peril: the dire consequences and greater instability that can follow can pose threats to all across the world. For aid and development to be downgraded in this way when the world is facing a global health crisis shows a deep arrogance about how best to promote British values and interests.

The Government appear to ignore the incalculable diplomatic influence of soft power and our reputation across the world. Have they given any consideration at all to the ramifications for the UK’s diplomatic programmes, as well as our developmental work? The FCO’s core diplomatic funding is already at its lowest level in 20 years, and Professor Malcolm Chalmers of RUSI has observed that consular activity and diplomacy could become increasingly underfunded sidelines. The UK’s diplomatic influence was once the envy of the international community. At a time in history when we most need to build allies, support and credibility across the world, the Government have created uncertainty about their commitment to do so.

I have a few questions on this for the noble Baroness. First, can she give a commitment that the Government will maintain diplomatic and consulate funding at at least present levels after the takeover? Secondly, is it true that the Secretary of State for International Development was not involved in the decision-making process and was told of the announcement only on the day it was made? Thirdly, will the Cabinet retain a Minister with overall responsibility for international aid? Fourthly, what reassurance can she give the staff at DfID? Can she confirm that the Permanent Secretary has told staff that he cannot guarantee the jobs of the 200 EU nationals currently employed? Fifthly, can she guarantee that the Government will not seek to change OECD rules on what is classified as aid, nor amend the 2002 legislation in a way contrary to those rules? Finally, DfID has a well-established global network and core development expertise. The dilution of these stakeholder-focused skills within the FCO will be a cause for concern. Therefore, what guarantees can the noble Baroness give that that essential work will continue at the same high standard that we see now?

We have had many debates in this House about Britain’s place in the world. We take enormous pride in wanting the UK to take an international lead as a force for good. With this decision, and the explanation of the rationale behind it, the Prime Minister has just made achieving that ambition so much harder.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for answering questions on the Statement. To me, the Statement raises three principal questions. First, why is this change happening at all? Secondly, why is it happening now? Thirdly, is it a good idea?

On the first point, the Statement and the Prime Minister’s comments on Tuesday make it very clear why this move is being made. First, he and many in the Conservative Party believe that DfID has simply too much money, or, as the Prime Minister disparagingly put it, that it acts like a “giant cashpoint in the sky”. He also believes that it spends it badly, as the disgraceful and wilfully inaccurate anti-DfID briefings put out by the Government and faithfully repeated in some of yesterday’s newspapers made clear.

Secondly, the Prime Minister wants to use the money for something other than DfID’s core aims of extreme poverty reduction and the fight against disease. He says in the Statement:

“We give ten times as much aid to Tanzania as we do to the six countries of the Western Balkans, who are acutely vulnerable to Russian meddling”,


with the clear implication that this was the wrong set of priorities. Yet income per head in Tanzania is under $4,000 while that in Montenegro, one of the six west Balkan countries, is $22,000—over five times as much. Even the poorest western Balkan country, Kosovo, is more than three times as prosperous as Tanzania.

If you are worried about poverty, the current priorities make absolute sense, but they make no sense at all if you want the money to gain diplomatic leverage against Russia. This may well be desirable, but it is not what DfID was established for and it is not what development aid should be used for. From now on, poverty and disease are not to be the hallmarks of our development policy. The priorities are to be—I quote from the Prime Minister’s letter to parliamentarians on Tuesday—“driven by the overarching strategy set by the National Security Council.” What expertise does the National Security Council have in poverty reduction and combating disease, and will it now be strengthened to include people who do have such expertise?

Why is this move being made now? As Justine Greening pointed out, the Government should be concentrating their efforts on fighting coronavirus rather than tinkering with departmental boundaries. It is not as though the Government are making such a good fist of dealing with coronavirus that they have extra capacity on their hands and are looking for other things to do. There are other big problems as well, not least Brexit, where things are not exactly going swimmingly. Indeed, cynics have argued that the only reason the decision has been announced now is to throw some red meat to the Government’s critics on their own Back Benches regarding their handling of the coronavirus crisis. If that is not the reason, what is it? Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us.

Finally, is the abolition of DfID and the refocusing of its priorities a good thing? Outside one wing of the Tory party, the move has no supporters. Three Prime Ministers, including David Cameron, have condemned it, and so too have at least three former Conservative International Development Secretaries. The Prime Minister’s claim that the decision reflects

“a massive consultation over a long period of time”

is simply belied by the fact that of the 400-plus NGOs working with DfID, none was consulted at all.

All those with experience in this field are concerned that the focus of development aid will shift away from the reduction of extreme poverty and disease. All are concerned that the transparency and accountability of the development programme will be reduced. And all are concerned that as a result, far from enhancing the concept of global Britain, this will diminish it.

The Prime Minister makes a habit of claiming that his policies and initiatives are world class when they are anything but. However, in the case of DfID, he has done the opposite. Here, we do have a world-class institution and set of policies—and he has disparaged it. But this Prime Minister has long wanted to get his hands on DfID funds to promote other foreign policy goals. He will now indeed have his hands on the money, but he is devoid of any articulated foreign policy on which to spend it. “Global Britain” seems to mean “anywhere but Europe”, but beyond that phrase, the policy is completely vacuous. The decision is, as Andrew Mitchell has said, an “extraordinary mistake” by a Prime Minister for whom extraordinary mistakes are becoming a hallmark of his tenure. The poorest will suffer most, but the Prime Minister simply does not care.

Covid-19: Strategy

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Tuesday 12th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, having watched the Prime Minister’s recorded message on Sunday and his Statement to MPs yesterday, I will make two observations. We recognise that the complexities and unknowns of this virus mean that decisions about how we respond are very difficult and challenging. To meet those unprecedented challenges, the Government must provide certainty, confidence and clarity. Unfortunately, in his two statements the Prime Minister missed those targets by announcing the plans without the detail needed. Dominic Raab then had to tour the media studios on Monday morning with a basic message of, “What the Prime Minister meant to say was…” For example, when Mr Johnson said that people who were able to should go back to work on Monday, he really meant Wednesday. When we most needed clarity, we got confusion.

We now have the strategy document, so we can discuss the detail, but there is a reason why Statements should be made to Parliament, rather than taking the “Blue Peter” approach of “Here’s one I made earlier” and recording them especially for the media. The Government should not see the normal process of consultation, engagement, questions and scrutiny as political obstacles to be avoided. They must understand that this is the way that we get the best decisions and, therefore, the best outcomes. It is only by highlighting problems that we can work together to overcome them. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the impact assessments on these strategy documents will also be published?

Because of the way this has been handled, there are numerous questions to be addressed to ensure that the public have all the information they need and that we can all monitor and support the way forward. Will the noble Baroness guarantee that no question today is left unanswered and that, if necessary, she will follow up in writing with complete answers?

I will pick up four specific issues. The first is about understanding the R rate—the reproduction rate—which is essential in fighting the virus. How robust is the calculation of the current level being between 0.5 and 0.9? The report states that 136,000 people are currently infected in the UK. Given that there is no universal testing or tracing, on what scientific basis is it calculated and what is the confidence level of the statistics and the margin of error? It is a basic question of whether it is a calculation or an estimate. Our national strategy is predicated on that figure, so we need to be able to respond quickly if it changes, either by the further easing of restrictions or, as is happening in parts of Germany and in South Korea, having to respond to an increase in the R rate. How quickly can we accurately identify changes and adapt plans accordingly? If we are asking those who enter the country to self-isolate for 14 days to help keep the R rate down, how will this be enforced and monitored?

Secondly, the Prime Minister said that the virus varies across the nations and regions of the UK and therefore needs a flexible response. That makes sense, but flexibility does not mean the Government going it alone for England; it means consultation and engagement to ensure coherent policy even if there are differences. So what discussion and consultation took place with the devolved Governments before the Prime Minister’s announcement? And I have to ask: is it really true that they heard about the change of advice from “Stay at home” to “Stay alert” in the media and on Twitter? The noble Baroness attends COBRA meetings so she will be aware of the weekly meetings with the leaders of the devolved Administrations. Were the differences in policy discussed at those meetings? Can she also confirm that the meetings will continue to be weekly? It seems even more important now that they are so, if they are not, why not?

At a smaller, regional level, how accurate is that R figure in identifying regional and local differences? We see that the information regarding infections and deaths is given at local government level. Can the R rate be identified in the same way?

I want to ask about the advice on going back to work, which still appears to be that if you can work from home then you should do so. Many decisions will be predicated on social distancing and other protection measures being in place. I have real concerns about workplaces where there is no proper system for challenging decisions that are taken by an employer or manager. Should employees have little or no confidence that a proper risk assessment at the workplace has been carried out or acted upon, what support will the Government provide to protect their health, or in the event of any threat of job losses just for asking questions? I have to put this to the noble Baroness as well: does she consider that the Health and Safety Executive is fit for purpose on this front? Does it have both the capacity and the political support?

Today we have had more detail on how social distancing will work on public transport and where capacity is to be dramatically reduced. However, given that demand to travel on buses, trams and the Tube may start to outstrip supply, how will the Government ensure that transport networks are not overwhelmed by those just trying to get back to work, as the Government have advised?

It is also suggested that primary schools will go back in June. In the interests of the wider workforce, is guidance being prepared for schools and nurseries on how long children should attend for each day? If that were provided, it could help the public, employers and employees to properly plan ahead. On all those issues, can the noble Baroness confirm that genuine consultation with the relevant trade unions will be part of the decision-making and implementation process?

As we move to the next stages and some parts of everyday life begin to reopen, it is even more important that we get shielding and support for vulnerable people right. What are the Government doing to improve their efforts to identify and notify those in high-risk categories? Local authorities are reporting huge errors. They initially raised their concerns that the numbers seemed too low, but were not asked to contribute their knowledge as data identification was being undertaken centrally. It now appears that thousands of people were initially missed off, and in some areas local authorities have been told that the numbers of citizens to be shielded have more than doubled in the last week. That is a lesson to us all that local authorities have a vital role to play, given their understanding and knowledge of their communities, and that we have to work in ongoing partnership with them to make improvements and harness their local knowledge.

A huge amount is being asked of individuals over the coming weeks. People will rise to the challenge and do their best to keep themselves and each other safe, but it is not just an individual responsibility; it is a collective one and the Government must maintain their end of the bargain. That means delivering on testing, tracing and PPE for front-line workers.

Over the past few months our lives have changed. Thousands are grieving for loved ones. We have seen extraordinary efforts and commitment to manage and eradicate the virus and support individuals and communities. Staff in the NHS, in caring, in transport, in retail, in pharmacies and so many other public-facing roles that we rely on have done so much. We have a responsibility to them to prepare for the future, to do what we can to get the economy moving and to support people in getting back to work, but with great caution, as well as hope for what our country might become when this horrible disease is no more.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for taking questions on the Prime Minister’s Statement. I think everybody agrees that the Government have to strike an extraordinarily difficult balance in moving from the simplicity of lockdown and the “stay at home” slogan towards some sort of social and economic normality without jeopardising the progress being made to control the virus. Even while following the science, there are many uncertainties and risks that have to be weighed, and decisions have to be based on judgments which only Ministers can make.

In these circumstances, the best way to secure maximum public trust and support is to be clear, consistent and open. The Prime Minister’s statements to both the nation and the Commons, coupled with many and various briefings by Ministers, spads and other officials over the past week, have unfortunately led to many uncertainties, inconsistencies and unanswered questions.

I therefore have some questions for the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. First, on testing, how resilient do the Government believe the system now is, given that only a few days ago they sent some 5,000 tests to America because they could not be analysed in a timely manner in the UK? Have any further such shipments proved necessary?

On the crucial track and trace technology, how confident are the Government that their own bespoke system, currently being tested in the Isle of Wight, is fit for purpose in the light of their placing a £3.8 million contract last week to investigate the use in the UK of a completely different one? If a track and trace system is implemented, how will the Government ensure that those who need to isolate do so, given that the number of people they plan to employ on this task is way short of the numbers involved in countries that have been following such a system effectively for some time? Will they consider establishing multidisciplinary community Covid teams, on the German model, involving local directors of public health, which will check not only that people really are isolating themselves but that they are getting the support they need in their homes?

Underlying these questions is the common theme of a monolithic, national programme that has been implemented with little apparent understanding of local conditions and the potential for working collaboratively with local public and private sector partners. Will the Government now look at developing a more collaborative approach in the months ahead in order to avoid some of the problems that they have encountered in the weeks we have just seen?

Moving on to the safety of people at work—an issue which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, touched on—compliance with the rules is policed by the Health and Safety Executive and local authorities. Both are desperately short of resources to undertake this additional work. What further resources will the Government make available to them to ensure that if employees have concerns about their working conditions they can get a timely inspection of their premises? At the moment, I feel that any concerns raised by employees will not be dealt with expeditiously, because there are simply not the people able to deal with them.

In relation to quarantining for those coming into the UK, why have the Government waited so long to take a measure that has been in place in over 100 other countries for several months? If this is now such an important barrier against the virus, why has the Prime Minister agreed to President Macron’s request to exempt all those travelling from France, which has also had a very high incidence of the disease? It is very difficult to see on what science that decision could possibly have been made.

On schools, why have reception and year 1 groups been prioritised over other primary and junior years, given that these groups will find it the most difficult to maintain social distancing? Again, what is the scientific rationale for that? In the light of the fact that some headmasters are saying that they will not open their schools because they do not believe that they can do so safely, what response, if any, do the Government plan in such cases?

Finally, on your Lordships’ House, the Prime Minister has been keen to urge the House of Commons to move

“in step with public health guidance … towards further physical proceedings”.

Does the noble Baroness agree that the Lords should also embrace this principle and move now towards a hybrid Chamber along the lines of that already in place in the Commons?

As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, there has been a terrific and positive communal response to beating this virus. That feeling exists strongly today, but if it is to continue, the Government must just be open with the people, be clear, and make sure that all of us know how we are supposed to behave in the best interests of ourselves, our families and the country in the months ahead.

Business of the House

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Thursday 5th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not wish to prolong the debate, as there is lots of information we do not yet have, but there are two issues on which I seek assurance from the noble Lord. First, if any action at all is to be taken in restricting access to Parliament, or in any way restricting our work, it should be taken only on the advice of the Chief Medical Officer and with the approval of Parliament.

Secondly, if at any point the virus leads to any restriction on how Parliament works, the Government will need to put in place plans to ensure that democracy continues. That is the point being made by the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Blunkett. I understand that the No. 10 briefing points out that there could be a quorum of 100 MPs. The quorum is currently 40, so the article does not make much sense, but we should ensure that both Houses of Parliament can operate. I hope the noble Lord gives some information about the plans being drawn up by Downing Street for the worst-case scenarios.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I support the comments from other noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. It is important that Parliament sets an example to the nation. If the coronavirus were to be so devastating that we have to close every organisation that brings several hundred people together, it would devastate the economic and social life of the nation. So far, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that that would be necessary for the rest of the nation. For Parliament to appear almost to be taking the lead in wishing to hide away is a very bad signal to the rest of the country. Can the noble Lord assure us that that approach will not be followed by the Government?

Global Britain

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 3rd February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I think there was some confusion before the start of the Statement today, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and I were told that the Leader was available at 5 pm only and that the debate would be interrupted. We came in to be told that that was not the case and that the Statement would be repeated at the end of the debate, and it was then brought back on. I apologise to those who have been in and out of the Chamber waiting for the Statement, as it was not quite clear what was happening.

There have been three years of debate and discussion since the referendum and, as a country, we now have to adjust to the new political and economic reality outside the EU, for the first time in almost 50 years. For me, Friday marked a very long time in the dentist’s chair and, as the anaesthetic gradually started to wear off, the reality of the 11 pm Brexit marked a turning point for the UK.

When the Prime Minister said this morning that the UK has now embarked on a great voyage, his language finally showed the recognition that getting Brexit done is a process rather than a moment. Given the tight timescales involved in negotiating the future relationship, I welcome that both the Government and the European Commission have outlined objectives today. However, I am sure noble Lords can imagine my disappointment when I tuned in to the Sunday shows and heard Cabinet Ministers stress that any form of alignment with the EU would defeat the entire point of Brexit.

The Government publicly insist that there will be no lowering of standards. Indeed, in his speech this morning, the Prime Minister cited numerous examples of UK standards which already exceed EU ones. He specifically referenced animal welfare. I think the Leader will know of and understand the concerns of animal welfare groups and farmers who are concerned that the Government’s pursuit of a trade deal with the US threatens to erode standards here. It would be helpful if she could tell the House what categorical reassurances she can give to farmers and animal welfare groups.

Before reading the Prime Minister’s speech and the Foreign Secretary’s Statement, I had hoped for three things: first, that they would heed the long-standing calls from business to negotiate a deal maintaining frictionless trade; secondly, that the various commitments in the political declaration—a document signed off by this Prime Minister—would stand; and, thirdly, that the days of arbitrary red lines, rambling speeches and, shall we say, unconventional diplomacy were behind us, with the Government adopting a more grown-up approach. Those hopes were short-lived.

What we have seen today—I stress that it gives significantly less detail than the equivalent proposals in the European Commission’s document, so I hope there is more to come—is not dissimilar to the approach adopted by the previous Prime Minister. We have the desire for a Canada-style free trade agreement, with the veiled threat that the UK can and will pursue alternative arrangements if a deal cannot be reached with the EU 27. There is the usual red line on the CJEU, even if this could drastically reduce the scope for future co-operation in areas such as policing and security. Surely those should be at the forefront of all our minds given the weekend’s events in Streatham.

We are also told that, consistent with international best practice and the EU’s own trade agreements, we will not maintain regulatory alignment with the EU but instead seek regulatory equivalence in key fields. It would be helpful if the Leader could explain her understanding of the difference between the two.

We also have a commitment to negotiate on behalf of the whole UK family, despite the EU’s position on Gibraltar being very clear. Its position is that, unless the Government can secure the quick and explicit agreement of Spain, any new agreement would exclude Gibraltar. Can the Leader confirm when and how the Prime Minister intends to engage with counterparts in Madrid? Has that process started yet?

With the Prime Minister adopting his predecessor’s approach to the treatment of civil servants, it appears that nothing has changed. In his speech at Greenwich, the Prime Minister claimed that the UK has the economists and the trade policy experts needed to negotiate a deal but also warned that

“if we don’t have enough, or if they don’t perform, believe me we will hire some more.”

I am not sure that civil servants will appreciate comments such as that, especially at a time when those in the Brexit department are being redeployed. I am not sure that it is helpful either that our diplomats are being told not to sit alongside their EU member state counterparts, as if that is really going to help to smooth the negotiations and make them easier. It seems very petty.

Noble Lords might wonder why any of this matters when the Government have committed to make further details of the negotiations

“available to Parliament as the process develops.”

I ask the Leader: how? The measures relating to parliamentary oversight were stripped out of the WAB entirely, having been included in the previously agreed version of the Bill. We may receive, and certainly welcome, Statements from members of the Cabinet but they cannot replace a formal role for Parliament or effective and efficient engagement. If the Prime Minister has no prospect of negotiating a comprehensive deal before his self-imposed deadline of December, which in reality probably means October given the ratification required, we will fall back on either the withdrawal agreement or an Australian-style barebones deal. We appear to be back in the realm of the “managed no deal”, an idea which has already been comprehensively discredited.

Last week, the National Audit Office reported that the Government’s previous preparations for a no-deal outcome were far from successful. Despite the expense, the NAO judged that

“it is not clear that the campaign resulted in the public being significantly better prepared.”

It would be helpful if the Leader could share her views on why the NAO made that judgment, but it would be more helpful if she could tell this House who was instrumental in helping the Government draw up the plans for that engagement; clearly, they failed comprehensively. If she does not have the information, I am happy for her to write to me on that point. Can she also confirm whether the Government will initiate a new scheme—possibly Yellowhammer 2—should negotiations not progress as we hope they will? If so, when will the Government start those consultations with the organisations and groups affected? They will need to have information because we need to learn from the mistakes made this time.

I also hope that the Leader can offer some words of comfort to my noble friend Lord Dubs. Although he is not here this evening, many others who supported and voted for his amendment to the withdrawal agreement Bill are. Ministers repeated time and again that the policy relating to family reunification has not changed, and that the UK wishes to negotiate reciprocal arrangements at the earliest opportunity. So why does the Written Ministerial Statement from the Prime Minister claim only that:

“The UK is ready to discuss”


this co-operation? It is not the same as the claim we have heard from Ministers on previous occasions: that the UK has already sought talks on the issue and that it is a genuine priority. The Prime Minister says just that we are ready to discuss it, which seems a step back from what we have previously been told by Ministers.

As I said at the beginning of my response, Friday was a turning point. The debate about leaving or remaining is over and it is incumbent on all sides to work together to achieve the best possible deal for Britain. We are going to scrutinise the Government’s approach to the talks but we also stand ready, as we always have, to be constructive. I hope that Ministers will now be more open-minded, given that we have passed that 31 January deadline.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I am of course delighted that she has, because in doing so she has shown herself willing to be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny where the Prime Minister has not, despite the fact that the meat of this Statement is his Written Statement to Parliament today on the UK’s approach to the Brexit negotiations. I hope that this will set a precedent, and one which she will commend to her leader in another place.

It is very instructive to compare the Prime Minister’s Statement to that issued by the EU, also today, on its approach to the negotiations. The EU document runs to some 30 pages; the Prime Minister’s to one and a half, albeit in small type. It is still pretty thin. In a number of respects, the two sets of proposals are complementary, and the tone is certainly conciliatory, which is to be welcomed. The Government are now perfectly explicit that they want a Canada-type trade agreement. In terms of the degree of closeness to the EU, that is the height of their ambitions and they accept that if they fail to get such a deal, they will revert to normal third-country arrangements. The latter option would clearly be extremely damaging, as this House has discussed many times, but so in my view would be a Canada-type agreement.

Such an agreement will require customs checks and controls, sanitary and phytosanitary controls, and much form-filling. It will not be the frictionless trade of which Mrs May was such a proponent; nor “unfettered” trade, which was the terminology of the Conservative election manifesto. For the sake of clarity, can the Leader of the House confirm that a Canada-type agreement would inevitably lead to such controls? In respect of trade between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, can she confirm that the permanent customs border will now be down the middle of the Irish Sea rather than on the UK-Irish land border? Can she also explain how a Canada-type deal would cover agricultural products given that the real Canada agreement involves tariffs and quotas on agricultural products such as poultry, eggs, beef, pork and wheat? What discussions have taken place between the Government and the NFU to ascertain how British farm production would be affected by the imposition of such Canada-type tariffs and quotas?

One area where there is clearly no current agreement between the UK and EU position is fishing. The EU document talks of aiming

“to avoid economic dislocation for Union fishermen”

and to

“build on existing reciprocal access conditions, quota shares and the traditional activity of the Union fleet”.

How do the Government square this with their aim of extending the scope of exclusive UK fishery rights? Can the Leader confirm that, when it comes to services, the Government stand by their assessment of two years ago that a Canada-style agreement would involve more than 550 restrictions in services trade?

On security, the EU document discusses co-operation between law enforcement and judicial authorities, which will be in line with arrangements for co-operation with third countries. This is a million miles short of the co-operation which now protects the UK through the Prüm and European arrest warrant systems. How do the Government, whose own document talks only about putting in place a “pragmatic agreement”, envisage replicating the benefits for the security of our citizens which the present arrangements provide?

Moving on to the section in the Statement headed “Global Britain”, I am afraid that we now enter a zone of almost entirely windy rhetoric, culminating in the hyperbolic statement that Global Britain will be

“an even stronger force for good in the world.”

To exemplify this new reality, the Statement refers to the COP 26 climate change summit that is to take place in Glasgow—our chairing of which, of course, has nothing to do with EU membership and long predates Brexit. The Government say that their approach to COP 26 is to lead by example, but the truth is that the only example they seem to be setting is of chaos and confusion. Following the sacking of Claire Perry O’Neill, can the Leader say who will now be in charge of preparing for this summit, when she expects the Cabinet sub-committee set up to manage it to have its first ever meeting, and when the Government will begin to publish their plans for the summit? The only thing that we know about it is that the costs have gone up from £250 million to £450 million, but we are no closer to knowing what the Government plan the summit to achieve.

For all the talk of global Britain, most of the rest of the globe thinks that, in pursuing Brexit, we have taken leave of our senses. Nothing in this Statement is likely to persuade them that they are wrong.

Tributes to Mr Keith Phipps

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

We are here to serve.

In all the years he has been in your Lordships’ House, we have appreciated Mr Phipps’s company, efficiency and natural authority. We have always known who is really in charge. I hope he has enjoyed his time with us as much as we have. I had to smile at the comments of his late father, Ken, when he reflected in 2012:

“He enjoys his job I think—he has a little moan every now and then, but who doesn’t?”.


On a more serious note, it is both an honour and a pleasure to thank him on behalf of these Benches for his dedicated and unparalleled service to your Lordships’ House. There is no doubt that he has made his mark in the most positive way, for which we are extremely grateful.

Keith, we are going to miss you. We wish you and Sue, your wife, a very long and happy retirement. There is only one thing left to say: thank you and goodbye, Mr Phipps.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I have seen Mr Phipps in two guises: as a doorkeeper here in your Lordships’ House and as a member of the Queen’s Bodyguard when I was captain of that august body. His attitude in both environments was that of an experienced NCO having to deal with a blundering second lieutenant who did not even know how to salute properly. He knew how it was done. I certainly did not, and I am sure that new Members of your Lordships’ House have felt similarly at sea when they first tried to work out how we do things here. But he has done that with everybody with an avuncular friendliness and firmness that has been extremely impressive.

At a time when the atmosphere in Parliament has sometimes been extremely fractious, he has helped to ensure that the ethos of your Lordships’ House reflects the tolerance and civility that, I am sure, we all believe should characterise the operations of a Parliament. We will miss him and the qualities he has brought to his roles, and I am sure we will all do our best to uphold the values he has brought to his work and our proceedings. We wish him and his wife a long and enjoyable retirement.

Chair of the European Union Committee

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 9th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will share the noble Baroness’s confidence, and mine, that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, will take on this role with enthusiasm and great skill. His expertise in science and the law are key ingredients for evidence-based policy-making and analysis; that is essential, particularly at a time when some consider opinions superior to facts. We warmly welcome him to his new position.

It is also an honour to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, as he stands down. I first engaged with him many years ago when I was a newly elected MP and he was the shadow Minister leading for the then Opposition on the Minimum Wage Bill Committee —he remembers it well. It still holds the record for the longest ever Committee sitting in Parliament. I seem to recall that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spoke many a night in that same Committee Room. Despite some very long and late nights, then as now, he displayed his customary courtesy and good humour at all times.

At a time when the issue of our membership of the EU has fractured our politics, fragmented political parties, divided society and even split families, the work undertaken by our EU Committee and sub-committees remains essential and valuable. The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, has acted at all times in the interest of your Lordships’ House to ensure that our debates would be well informed and timely. He can be proud of his record.

At times, it has been a difficult role. We hear that it has been seven years, three months—and I am sure he can tell us how many days as well. The noble Lord has always seen his work as service to this House and has been exemplary in fulfilling those responsibilities. We thank him and wish him well.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord has presided for a long period over the work of the European Union Committee, but I think that it will be the work related to Brexit for which he will be remembered. I am sure that the unprecedented volume of reports from that committee have informed a very large number of people across the country. In particular, the first tranche of reports after the referendum drew to the House’s attention—and mine—a whole raft of detailed issues relating to Brexit, and although I thought I knew something about the subject, I realised that I was ignorant. I would like to thank him personally for my education—and more generally, on behalf of the House and the country, for the immensely educative job that the committee has been able to do.

I also thank him personally for his very open approach to consultation. As Chief Whip and Leader, whenever there has been a particular issue relating to my group or policy more generally facing the committee, he has been able to come and have a confidential discussion about it. I found this extremely valuable, and I believe that the approach is very much in the best traditions of the House.

We welcome the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, to the job and wish him well. At the same time, we look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, resuming his full voice in future debates on Europe and more generally.

Business of the House

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Thursday 5th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I thank the Chief Whip for his very helpful explanation of how the business is working out. I wish to say a few words in proposing the new business Motion; I think that everyone wants to get on and have the substantive debates.

I would like to say a few thank yous. After a long night of debate, I want to reflect on how often this House—supposedly the senior House—sits so much later than the other place. It happens on many occasions.

First, I thank the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House for their courtesy and resilience last night in our numerous meetings to get to a position agreed by and acceptable to your Lordships’ House. I am grateful to them and to all noble Lords who, until very late in the evening, sat here and engaged in the debate. Their engagement on this difficult issue was amazing and people were very patient. I also thank all noble Lords who advised and engaged with us during our discussions.

It is also right that we as a House place on record our thanks to the staff, particularly of the three Front Benches. I mention specifically the doorkeepers and the staff of the House, whose courtesy, friendliness and helpfulness last night exceeded our expectations. They had no knowledge that we were likely to sit so late, but they did so with great charm; we are very grateful to them.

I beg to move.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I echo briefly the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in expressing thanks from these Benches for the Government Front Bench’s co-operation late in the evening, which enabled the House to deal with its normal business today rather than still being on a rather ridiculous merry-go-round. I also echo the noble Baroness’s thanks to our staff, especially the staff of the House, who kept the show on the road with their usual efficiency and cheerfulness.

Business of the House

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Wednesday 4th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am being heckled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, to withdraw my Motion. If we were sure that the legislation, if passed in the House of Commons tonight, would go through your Lordships’ House in the usual way we do our business and it was guaranteed by all noble Lords that we would complete our deliberations and conclude prior to Prorogation, there would really be no need for my Motion.

[Lord Newby]

In an attempt to simplify matters, I support the idea of a simple, straightforward, short break, not to insert any other business, because that would be confusing, but to accept that any agreement reached among the usual channels in your Lordships’ House at 7 o’clock might be conditional on various things happening in the Commons in the next few hours. In that way, we would know what to do in various circumstances. I am loath to see a long pause, because if for some reason the good will, which I am pleased to see breaking out, did not lead to an agreement, we would be back to where we were, and the sooner we got back to where we were, the better.

As it is now 18.48, I should have thought that if we had half or three quarters of an hour, that should be perfectly long enough to—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I thank the noble Lord in what is probably his first major outing as Chief Whip in your Lordships’ House. It has been quite a night. This has been a long debate and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have stayed the course and are still here. It shows how much this House values both the importance of the work we do and of the issue we are debating.

We can now confirm that we shall be able to complete all the stages of the Bill in your Lordships’ House in a time-honoured way by 5 pm on Friday. It was not an easy decision to table a Motion to ensure that we could continue our deliberations on the Bill and conclude them in good time. I understand the anxieties that were so eloquently stated by noble Lords who spoke in support of the amendments that this House has considered this evening. We recognise that such a Business Motion is a wholly exceptional response to the very unusual circumstances of the imminent Prorogation. We hope that it will not be treated as a precedent and that it will not have to be deployed again.

I thank all noble Lords for their patience. I had hoped to come back to your Lordships’ House earlier about the arrangements that were being made. Tomorrow morning, I shall be tabling a new Business Motion, which will confirm that we shall complete our consideration of the Bill by 5 pm on Friday 6 September.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I endorse the words of the Government Chief Whip and of the Leader of the Opposition. Passions run very high on this issue in your Lordships’ House, as they do across the country. It is not surprising that they have been high today. Carrying on through 24 or 48 hours, as we have been doing, in a sort of pathetic attempt to set a new Guinness world record for consecutive votes in your Lordships’ House, would not do anybody any favours.

These Benches felt it was key to ensure that this Bill, which we shall be receiving tomorrow, was able to finish its passage in your Lordships’ House before the weekend and that it would then get Royal Assent before Prorogation. With the assurances that we have had from the Minister, I feel confident that this will happen, so this is a positive outcome.

I cannot finish without thanking colleagues on my and other Benches who have supported us during a very long period. I am pleased that I will not be needing to use my duvet.

G7

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am a bit puzzled, because I thought this was a Statement about the G7. If anything underlines the change of tone in government, it is the Statement we have just heard. As we go on, the noble Baroness may find some difficulty in having to repeat such Statements if the Prime Minister plays that way much longer. That sounded to me very much like a pitch to continue the bullying of MPs considering voting against him this evening. It sounded like a Prime Minister in election mode for an election he says he does not want. It was hardly statesmanlike; it was not prime ministerial. We wanted to hear about the G7 and got a rant from Boris Johnson about what he thinks about legislation before the House of Commons. It is inappropriate for this House.

The noble Baroness talks about the Bill being about Jeremy Corbyn, but the Bill she has referred to in repeating the Statement today actually has the signatures of two recent Conservative Cabinet Ministers on it. I wonder if we ought to consider whether these Statements should be repeated in the way they are.

I concur with the noble Baroness on one point, when she reflects that it is 80 years since we entered into the Second World War. It is worth reflecting on the sacrifices made by those engaged at home and in action abroad. It was the horror of that war that brought European countries together to engage and work. That was about not just trade but peace, values and co-operation. Today, those issues are more important than ever. I am sorry that was not reflected in anything we heard from the Dispatch Box today.

Shortly before the Prime Minister began his first performance—I think that is the right word for it—for world leaders at the G7 summit, he made a speech insisting that, on his watch, the UK would no longer retreat from the international stage. It begs the question: how have we found ourselves in such a tragic state, in which all this Prime Minister can hope for is to maintain the diminished role on the world stage that nine years of Conservative Governments have left us with? During the weekend in Biarritz—probably not the normal kind of weekend that the Prime Minister spends in Biarritz—he displayed zero ambition to improve the UK’s standing in the world and completely failed to set out a vision of how we can use our influence and experience to promote peace and prosperity. While he may have set the bar spectacularly low, aiming only not to retreat further from the global stage, judging from his act at the G7 summit, it sounds like he will fail even in that lowly aim.

I turn first to the climate emergency and, as the noble Baroness referred to, the heartbreaking situation in the Amazon. We have all seen the shocking images of flames engulfing what President Macron referred to as the “world’s lungs”. The announcement of extra funding to tackle the climate emergency will always be welcome; we will never criticise additional funds to tackle this issue. But the Prime Minister’s £10 million is a paltry sum. I do not understand the Government’s pointed refusal to work with UK companies to ensure that they are not aiding and abetting the destruction of the Amazon. I hope the noble Baroness can give us an explanation. There is also no excuse for the Prime Minister’s reluctance to fully engage the UN Security Council and the international financial institutions to promote policies to tackle the wider emergency.

It is not just about money. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, is here, who has regularly spoken in your Lordships’ House about soft power. If utilised correctly by the Prime Minister, the UK’s influence can be worth far more to the global campaign than £10 million. If we understand the importance of implementing our ideals and ethics in our trade policy, we can do far more than play our part in tackling the climate emergency. I hope to hear something from the noble Baroness to explain the Prime Minister’s reluctance.

On trade, I hope that the role of the UK’s arms trade in fuelling the Yemeni conflict was not the reason the war did not feature heavily in the summit. The Red Cross informs us that hundreds have died during air strikes in recent days, and while the UK continues to supply arms to be used in the conflict, we can only assume that this dreadful bloodshed will continue. Can the noble Baroness tell us whether any world leaders made representations to the Prime Minister with regard to the UK’s role in this conflict?

On diplomacy and conflict prevention, as well as minimising any contribution that we have to international conflict, we should also use our influence and experience —our soft power—to eliminate the risk of conflict elsewhere. I would like to have heard how the Prime Minister attempted to use the summit for exactly that.

If we look towards Iran, it was useful that Iran’s Foreign Minister attended discussions at the summit, but did the Prime Minister make any attempt to meet Mr Zarif bilaterally? If he did, did he take the opportunity to raise the issue of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who remains in custody in Iran? I would think that the Prime Minister would take a personal interest in that case, given the effect of his previous comments. The UK should play a role in defusing the situation in Iran and moving to get the nuclear deal back on track, but there is nothing to suggest that the Prime Minister has any interest in doing this.

While the situation in Ukraine may not have featured heavily at the G7 summit, we have learned that Chancellor Merkel and President Macron will convene a summit with Russian and Ukrainian leaders. In the past, we could assume that the UK Prime Minister would play a role in promoting peace in the region. Can the noble Baroness tell us of any interest—I am not aware of any—the Prime Minister has shown? Will he be attending the upcoming summit with Chancellor Merkel and President Macron?

I want to say something about Hong Kong. The joint statement from leaders reaffirming the existence and importance of the Sino-British joint declaration of 1984 is very welcome. But given our historical connection and ties to the region, the Prime Minister should have used the summit to stand more firmly against the abuses taking place. Police brutality is unacceptable and must end. While the joint statement included a call for violence to be avoided, can the noble Baroness confirm whether the Prime Minister urged for any further text to be added?

I was slightly puzzled by the words on education, which were not in the circulated text, criticising the Labour Party with regard to international education for girls. That was clearly inserted either as an ad lib by the Prime Minister or after the text was circulated. To suggest in any way that the Labour Party has not consistently and for many years supported girls’ education across the world is incredible. Indeed, I had hoped that tribute would be paid to the work of Gordon and Sarah Brown who, since he was Prime Minister, have made this issue their mission; they should be congratulated on that.

Finally, as the Prime Minister talks of retreat, I ask only that the Government be more ambitious in the role we can play in the world, in particular through soft power. We have the potential for enormous influence and that can be utilised, not only to promote the interests of people and businesses in the UK but to build a fairer and better world. We may live, particularly now, in a divided country but we also live in a more divided world, threatened by conflict, extreme poverty and the climate crisis. Should the Prime Minister make it to the next G7 summit, at Camp David, I urge him to be more confident about the role that the UK can play in reshaping the world. We should not accept a diminished role but use our influence to try to create a better world.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement and hope that she enjoyed her short visit to Scotland last week.

We obviously share the sentiments of the Prime Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in respect of World War II. However, we on this side fear that the Prime Minister has simply not learned the lessons. The Statement is very keen on the benefits of free trade, which we applaud, and mentions in particular the Prime Minister’s discussions with the President of the United States on this matter. He says that he agreed with the President that healthcare would not be on the table, which is welcome. Did he also agree not to include items that would water down food standards? Was chlorinated chicken discussed? Given that the Prime Minister has said that he does not think we can do a trade deal within a year, how long does he think it will take to reach such a deal? How long would it be, even in theory, before any such deal could begin to make up for the loss of trade that we expect to flow from a no-deal Brexit?

The Statement does not mention the allegedly prolonged and acrimonious session at the summit in which the Prime Minister joined forces with the EU in opposing the readmission of Russia to the G7. Can the Leader confirm that the Prime Minister opposed President Trump on this? If he did, does not that demonstrate that in this, as in so many issues, our interests are much closer to those of Europe than the US?

As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, pointed out, not only is more than half this Statement on Brexit but more than a third of it has absolutely nothing at all to do with the G7 summit and everything to do with the desperate plight in which the Prime Minister now finds himself. With the decision today of Phillip Lee MP to join the Liberal Democrats, the Prime Minister has lost his majority in the Commons. It is clear from statements and interviews given by Philip Hammond, David Gauke, Rory Stewart and Justine Greening, among many others, that he is going to lose the vote later this evening. The usual fate of Prime Ministers is that the longer they stay in power, the more hubristic they become. The current Prime Minister, as with so many other things, has turned convention on its head and has behaved, against all the evidence and from day one, as though old Etonian swagger and bombast will be sufficient to carry the day. The truth, however, is that it will not.

The Prime Minister in the Statement spends a large amount of time trying to give the impression that negotiations on an alternative to the backstop and withdrawal agreement are well advanced but, as Donald Tusk put it at the summit,

“we are willing to listen to ideas that are operational, realistic and acceptable to all EU member states, including Ireland, if and when the UK Government is ready”.

The key words there are,

“when the UK Government is ready”,

for the truth is that the UK Government had not at the time of the summit put forward detailed proposals—or, indeed, any proposals—which would obviate the need for the backstop. As EU officials said, at the end of it there were,

“no new substantive elements from any side and obviously”—

obviously—

“not from the UK side”.

They said that a week ago, so perhaps substantive new proposals have been made since then. Can the Leader of the House confirm whether any detailed substantive proposals have been made over the past week which would obviate the need for the backstop? If so, when were they made, what has been the EU response, and on what day will they next be discussed by the UK and EU negotiators?

The Prime Minister said that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been working seven days a week to accelerate preparations for a no-deal Brexit, and we believe him. He says that we will be ready for such an eventuality. We are about to have a separate Statement on that issue so I will ask only two questions of the Leader of the House. When the Prime Minister talks of ensuring the uninterrupted supply of critical goods, does he include foodstuffs in the definition of “critical”? If so, on what basis does he believe he can guarantee the uninterrupted supply of all foodstuffs when the trade bodies representing the food sector simply disagree?

I was extremely pleased that the Statement covered the issue of species extinction, which was allegedly one of the Prime Minister’s three principal priorities going into the summit. That is a worthy priority. In recent times we have seen the extinction of the pig-footed bandicoot, the toolache wallaby and the indefatigable Galapagos mouse, among many others, and the world mourns their loss. The same will not be the case with the imminent demise of the present Administration.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. I can assure them both that the Prime Minister made very clear at the G7 summit that we will continue to be an energetic partner on the world stage and will stand alongside our G7 allies in addressing the most pressing international issues. He used the summit to show that Britain remains an international, outward-looking, self-confident nation, and said that we will remain at the heart of alliances that span the world. We will continue to use the breadth of our expertise in diplomacy, defence and development to uphold and safeguard the global order on which our peace and prosperity depends.

The noble Baroness mentioned the devastating fires in the Amazon. She is right. As the Statement said, we have announced £10 million of new funding, which is an extension of an existing UK project, Partnership for Forests, which goes to the longer-term efforts against deforestation. Our money is not going to the Brazilian Government but to rural communities and businesses to help them develop while protecting forests and managing land sustainably. The noble Baroness may also be pleased to know that, in addition, together with international partners we have pledged that by 2020 we will mobilise $5 billion a year to help reduce deforestation and promote sustainable land use in the world’s tropical forest basins, including the Amazon, working with local communities. We engage regularly with the Brazilian Government, businesses and communities on a range of environmental issues, including sustainable agriculture, low carbon growth and deforestation.

The noble Baroness asked about trade. We are and remain a champion of free trade and a rules-based multilateral system with the WTO at its heart. The Prime Minister underlined the need for the G7 countries to work together within the current framework to address and resolve rising tensions on trade matters. We all agreed that the WTO needs an overhaul and further work is ongoing there.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked whether the Prime Minister had discussed standards of food safety and animal welfare. I can confirm that the Prime Minister made it clear that, along with the NHS, those issues were not on the table for discussions in relation to a trade deal.

The noble Baroness asked about Yemen. I am not aware of any direct representations being made to the Prime Minister but I am happy to seek confirmation of that and, if there are, I will write to her.

The noble Baroness also asked about the Iranian Foreign Minister. Only President Macron met him, but she will be aware that President Trump later indicated an openness to talks with President Rouhani under the right circumstances; we will remain supportive of any moves to achieve that. We remain concerned about the welfare of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and particularly about reports of tougher restrictions in relation to her sentence. We are in regular contact with her family, and our embassy in Tehran has consistently requested consular access.

Priorities for the Government

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Thursday 25th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating today’s Statement. I concur with her words about the Chief Whip. It feels as if he is having a daily testimonial at the moment, to which he is fully entitled, and he should enjoy it. I regard him as a genuine friend in the House. I have been his shadow in different jobs since I joined your Lordships’ House in 2010. I look forward to his contributions from the Back Benches and will still regard him as a friend in this House.

Dave Evans is also retiring today. His 24 years’ service to this House is a great achievement and shows true public service. I gather there are drinks on the Terrace for those who want to buy him a drink later today. The noble Baroness spoke about Theresa May as Prime Minister. She has had a tough time as Prime Minister, and I suspect she will show more loyalty from the Back Benches to her successor than she received. I am pleased to see the noble Baroness is still in her role, although I have more trepidation about some of her colleagues in the Cabinet. As I heard the announcements being made last night and today, it brought to mind one of my favourite TV programmes, “Yes, Prime Minister” because I could hear Sir Humphrey saying, “That’s very courageous, Prime Minister”. This is the noble Baroness’s first experience of repeating a Statement in the style of her new boss. She might have to work on the hand gestures.

In the first days on the job for any Prime Minister, bluster and bravado must meet reality. The new Prime Minister tells us he is presenting his blueprint for our country. I welcome his apparent change in tone on the value of public services, but he has to realise that despite the hyperbole in the Statement—that is what it is—the threat of no-deal Brexit creates enormous uncertainty. There is no clear plan about how we would cope with the risks to communities, families and British businesses or, indeed, the risk to the union. The Prime Minister says in the Statement that he will put the future of our union “beyond doubt”. It takes more than just words. Noble Lords are aware that there is a very real fear that the impact, particularly the economic impact which will be heavily felt, of no deal on Scotland will lead to further attempts to break up the union that we greatly value. On Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister said that there are possible arrangements for the Irish border that are compatible with the Good Friday agreement. Can the noble Baroness tell us what they are? What does his commitment to the Good Friday agreement look like in the event of no deal?

On public services, a key part of the Prime Minister’s speech was about the apparently bright—I think he described it as broader and bolder—future of the UK, which appears to involve reversing large swathes of Conservative policy that he was previously in favour of. I am all for reversing Conservative Party policies. The Prime Minister has promised 20,000 new police officers, yet he was part of the Government who cut 21,000 police officers and as a result we have seen an increase in violent crime on our streets. I know the noble Baroness has a particular interest in education. She will know that our schools are struggling to cover basic costs. Some have even been forced into a four-day week. That was inevitable given that there has been an 8% cut in per-pupil funding since 2010. Education funding should not be regarded as an electoral convenience. Can the noble Baroness give assurances today that areas of greatest need will see their funding increased rather than reduced? We are also promised an increase in funding for our health service. Can she confirm that, as previously promised by the Prime Minister, it will add up to no less than £350 million extra a week? I saw it on the bus, so it must be true.

Over the years, many have laughed, some with, some at, Boris Johnson in his various guises. We can all enjoy slapstick buffoonery, whether it means dangling from a zipwire or falling over in a dirty pond. There is always space for a genial comedian, but that is not the role of the Prime Minister. Gaffes may appear endearing when you are an MP on the Back Benches, but in a Prime Minister they are potentially very dangerous. So, as he will have realised—I make special reference to Mrs Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe—words must be chosen with great care, for every word of a Prime Minister is a word on behalf of our country. They will be pored over and analysed, and they can, as we saw when he was Foreign Secretary, have great consequences.

Our country is now more divided than ever before. While the new Prime Minister obviously wants to carve out his own style, his duty has to be to try to heal the wounds. If there is to be a vision for our country, it has to be about confidence about our place in the world, being outward looking and being optimistic for the future. That cannot wait until 2050, as outlined in the Statement. Last year, we celebrated the centenary of some women gaining the vote. I remind the noble Baroness and your Lordships’ House of the suffragettes’ wise motto: “Deeds not Words”. It is on our deeds that we are judged, not our words. It may come as a shock to Boris Johnson that that applies to him too. In the announcements made so far, it appears that the new Prime Minister is telling us that he rejects austerity and is heralding significant increases in public spending. What he has not told us is where the money is coming from and how we pay for and cope with the disaster of a no-deal Brexit. The true test will be delivery.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I shall begin with a number of congratulations. I congratulate Mr Evans on his retirement. The good news for Members of your Lordships’ House is that, on the basis that Parliament is at some point prorogued and we have another Queen’s Speech, he will reappear in his position as one of the Yeomen of the Guard. He cuts an even more impressive figure in that role than he does in his attendant’s garb here. He has been a huge source of help to Members, not least to new Members, and he will be much missed.

I said my congratulations to the Chief Whip on his retirement yesterday, and I would be very happy to do so again today—but I do not want it to go to his head, so I shall not.

The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, deserves congratulations on being part of a successful minority—she has not been culled. I for one will be delighted to carry on working with her on a range of issues, not least harassment, where she has taken a very firm lead and I and other members of the commission have enjoyed agreeing with her.

There are two reasons for congratulating the Prime Minister. The first is, obviously, on getting elected and becoming Prime Minister in the first place, and the second is on showing the kind of consistency that one wants, in principle, from people. There were some who thought that, on becoming Prime Minister, he would stop inhabiting a fantasy world and would start behaving in a responsible manner and discussing issues with a semblance of reality. That hope has been dashed, and the Prime Minister is showing a degree of consistency in inhabiting his world of fantasy that is truly remarkable.

It began yesterday. He said about Brexit—and, in particular, a no-deal Brexit—that,

“the ports will be ready and the banks will be ready and the factories will be ready and business will be ready and the hospitals will be ready and our amazing food and farming sector will be ready”.

I now have the great pleasure and privilege of living in a rural area. I spent part of last Sunday talking to farmers and food processors about their view of Brexit, bearing in mind that if you produce lamb at the moment you will face a 40% tariff on 1 November. Their view is that the thing for which they are getting ready is bankruptcy, because there is no way that they can survive on their current business model the day after we leave the EU. Is that what the right honourable gentleman has in mind when he talks about them being ready? And, frankly, the same sort of readiness applies to the other sectors that he mentioned.

Even leaving aside that extraordinary Panglossian view of what life is likely to be like in 2050, there are a number of other areas in his Statement today where he exhibits the kind of fantasy that, in fairness, he has been promoting for a long time. The first relates to the Northern Ireland border. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, his views about being able to leave the EU, particularly without a deal, and having no problems at the Northern Ireland border are fantasy. He has said that under no circumstances will there be any checks on the Northern Ireland border. In the Statement he says:

“The evidence is that other arrangements are perfectly possible”.


The truth is that the evidence is that no other arrangements are evenly vaguely possible. So he is very good at asserting things, but their relationship to truth is something that he often struggles with.

The next fantasy is that we will,

“have available the £39 billion in the withdrawal agreement to help deal with any consequences”,

of no deal. One should bear in mind that there will be no deal immediately, but we will have great relations with the EU. We will have a great new arrangement, albeit without a deal on 31 October. Does anybody believe that a British Government will renege on paying a penny to the EU after 31 October? If they did, how would they survive? The Governor of the Bank of England correctly described our position as being reliant on the “kindness of strangers”. We have a massive balance of payments deficit, which will not go away, Brexit or no Brexit. So we need people to trust us so that they will lend us the money to survive. If that fantasy were pursued, our position would be even worse than would otherwise be the case.

Moving on, he says:

“Finally, we will also ensure that we continue to attract the brightest and best talent from around the world”.


As I have said before, the definition of brightest and best does not extend to many of the brightest and best in a whole raft of sectors, such as the brightest and best care workers, agricultural workers, lab technicians, health service workers and hospitality staff. He talks about an Australian points system. We already have a points system for immigration. In what respect will giving it an Australian accent suddenly change the way it operates and deal with the “brightest and best” problem for the rest of the economy?

Fantasies such as these are not a sound basis for government. It is not surprising that there are, in the Prime Minister’s words, some doubters, doomsters and gloomsters who believe that this reckless Government will be bad for the whole country, and that you will not find any group or organisation that will go from strength to strength under Boris. However, they are wrong. Excluding the old Etonians and extreme Brexiteers, there is one group that is already benefiting from Brexit and will continue to benefit as long as Boris Johnson remains in office. The rest of the country is in for a very hard time—but the Liberal Democrats are on the rise.

Arrangement of Business

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

He will have heard the response. We are very grateful to him.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I echo the probing question asked by the noble Baroness in respect of the Joint Committee. I also echo her comments about the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, with whom I have worked in both government and opposition. Views differ across the House about the achievements or faults of the coalition, but they were a strong and stable Government. In this House, that was possible in no small measure because of the efforts of the noble Lord and the collaborative spirit in which he worked with me and my colleagues. In opposition, he was always extremely affable—almost always—and, more importantly, absolutely straight to deal with. Far removed from the stereotype of the scheming, unreliable Chief Whip, he would certainly not form a model character for one of his noble friend Lord Dobbs’ novels. With those positive sentiments, could I also say: could he just have a word with his colleagues in the Commons and ask them to get a move on?

European Council

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 24th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for her comments about my noble friend Lord Prescott. I am sure that the whole House concurs. We wish him a full and speedy recovery.

It has been some time since we have had a European Council or Brexit-related Statement, but now we hear that we will have two in a very short space of time. I am sure that the Prime Minister is delighted. It is an extraordinary position, given the urgency of the issue. Perhaps it is a reflection on the state of the Government on Brexit. Back in March, the Government’s request to extend the Article 50 period was agreed by the EU 27. Despite the previous commitment, as we were told, that the UK would not, under any circumstances, participate in the European Parliament elections, the Government were forced to do just that to secure the further extension. The results of those elections were unsurprising, and the issue of Europe has now forced the resignation of a second Conservative Prime Minister in a little over three years.

However, any hope that the Conservative leadership race, including a refreshingly honest campaign by Rory Stewart, would inject a bit of realism into the Brexit saga was short-lived. The man most likely to become the next Prime Minister continues to display a wilful ignorance, asserting that we can leave with no deal in October but still benefit from a transition period and the continuation of tariff-free trade. Either he does not understand the importance of ratifying a withdrawal agreement in order to secure a transition period or he is willing to mislead the country in his quest to enter No. 10. Neither of those possibilities reflect well on him; nor do they suggest that, as Prime Minister, he would be able to negotiate a close and mutually beneficial ongoing relationship with the EU 27. Jeremy Hunt initially pledged that he was willing to take the country out of the EU with no deal and that it was his firm intention that our exit would take place on 31 October, but that, as the slightly more sensible candidate, his preference is for a deal, even if it takes a little extra time. With clarity like that, it is not hard to understand why our European neighbours find British politics so confusing and frustrating.

A no-deal Brexit—the worst possible outcome—is, as the clock ticks down, a real and frightening possibility. I had hoped to hear from the noble Baroness today that Mrs May had emphasised that the UK would do everything possible to avoid that scenario, but we did not. That is why I have tabled a Motion for debate next Wednesday, 3 July—your Lordships can see it in the green sheets of House of Lords Business—to establish a Joint Committee of both Houses to explore the costs and implications of a no-deal exit. Our aim is to be helpful to Parliament in investigating and reporting back with hard facts, not just views or opinions.

To return to the matter at hand, this summit provided Mrs May with the opportunity to bid farewell to her fellow leaders and pave the way for the new Prime Minister. However, with Mr Johnson currently most likely to win the keys to Downing Street, perhaps this was the moment of realisation. There were some warm words for Mrs May, including from an unlikely source in the form of President Macron. Perhaps he was recalling a song from Joni Mitchell in which she sang,

“you don’t know what you’ve got

Till it’s gone”.

This summit highlighted that, while Theresa May is still in office, she is not in power. That is not entirely her fault. The UK lost considerable influence under David Cameron, and Mrs May’s authority has been undermined both by members of her Cabinet and by her Back-Benchers. Nevertheless, last week’s meeting made it clear that, although Mrs May had a seat at the table, the UK had lost its voice. In years gone by, the UK has been a decisive player in allocating the EU’s top jobs, including gaining the office of High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy in 2009—a position held by the former Leader of this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland. Under the last Labour Government, we were instrumental in advancing collective international action, both within the EU and beyond, to prevent a climate catastrophe.

The outcomes of this summit matched expectations in the run-up to it. There was no agreement on appointments, meaning, as we have heard, further discussions and another summit in the days and weeks to come. Despite the UK Government having been pushed, via an Opposition day Motion in the Commons, into acknowledging the urgency of dealing with the climate emergency and setting a target of zero emissions by 2050, the EU’s commitment is disappointing. I understand that the position was watered down by member states, including Poland, one of Mrs May’s strongest allies. Given the urgency of the issue, I hope that the Prime Minister pressed Poland and others to accept a stronger position. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us whether the Prime Minister made any attempt to gain support from Poland and whether she had any bilateral discussions with the head of that country.

Whatever happens next with Brexit, the next Prime Minister must recognise the importance of the UK and the EU working together to protect the environment. All the issues raised by this summit—disinformation and hybrid threats, climate change and external relations regarding Russia—are ones on which EU co-operation is absolutely vital and in which the role of the UK could and should have been positive. What could have been an optimistic and ambitious start to a new institutional cycle was instead a sign of a Europe in flux. Populist rhetoric and climate change scepticism are on the rise, and not just in the Conservative Party.

Mrs May obviously wants to secure a more positive legacy, both at home and abroad, than that of her predecessor. She could have tried to use this summit to that end. Sadly, it echoed her premiership: an exercise in mismanagement and missed opportunities, and that, sadly, will be her legacy.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement and join her in wishing the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, a speedy recovery and all our good wishes.

I do not know whether noble Lords saw the interview given by the Prime Minister as she arrived at last week’s Council meeting. It made me wince because she was asked, in effect, what she was hoping to get out of the meeting for the UK. The answer was, in effect, “Nothing”. She went with no authority at home and no locus for intervening substantially on any of the real discussions. I have been trying to decide when the UK last had such little influence in the affairs of Europe as a whole, but I cannot think of such a time. No doubt other Members of the House, particularly the historians, will be able to help me, but I suspect they too will be struggling.

The Council discussed some of the most crucial issues facing us: climate change, the disinformation threat to our democracies and external relations with our neighbours including Russia and Turkey. On all the conclusions reached, as the Statement makes clear, the UK was in agreement. On climate change, for example, the fact that a large majority of member states have signed up to reaching carbon neutrality by 2050 is in no small measure as a result of UK leadership on this issue over a number of years.

But the Council also adopted a new strategic agenda for the next five years, a decision about which the Statement makes no mention at all. Normally, when I see the words, “strategic agenda”, my eyes glaze over, but I have read this document; I wonder whether the Leader of the House has done so too. It is extremely wide-ranging and covers,

“protecting citizens and freedoms”,

economic development,

“building a climate-neutral, green, fair and social Europe … promoting Europe’s interests and values in the world”,

and “how to deliver” on its policy priorities. Everything in this strategy chimes in with the kind of Europe and world which we on these Benches have spent our political lives trying to promote.

Will the Leader of the House tell us whether there is anything in this strategy with which the Government disagree? If not, how do they think the UK can help achieve its aims while outside the EU, outside the negotiating chamber and outside the institutions which will be absolutely key if the strategy is to be made to work? The truth is that the EU’s agenda is our agenda. It is not Trump’s agenda, nor Putin’s, nor Modi’s, nor Xi’s, nor that of any other significant player on the world stage; yet these are the people whom the Brexiteers are asking us to embrace. To be unable to participate in implementing this strategy when we leave the EU would reduce the EU’s effectiveness in all the crucial areas it covers, as well as our own. Both of us would be losers.

The other thing that the Council covered was who should occupy the top posts in the EU for the period ahead. There were—indeed are—some excellent Liberal candidates, such as Margrethe Vestager for Commission President and Mark Rutte for President of the Council. It was one of the most oft-repeated arguments during the referendum that we had such people foisted on us, with no say; of course, as full participating members, we did have a major say. The irony is that, if and when we vote to remain in the EU at some point over the next 12 months, we will, for the first time ever, be a member state that will have had no say on who occupies these top posts.

This, however, is the least of the challenges we now face as a country. We have a Government with no effective majority, a potential Prime Minister who is the laughing stock of the world, and a Commons which cannot agree on any form of Brexit. The only way out of this shambles is a referendum on whether to remain in the EU followed by a general election to sweep out this Government. Only when we have done so will a British Prime Minister again be able to hold their head up at a future EU Council meeting, and in the world more generally.

Arrangement of Business

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 18th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Chief Whip for his statement. It is rare that we hear him speak for so long; perhaps we shall hear more from him in due course.

I am grateful for the statement. My noble friend Lord McAvoy and I welcome the rescheduling of the important economic debate for the Chamber rather than the Moses Room, as my noble friend Lord Foulkes raised last week. However, it is a sign of how this Government’s handling of Brexit has dominated the political landscape and crowded out everything else.

I am sure that I am not the only Member of this House who finds it quite incredible that here we are, just eight sitting days from the Government’s self-imposed deadline for exit day, and the Prime Minister is still clinging on to her discredited deal as the best the UK can get. She appears determined to batter MPs into submission to agree it. At least the Government are now seeking an extension to Article 50. If the Prime Minister’s deal is not agreed by MPs, any extension must be used to produce a different outcome and not just to rehash the same rejected deal.

To return to the point I made a few months ago in Questions, the Prime Minister’s latest wheeze is apparently to offer a “Stormont lock”, in effect giving her friends in the DUP a veto on UK-wide future regulation if they vote with her on the deal. Yet again, it is a short-term fix with no thought for the wider impact, including the constitutional implications for the other devolved Administrations. We know that there are special circumstances relating to the Irish border, but this seems like political expediency designed to suit the Conservative Party and the DUP, especially given the Government’s failure to get the Northern Ireland Executive up and running again.

I asked last week when the Government would give legislative effect to the decision by the House of Commons to reject no deal. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, declined to answer. The problem is that the only reason that we are still dealing with no-deal Sis—there are relatively few left to deal with—is the Government’s incompetence. The Prime Minister clings to her belief that to threaten us with a crash-out disaster is an ingenious strategy.

I take the point made by the Chief Whip that he must prepare for all outcomes. Should Mrs May’s belligerence mean that we still crash out, these regulations will be needed. It is to the Government’s shame that we will not know until Thursday whether there will be an extension to Article 50. Many of us find it ludicrous that, with all that we could be doing, with all the issues that this country needs to address and resolve, Parliament has had to spend time rushing through contingency arrangements when even the impartial Civil Service has been clear with Ministers that 29 March is unachievable. On a point of clarification, I thought that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, was that he did not trust the Government not to crash out without a deal.

There were questions that were not answered in the Chief Whip’s statement. I would be grateful if he could address them, because your Lordships’ House has struggled to get an answer to them. First, we have been told that the Government will table all necessary legislation for a no-deal Brexit. What are those Bills and where are they? Can the Chief Whip list them today for the convenience of the House?

Secondly, should an extension to Article 50 be granted, what legislation will be required to give effect to it? My understanding is that there will need to be an SI to change the exit day. Will that be it or is anything else required?

Thirdly, as I asked last week and did not get an answer, when will the Government bring forward legislation, whether by SI or in another form, to give effect to the House of Commons’ rejection of no deal as an option?

The Minister will recall that I asked last week whether the Government were considering Saturday sittings. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, was unable to answer then; can the Chief Whip do so today?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the truth is that the Government Chief Whip has put a brave face on a farce. The position is that the Commons decided last week that it would press for a rejection of no deal and an extension of Article 50. It has been perfectly clear all along that any such reasonable request would be accepted by the European Council at the end of this week, so the only basis on which the Government are pursuing these no-deal SIs is that they simply have no faith in their own ability to enact what the Commons has asked them to do and what the EU has said it is prepared to do.

I want to ask about the disappearing primary legislation relating to Brexit. Even if the Government were to get their deal through, there are a number of pieces of primary legislation that they say will be necessary at the point we leave the EU, particularly the immigration, Agriculture and Fisheries Bills. None yet has a scheduled date for Report in the House of Commons, which I assume means that they cannot come to this House on the planned schedule until after Easter. There will then be about eight weeks until 30 June, which is the point at which the Government say they wish their extension to come to an end and, presumably, leave the EU. May I have an assurance from the noble Lord that these pieces of primary legislation, which are deemed necessary—indeed, essential—by the Government, will be brought to your Lordships’ House, if the Government succeed in getting their deal through, in a timely manner, so that we do not have the same kind of farcical rush we have been expected to endure on other matters?

I also want to ask the Minister to deny the rumours that have been swirling around the House in recent days that the Government plan to curtail the Easter Recess and that, just as in February, noble Lords will be expected to be in Parliament, business or not, when they are currently planning to be away. Finally, given all the uncertainty surrounding the Government at the moment, will the Chief Whip give the House an undertaking that, in the light of what happens at the weekend, he will return to the House next Monday and explain what is going on?

Leaving the European Union

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. I listened carefully but I do not think that any of us are any the wiser having heard it for a second time. I am not clear about the purpose of today’s Statement. As we have come to expect, the Government have precious little to report.

Like many noble Lords, I remember the days when Prime Ministers made Statements of substance that genuinely updated Parliament and provided new information—Statements that showed true leadership. In today’s Statement, the Prime Minister has not told us anything that we do not already know. We already know that in opening the negotiations, Mrs May set out a series of unhelpful and unrealistic red lines; for example, in ruling out a new comprehensive and permanent customs union. We already know that she sought legally binding changes to the backstop, replacing it with alternative arrangements to prevent a hard border—but the only reason for the backstop is that the Government were unable to identify any viable alternative arrangements. We already know that the EU emphatically rejected reopening negotiations on the agreement signed by the Prime Minister in November. We already know that Mrs May consistently and irresponsibly refuses to rule out leaving the EU without a deal, even though her own Government’s economic analysis shows that this would be hugely damaging.

Today’s Statement confirms that the Prime Minister has made no progress other than holding a series of further meetings to debate the exact same issues she has been debating for nearly two years. If media reports are accurate, the EU is totally bewildered that she seeks to return to the negotiating table while refusing to budge even one inch from those Lancaster House red lines. How many deadlines has the Prime Minister now missed? The agreement was supposed to have been reached in October; the original vote was pulled in December; and now there is not even a guaranteed vote on the revised deal before the end of the month. Each week MPs are told to expect a meaningful vote the following week, only for it to be delayed again and again.

Having seen off most of the amendments that she considered unhelpful last time, the Prime Minister’s request for another two weeks might just about give her Whips something to work with. But that all too familiar mantra that the only way to avoid leaving the EU without a deal is to support her deal points to a strategy to just run down the clock until the only options are her deal or no deal. As I and other noble Lords have said countless times, that is grossly irresponsible. The Prime Minister tells others to hold their nerve while she engages in her favourite pastime—it used to be played in the playground when I was 12—of kicking the can down the road. While she tells business and industry to hold their nerve, they are losing patience and being forced to make decisions factoring in the worst possible scenario—as we have seen from the Nissan decision on investment in Sunderland.

Part of me really wants to believe that the Prime Minister, a former Home Secretary, is simply too smart and too patriotic to be responsible for a catastrophic crash out of the EU, but we all know—though it is not in the Statement—that intense and expensive preparations are now being made for a crash-landing no deal. Can the Leader remind us of the Government’s budget for no deal? Can she tell us how many meetings she has personally attended with other Ministers and/or officials where no-deal preparations have been discussed? Can she confirm that, despite there being just 45 days to Brexit, with firms hired for no-deal contingencies being stripped of their contracts and police forces hiring personnel for crisis centres, this topic was not even discussed in any detail at today’s Cabinet meeting? Can she tell us why the legislation that the Government tell us is so necessary, deal or no deal, is being held up by the Government? The Report stages of the Agriculture and Fisheries Bills have not even been scheduled in the House of Commons, despite the Government cancelling the February Recess.

The Opposition have provided a clear alternative that we believe could gain the support of a majority of MPs and find favour with the EU. It is all very well the Minister laughing, but his alternative proposals—the proposals from his Government—have been soundly rejected by the House of Commons, and nothing further has come back from the Commons that can gain the confidence of Parliament. This is far too serious to be laughing about the situation.

Let me repeat that. We have provided an alternative that we think could gain the support of a majority of MPs and find favour with the EU—despite the Minister’s smirks. The Prime Minister has ruled out that alternative in favour of her rejected deal and the hopeless aim of reopening a closed legal agreement. This is my final question to the Leader of the House: if the EU 27 refuse to shift and the Prime Minister is unable to get agreement from Parliament for her deal, what will she do then? Will she accept the need to extend the Article 50 period, or will she simply march the country off the cliff edge?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, given that we are now only six weeks from the date on which we are due to leave the EU, this is a most remarkable Statement. It basically says that, despite her trips to Brussels and Ireland, her hard stare at Juncker and dinner with Varadkar, the Prime Minister has made no progress whatsoever in offering—far less negotiating—credible new terms on which we might leave the EU.

The Prime Minister’s cricketing hero is Geoffrey Boycott, who had a test average of 47.7. By comparison, I am afraid, the Prime Minister’s Brexit negotiations average is close to negligible. It seems that, rather than the somewhat pedestrian Boycott, her real hero comes from Dickens. I wonder when she first read about Mr Micawber and his optimistic but desperate philosophy that disaster would be averted simply by something turning up. This has clearly been adopted by the Prime Minister as her guiding principle. Of a more positive agenda there is no sign, and in two areas in particular this calamitous lack of leadership is seriously irresponsible.

First, it is now clear that it is impossible to get through all the necessary Brexit-related legislation by 29 March. Even if a deal were eventually agreed by the Commons, an extension of the Article 50 period would be necessary, if only to get this legislation through. By all accounts, the Prime Minister realises this. But instead of being open and asking for an extension herself, she is waiting to be defeated on this in the Commons, at which point she will go to Brussels, blame the Commons, and ask for one then. She is adopting the example of the French revolutionary leader, who, pursuing the mob, exclaimed, “I am their leader. I must follow them”. It is a complete and abject abrogation of leadership.

Secondly, there is the impact that lack of any certainty is having on the business community. Noble Lords may have read in the Sunday Times of the Wiltshire-based cheesemaker who sells a third of her product to Canada, and who is now having to suspend further shipments because she simply does not know on what basis they might be allowed into Canada after 29 March. Hers is one of thousands of businesses in the same boat. Talking of boats, there are ships ready to sail to and from the Far East which are not due to reach their destination until after 29 March. What advice on tariffs, labelling and standards are the Government giving those contemplating putting their goods on these ships?

More generally, the impact of the Government’s indecision is crippling the economy. Yesterday’s GDP figures, the fall in manufacturing output, the collapse in investment and the inevitable worsening of the public finances mean that you can forget windy rhetoric about the end of austerity. The public finances will inevitably weaken now, whatever Brexit path is chosen.

The only suggestions which the Prime Minister took to Brussels were either non-negotiable, such as a legally binding time limit or exit clause to the backstop, or non-specific: the so-called alternative arrangements. There was zero chance of these being acceptable to the EU. At one level, therefore, it is no surprise that she is putting off meaningful votes for another fortnight—there is nothing new to vote on. It is, however, somewhat depressing that it looks as though the Commons will not seek to force any of the issues on Thursday of this week. The clock will simply continue ticking, ever louder, for another fortnight. With 29 March so close, this brinkmanship is damaging and dangerous.

The Prime Minister, and I am sure the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, will be well aware that Geoffrey Boycott had a reputation for running out his batting partner in order to save himself. It seems that the Prime Minister is willing to leave the country stranded in order to save the Tory party. It is a demeaning strategy and one which deserves to fail.

Trade Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansarad): House of Lords
Monday 21st January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, as we start this Committee stage of the Trade Bill, my amendment seeks to be helpful to your Lordships’ House in finding a constructive framework for further scrutiny of the Bill following Committee. It is now well over a year since the Bill was introduced in the House of Commons, and I think that the 132 days since the Second Reading in your Lordships’ House set a record.

Following consideration in the other place, the Bill was passed to us to undertake our responsibility of scrutiny in the normal way, and we will fulfil that obligation. My amendment recognises that, in 2017, it was perhaps understandable that the Government introduced a skeleton Bill. However, as time moves on, it is essential that we conclude our deliberations within a clearer policy framework before the Bill returns to MPs for further consideration. There are three key reasons for asking the Minister and the Government to accept my amendment today.

First, at its core, this is a no-deal Brexit Bill to deal with a situation which only very few want to see happen, and the other place has already indicated its clear intent that it must not happen. MPs from all parties are urging the Prime Minister to take action to rule out such a catastrophic outcome, as indeed your Lordships’ House did in a Motion passed last Monday by an incredible majority of 169. That alone makes it hard to justify the Bill in its current form.

Secondly, when it was first introduced, the Government presented it as a short and uncomplicated Bill dealing with issues related to a possible no-deal scenario; indeed, the Minister described it as pragmatic and technical. We were informed that the substantive issues about how the Government would deal with new international trade agreements once the UK is in a position to do so independently of the EU would be in a second Bill. I am aware that the Government are consulting the Constitution Committee, and that the Prime Minister is consulting the Liaison Committee in the other place, but no further legislation has been introduced. There is not a White Paper or even a Green Paper, and time is running out. It is not unreasonable that before we complete—not continue, but complete—our consideration of this Bill we should have more information about, and proposals on, such an important policy issue.

I have carefully read the report of our Constitution Committee, which refers to this Bill as a “framework measure” which provides the Government with,

“extensive … delegated … powers, to effect new trade policy”.

That committee raised several issues of concern. At the time, the Government justified the loose drafting by claiming a need for flexibility given the uncertainty over the withdrawal agreement. With no second Bill, the time for flexibility is disappearing fast. Decisions have to be made and mechanisms and processes have to be in place.

Thirdly, we should welcome the fact that, in recent months, we have seen a growing public interest in how and on what basis we should negotiate and operate our trade policy in the future. This is partly due to recognition of the misplaced and misleading optimism—to be polite—of Ministers and others, who told us all how easy trade agreements would be. This is not an issue that Ministers can make up as they go along; it needs serious, forensic, evidence-based policy-making. We know that the terms of future trade with the EU remain unclear, and now the true picture of the lack of progress in securing rollover deals to replace those we currently have with non-EU countries through our membership of the EU has been exposed by the Financial Times.

The International Trade Secretary, Liam Fox, is on record telling us how easy it would all be. Back in July 2017 he said:

“The free trade agreement we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in … history”.


He then said that all agreements would be ready and in place “one second” after Brexit, with “no disruption of trade”. Not only were those statements irresponsible, they were gravely wrong. Now, the International Trade Secretary says only that he “hopes” they will be in place, and that this depends upon whether other countries are,

“prepared to put the work in”.

Apparently, he has signed a mutual recognition agreement with the Australian High Commission in London to maintain all current relevant aspects of the agreement it has with the EU. But the EU does not have a free trade agreement with Australia.

When this legislation was going through the Commons, we argued that a legally distinct new trade agreement was required. The Government claimed they could simply roll over the existing agreements, but that is clearly not the case. Our country needs a sensible and appropriate scheme for trade, rooted in reality not in fantasy. Trade negotiations are complex and difficult. They require a proper and effective system involving Parliament and the devolved Administrations, in relation both to the negotiated mandate and the final agreements. We should also engage civil society, feeding in the views of consumers, trade unions and companies.

In conclusion, we will be unable to fulfil our obligation of scrutinising the Bill effectively without further information on how the Government intend to provide proper accountability and scrutiny of current and future trade agreements. We need to know how the devolved Administrations will be involved; we need to be assured of the mechanisms for ensuring that our trade policy is compliant with our international obligations; and we need legal commitments that in any future independent trading policy there will be no reduction in, for example, the rights of employees or consumer and environmental standards.

One way in which the Government could do this is by tabling amendments to the Trade Bill in Committee or on Report, but there may be other mechanisms. My amendment does not dictate what they should be but merely states that this House should not receive the Committee’s report on the Bill until both Houses of Parliament receive proposals on the process for making international trade agreements once the UK is in a position to do so independently of the EU. As the Report stage is expected at the end of February and the leave date is 29 March, it is not unreasonable to expect the policy framework by then, with just one month to go.

My amendment is designed to help your Lordships’ House in its deliberations. The Chief Whip is smiling at me, so I hope that is an indication that the Government are inclined to accept it. However, if that smile is misleading and the Government are unable to support us today then, given the seriousness of the issue and my concern for the role of this House in dealing with the legislation, I will seek the opinion of the House. I beg to move.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, it is now over four months since we had Second Reading on this Bill. That is an unusually long gap, and one that I suspect the whole House thinks has been caused by the unwillingness of the Government to expose themselves to defeats on it. It certainly has not been because your Lordships’ House has been otherwise too busy.

Whatever the reason for the delay, during that time people might reasonably have expected two things to happen. The first is that, in line with the commitments made by the Secretary of State for International Trade in 2017, the Government would have negotiated the rollover of the 40 trade deals that the UK has with the EU. Instead, only one has been signed—as we have heard, of a slightly dubious nature—and very few are due to be signed in the near future. Why is that? According to Dr Fox, it is a combination of factors: some countries are unwilling to do so because they simply do not believe that a no-deal Brexit is going to occur; some are having elections; and some have, in his phrase, “no effective government”.

Leaving the European Union

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 21st January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I concur at the outset with the Prime Minister’s comments about Northern Ireland. It is an ongoing situation. As a former Minister in Northern Ireland, I know the impact that this will have on local communities. With all the work that has gone in over the years to bring peace to Northern Ireland, this will be devastating to so many. It proves how right it was that, across both Houses and across all parties, people worked together to get the Good Friday agreement and bring peace and stability to local communities.

We requested that this Statement be taken earlier in the day and that the time for Back-Bench contributions be extended. I am sorry that the Government were unable to accept that and rejected that request. However, after reading the Statement, I think I understand why. There is not much that is new or of any real substance. The Prime Minister made her Statement today as a direct result of Dominic Grieve’s amendment, which accelerated the timescales previously laid down in legislation, giving her three days to respond to the decision of the House of Commons.

This Statement is another reminder for your Lordships’ House of the value of the meaningful vote provisions in the withdrawal Act, which originated from an amendment passed in your Lordships’ House that required the Prime Minister to return to Parliament if her proposed deal—her “plan A”—was defeated. It was—overwhelmingly. But while Brexit remains Brexit, plan B does not mean plan B. It does not even look like an A+, perhaps more like an A-.

Following a historic and unprecedented defeat for the Prime Minister’s agreement, Mrs May offered to talk to MPs from all parties, with the Government approaching those meetings in what she called “a constructive spirit”. Yet it appears that the constructive spirit lasts only as long as it takes to agree with the Prime Minister. Despite having been challenged by the parliamentary leaders of all opposition parties—excluding the DUP, of course—to take a no-deal exit off the table, Mrs May has held firm and refused to do so.

We know that, under Article 50 and the withdrawal Act, no deal is the legal default, but the Government can change that. The Prime Minister should certainly acknowledge that it would be a calamitous outcome for the UK and therefore that it is of no value at all as a bargaining position. If the threat of a no-deal exit was being used by Mrs May to shore up support for the plan A deal, it was a spectacular misjudgment and failure. She rightly promised a change of approach, including a greater role for Parliament in setting the mandate for future trade negotiations. But, once again, within days we find out that nothing has changed. The Prime Minister said in her Statement that she had,

“listened to colleagues across Parliament from different parties and … different views”.

She might have listened, but she is clearly not truly hearing what people are saying.

A constructive spirit means willingness to compromise from all parties. In any negotiation that must be the starting point or there is simply nothing to be gained. It is no good the Prime Minister meeting the hardliners in the European Research Group and the DUP while sending her de facto deputy and her chief of staff to meet others on the other side of the argument. It is no good ruling out an option—an EU-UK customs union—that the Opposition support and the EU appears to be willing to negotiate while continuing to risk a chaotic no-deal exit that would leave citizens, businesses and communities with no certainty whatever.

Yet, rather predictably, the Prime Minister has today presented a so-called plan B that, as I have said, looks extraordinarily similar to her plan A: go back to Brussels for further talks, even as the clock ticks down; ask again for concessions on the backstop, even though the EU has been clear that it is not up for renegotiation; and then blame others for holding up Brexit, even though it is the Government who have negotiated an agreement that has been comprehensively rejected by all parties. In this House, we passed a Motion by an overwhelming majority, believing that the agreement would weaken our prosperity, security and global standing.

I do not know whether the noble Baroness can confirm this, but according to media reports on Friday Mrs May held a series of crisis phone calls with EU leaders, including Chancellor Merkel, in the wake of her historic defeat. Despite her offer to hold talks with opposition parties and build a cross-party consensus behind a new deal, EU diplomatic sources said that the Prime Minister’s demands were in fact completely unchanged—something that was “greeted with incredulity”. She has clearly made a conscious decision to reject common-sense solutions that could bring politicians and voters of all colours together in order to have another attempt at securing concessions and assurances that she has already failed to win back in December. It appears that this is simply an effort to keep her premiership alive—or, if not alive, at least on life support.

The Prime Minister ignores at every step of this process the fact that her hardliners have shown that they will not be swayed. They have undermined her authority at every turn and taken her right to the brink. Their opposition to the deal is as strong as Mrs May’s stubborn determination not to cede any ground to others, even if this could gain wider support and prevent a no-deal or a blind Brexit. This was highlighted at the weekend when a former Downing Street adviser was asked by Andrew Marr whether he had ever seen Theresa May compromise. His response? “I can’t think of one off the top of my head”. In other words, everyone—the Opposition, the EU 27, Cabinet members and Back-Benchers alike—has to shift position: everyone except Theresa May. That is no way to run a Government or a country and it is no way to conduct one of the most important and complex negotiations that a UK Government have ever participated in. If the Prime Minister’s objective is to deliver a Brexit that can bring the country back together, I have to say to the noble Baroness that that approach is doomed to failure.

While I disagree with much of the Prime Minister’s approach on Brexit, I welcome the clarity offered on the Good Friday agreement. I am sure I am not the only noble Lord who was concerned—we heard earlier that many noble Lords were—by the comments reported over the weekend. It surely must always be inconceivable that the Government would seek to reopen that agreement as a way of trying to break the impasse on the EU issue. Doing so would be completely unacceptable. It will be good if the noble Baroness could reinforce that in her comments.

I also welcome Mrs May’s announcement relating to the waiving of fees for EU citizens applying for settled status. That is another issue on which your Lordships’ House spoke early in the Brexit process and the Government should have acted months ago. We also welcome the commitment that we have asked for before that Ministers will brief Select Committees in confidence, rather than the only option being for MPs to force an issue by action on the Floor of the House of Commons. Could the Leader of the House confirm that this briefing will extend to our own EU committees and that they will also be briefed in confidence? I welcome the belated recognition that the Prime Minister needs a negotiating mandate from Parliament.

With each Statement and each vote, we continue edging towards 29 March and the disaster that would be no deal. I have a couple of questions for the Leader of the House. First, if, when the House of Commons has its debate next Tuesday, it instructs the Government to take a no-deal outcome off the table, how will the Prime Minister respond?

Secondly, however Mrs May responds to next week’s Commons votes, can the Leader of the House confirm that there will be the opportunity to consider the outcome in your Lordships’ House? I know that a formal Statement will be repeated, but she will recall that last week the Prime Minister made a point of order at the end of business. However the Statement is made, it would be helpful if this House could consider the outcome and Mrs May’s comments.

Finally, with so few legislative days available between now and 29 March, will the Government build on their commitment to engage with Select Committees and release the relevant clauses of the draft EU withdrawal agreement Bill to the Constitution Committee to enable some form of pre-legislative scrutiny? When the noble Baroness comes to answer those questions, I urge her to bear in mind her oft-repeated assurance that the Government are planning for all eventualities. As always, the House remains ready to be helpful to the Government, but we have stressed time and again that that can happen only if we have the relevant information at our disposal.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement and echo the comments in it about Northern Ireland. This is a truly remarkable Statement, following the largest ever defeat of a Government on a major policy issue. If one loses a vote by 230, common sense dictates that there is something very flawed with the proposal that suffered the defeat, and that to get support for a replacement proposition some considerable changes will be needed. What magnitude of change does the Prime Minister think is required to turn things round?

The Prime Minister was very clear. “My sense”, she said, is that three changes are needed—just three. Here they are: first, being more flexible in involving Parliament in negotiating the future relationship with the EU; secondly, embedding the strongest possible protections on workers’ rights and the environment; and, thirdly, finding an alternative way to deliver no hard border in Northern Ireland. That is it; problem solved. But involving Parliament to a greater extent has been forced on the Prime Minister and will happen whatever she says or does. Workers’ rights and the environment are very important, but so are myriad other issues. The Government have never said that they would dilute protections in those areas anyway, so why is that a change? If there is a more universally acceptable alternative to the backstop for Northern Ireland, it would surely have been found ages ago. The Government’s proposal for a bilateral treaty with Ireland—today’s latest wheeze—was killed off the moment it saw the light of day.

Of the more substantive changes that the Prime Minister could have advocated but has ruled out, three stand out. First, there is ruling out no deal. The Prime Minister summarily rules this out, despite knowing that a large majority in the Commons, and probably in her Cabinet and Government, is strongly opposed to it. This just seems foolhardy.

Secondly, there is suspending Article 50. I suspect that if there is any proposition that would gain overwhelming support in Parliament, it is that Article 50 has to be extended, come what may. Even in the unlikely event of the Government gaining support for the deal, the idea that they could pass all the legislation required before 29 March without invoking emergency powers is completely fanciful.

Thirdly, there is a referendum. The Prime Minister has at least stopped repeating the nonsense that it would take a year to organise such a poll, but has said that it would be difficult to do so before the European Parliament elections. As my colleague and noble friend Lord Tyler has shown with his draft Bills, it would not be difficult in the slightest to have a people’s vote in May. As for the Prime Minister’s assertion that such a vote would threaten social cohesion, it is surely much less of a threat than trying to force through a deal which has neither the support of the Commons nor, more importantly, of the people as a whole.

It must be clear to everyone except the Prime Minister herself that her sense of what will secure a Commons majority is simply wrong. It is unsurprising therefore that Back-Benchers are seeking methods to take the initiative. There has been much criticism of plans by Nick Boles, Dominic Grieve, Yvette Cooper and others to allow the Commons to decide its own business, as this would require a change to Standing Orders. It is obviously up to the Commons to decide how it runs its affairs, but it is worth recalling that the Standing Order which gives government business priority was introduced by Gladstone in the 1880s to stop filibustering by Irish MPs and allow decisions to be taken. It was a straightforward political fix. It has, however, like many things in Parliament—such as the Barnett formula, possibly—metamorphosed over time from a fix to a sacred constitutional principle. It is no such thing. As a political heir to Gladstone, I am pretty sure that the grand old man would now be arguing for the rules to be changed, and I hope that they are.

As for your Lordships’ House, we will have a debate next Monday—presumably on a take-note Motion. As was the case last week, however, this hardly seems adequate, and I suspect that we will need to reconsider a Motion which again firmly opposes no deal and possibly covers other issues.

I know that Jean-Claude Juncker is not everyone’s favourite, but he surely got it right today when he said: “Don’t look for answers to Brussels. This is the moment for London to speak, not for us”. Today’s Statement shows that, if he awaits the Prime Minister for a viable way forward, he will be waiting for a very long time. We simply do not have that time.

Privileges and Conduct Committee

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 17th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, as noble Baroness the Leader of the House said at the start of this debate, I had not intended to intervene, and I strongly support the committee’s report. However, I must publicly dissociate myself from some of the comments made, particularly, I am afraid, by my noble friend—my old friend—Lord McNally. I strongly support the complainant and would not wish her to believe that the sentiment of the House is anything other than to give her support at this time, rather than criticism.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I sense the mood of the House is that we should be drawing the debate to a close. I appreciate that it probably was not easy for the noble Lord, Lord Newby, to make those comments; I think the House is grateful that he did.

As my noble friend Lady Kennedy said, this is not a court of law. We are dealing with an internal disciplinary procedure of your Lordships’ House. I would like to place on record, and I hope the House will concur with me, our thanks and appreciation, to the commissioner for undertaking what has been a long and detailed inquiry, to the sub-committee that first looked at this and said it was appropriate that the committee address the issues—I know from my own work the amount of time and effort they have taken to read the reports and to look at the information—and to the Senior Deputy Speaker. I hope not one iota of anything he said at the Dispatch Box today—which I strongly support—will be retracted.

In the previous debate, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and other noble Lords, raised issues of process. Contrary to his disappointing assertions that they were ignored by the committee, they clearly were not. The House voted by 78 to 101 that the commissioner had failed to comply with paragraph 21 of the Code of Conduct, which requires her to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fairness, but gave no direction on what should happen next, other than that it should be remitted to the committee and it was for the committee to look at the matter. The committee did, at length and in full, and it has produced a further report, which endorsed our previous recommendation after further and detailed consideration, and which it asks your Lordships’ House to consider and accept today. These issues were re-examined by the committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, said that the committee investigated. No, it did not; it was an independent investigation by the commissioner appointed by this House.

I was extremely disappointed by the comments made about the qualifications and experience of the commissioner and I am glad that they have been redressed today. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that he considered such criticism of the commissioner appropriate. To criticise her qualifications and experience is not appropriate. I was on her appointment panel, as was the noble Lord, Lord Newby. If people have concerns about those aspects, they should criticise the noble Lord and me, who continue to have full confidence in the commissioner and her work.

The debate of 15 November has been given extensive consideration today, but it went way beyond what many of us considered appropriate or necessary for the matter being discussed. As the noble Lord, Lord McFall, said, Lord Lester was referred to several times during it. Lord Lester has an enviable professional reputation and his work is held in high regard, as was rightly referred to in the debate. However, the complainant, Jasvinder Sanghera, also has an excellent and impressive professional reputation, but that was not acknowledged and it must be today.

I want to reflect on two or three things that have been said in your Lordships’ House today. My noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws correctly identified the problems of sitting in judgment on friends and colleagues. That is why we have a process of independent, thorough investigation by the commissioner. We have also to consider our role in your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who criticised the commissioner’s report, has not only been a personal friend of Lord Lester—we all understand the pressures that brings—but acted as judge and jury on the decision, was a lobbyist for him, wrote newspaper articles putting the case for him and was an advocate for him in this House. There is an issue about process and procedure that has to be questioned: being judge, jury, advocate and lobbyist for an individual who is a friend and a Member of your Lordships’ House does not seem appropriate.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, in a somewhat embarrassing speech, talked about the wrong process. What else was the complainant to do? How else is somebody supposed to make a complaint? If the process is not perfect, are they to stand back and not make a complaint? It is right that people should feel that they can come to your Lordships’ House and make a complaint when appropriate. Comments have been made both today and previously about how women who have been the victims of harassment or abuse should behave. There is no blueprint that says, “If this has happened to you, this is how you must behave”. The commissioner has used a process in her investigation. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to a book being signed affectionately. Women across this House will tell you that such behaviour is not abnormal where people feel uncomfortable after somebody has harassed them or behaved inappropriately towards them but go on to have a professional relationship with them, particularly if it is in public. Others said, “I’ve never heard anything like this before”. Sometimes our friends behave inappropriately. That is exactly why professional investigators are required; it is not a decision just of your Lordships’ House.

The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, referred to the 1999 committee on parliamentary privilege. I said in my intervention on him that the report was on a matter relating to the contempt of Parliament, which is an imprisonable offence. That is why the standard of investigation should be higher than for an internal disciplinary matter.

We came back to the cross-examination or inquisitorial process. The noble Viscount eventually had to admit that he had not read all the transcripts, I think he said. My understanding is that only two Members of your Lordships’ House asked to see the transcripts at all. The transcripts, which members of the committee and I have read, clearly indicate an inquisitorial process by the commissioner to do justice to the evidence and test the information given to her.

EU Council

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 17th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Well, my Lords, another Monday, another Prime Minister’s Statement. I am grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating today’s offering, not that it offers very much. Last week, the noble Baroness referred to these Statements as her “weekly treat”, but I doubt that she or the Prime Minister feel the same way today. How relieved they must be that Parliament is not sitting next Monday—as far as we know.

This is not a Statement from the Prime Minister that gives any assurance or confidence that she knows where this is going or, indeed, where she is going. In last week’s Statement, following a weekend of assurances that MPs would vote on Tuesday, the Prime Minister refused to allow MPs to make a judgment on her deal. Rather than face defeat she pulled the vote, citing her wish to go back to the EU, although none of us was really clear what she was trying to get. Was it a change or a clarification? In the end, it was neither. Yet again, it was about her living in the moment, delaying a difficult decision, averting today’s immediate crisis without any credible plan for tomorrow.

So what is today’s Statement about? The Prime Minister has now been forced, at the very last minute, to indicate when the Commons will be able to vote on her agreement, but despite continued efforts to present the vote as a choice between her deal and no deal it remains the case that MPs will accept neither. What are the alternatives? We know that the Prime Minister does not want a further referendum, but I have to say I do not think she understands that the main reason this idea is now gaining greater currency, including apparently in her own Cabinet, is the failure of her own leadership. Noble Lords will have seen reports that Mrs May’s chief of staff and her de facto deputy have discussed a further referendum as a means of breaking the current impasse.

Her Statement today, briefed out yesterday, to warn against a further public vote, is yet another example of her attempts to manage her own party rather than delivering for the people and businesses of this country. It is hard to know where her support now is. Despite winning a vote of confidence from her MPs, it is clear that if we assume, as I think we must, that the remaining Government members all voted for the Prime Minister in the secret ballot, she now has the support of only around half her Back-Benchers. All the while, some of her Cabinet colleagues—I use the word loosely—are attempting to take control of the Brexit process amid an unseemly jockeying for position in the chaos that now passes for government.

The Prime Minister cannot expect the world to stand still while she holds on to her deal, fearing its rejection by MPs but allowing nothing else to move on or make progress. It is worth recalling Sherlock Holmes, who said—or had it written for him, I should say—that:

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”.


So although the Leader of the Commons will make arrangements for the meaningful vote during the week commencing 14 January, that will be almost two months since the publication of the draft text and a mere 10 weeks until Article 50 expires. Surely MPs should have been allowed to eliminate the impossible—which, as noted earlier, are both the Prime Minister’s deal and the no-deal option—because for the past week the country has been paralysed by Mrs May’s reckless time-wasting. As things stand, this will continue now until the middle of January. We have said for months that parliamentarians should have been involved in mandating the negotiations.

The Education Secretary appears to have been convinced, proposing at last week’s Cabinet conference call a series of free votes to flush out which, if any, majorities exist in the Commons. The International Trade Secretary appeared to agree on “The Andrew Marr Show”, stating that he,

“wouldn’t have a huge problem with Parliament as a whole having a say”,

on what the options were. That may well be the only sensible thing we have heard on Brexit from Liam Fox. The Business Secretary added his support to that suggestion today, but still Mrs May stubbornly ploughs on towards the cliff edge. The public and businesses are desperate for certainty. Last week we saw the announcement of 5,000 job losses at Jaguar Land Rover, with our departure from the EU confirmed as part of the reason. As the deadline looms, others will be making investment plans, or not.

The Statement notes that European Council conclusions are legally binding, but this was not the test that the Prime Minister set herself last week. The Prime Minister says negotiations are ongoing. The Commission disagrees. I have a couple of fairly simple and straightforward questions for the noble Baroness. First, given this pressing need for certainty, with the deadline looming, can she confirm whether, in her opinion, any meaningful change, clarification or progress was secured at the summit? Our view is that it is wrong for the Government to try to stumble into the Christmas Recess without putting the matter to a vote and allowing Parliament to move the process forward. I have to say to the noble Baroness that it really feels now that the Prime Minister is deliberately orchestrating a delay to ensure that there is an irresponsible choice between her deal and no deal.

The noble Baroness heard the truncated debate in your Lordships’ House earlier this month—I know she sat through a very large part of it—and the wide support for the no-deal part of the Motion in my name. She will also be at tomorrow’s Cabinet meeting, where apparently there is to be a discussion about spending an extra £2 billion on no-deal planning. Many in your Lordships’ House will consider this a dire use of taxpayers’ money. Would it not be better to cut that Cabinet debate short and use the time to prepare to get a view from MPs before Christmas on what is impossible, so that the time that remains—the sand is dropping out until the end of March—can be used to achieve something that is possible? Is the noble Baroness prepared to relay such a message from this House to the Prime Minister at the Cabinet meeting tomorrow?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. The following seems to me an accurate summary of the current situation:

“Downing Street has stopped selling the Prime Minister’s flawed deal. Instead we have displacement activity designed to distract from last week’s failed renegotiation and a concerted attempt to discredit every plausible alternative as they run down the clock. This is not in the national interest”.


These are not my words but those of Sam Gyimah, until recently a member of the Government, speaking earlier this afternoon. They sum up the Statement and the current impasse precisely. The Prime Minister did not achieve anything of substance at last week’s Council and is offering no prospect of any change to the backstop provision which stands the remotest chance of assuaging her opponents on her own Benches, far less any opposition MPs. The arithmetic in the Commons is the same as it was last week and will remain so, even if the Prime Minister gets one or two further general, vague assurances from the EU in the coming weeks.

In these circumstances, to wait four weeks for any meaningful vote in the Commons—almost 30% of the time remaining until 29 March—is immensely irresponsible and clearly not in the national interest. I hope the Leader of the House will be able to tell us what the Government’s timetable is for the resumed debate on the deal in your Lordships’ House and when she expects us to be able to vote on it.

When we had our unfinished debate on the Government’s deal, I said that an election would fail to clarify matters because it would be fought by three Conservative Parties. I must apologise to the House. There are not three views of Brexit in the Conservative Party. There are now four different views being expounded by members of the Cabinet alone on the airwaves and in the press. Collective responsibility has completely disappeared, for the truth is that the Government have collapsed. On Brexit, there is no Cabinet agreement on anything. Beyond Brexit, as the Select Committee chairs forcefully pointed out over the weekend, there is no progress on any domestic policy reforms at all, because Brexit is, in their words “sucking the life out of the Government”. In normal circumstances, the Opposition would be rampant. They certainly have every justification for calling a vote of no confidence this week.

I gather that the Opposition are indeed now tabling some sort of vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister, but it seems unclear quite what it means. I am tempted to say, “Nothing much new there, then”.

Let us see whether there is a substantive no confidence vote. If there were, whatever its outcome, it would have the advantage of narrowing down the options we now face. Of all of them, the Prime Minister has today decided particularly to attack the concept of a referendum. In her Statement, she says that such a vote would be extremely damaging,

“because it would say to millions who trusted in democracy that our democracy does not deliver”.

But that is precisely the point. The Prime Minister’s deal—indeed, any conceivable deal—could not deliver on the promises of the 2016 referendum, which were grounded in fantasy, not reality. That is why people are so disillusioned, why a majority now want to have the final say, and why they say that they would reject her deal and vote to remain if given such a say. By delaying a meaningful vote for four weeks, the Prime Minister is merely delaying the inevitable. She really should just get on with it.

Arrangement of Business

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 10th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I think it was Harold Wilson who said:

“A week is a long time in politics”.


In the chaos that now passes for government, the Prime Minister will be making a Statement in the next few minutes in which she is expected to pull tomorrow’s votes in the House of Commons on her Brexit deal. Following that, the Leader of the House of Commons will make a further Statement in which she is expected to adjourn the remainder of the Commons debate. Given the gravity of the situation, we offered to adjourn this House for the Prime Minister’s Statement, and to mirror the process in the other place, but the Government Chief Whip has refused.

We may now be debating a withdrawal agreement and a political declaration that could already be dead in the water. If the Prime Minister returns to Parliament with amended agreements then your Lordships’ House will, as provided for in legislation, have a further debate and an opportunity for a further Motion on that deal but if she returns with the same arrangements—albeit unlikely—there is no legislative guarantee of a further debate. However, the Chief Whip has today agreed with me and my noble friend Lady Hayter that whatever the outcome of the further negotiations there will be an opportunity for a debate on a Motion in your Lordships’ House on the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, for this House to express its view. That means that today your Lordships’ House has to continue as planned. Whatever happens in the other place, the Government are pressing the issue tonight on their take-note Motion. Perhaps the Lords Whips’ Office did not get the memo. In those circumstances, the Motion in my name stands, and I therefore plan later today to test the opinion of the House.

This House, your Lordships’ House, takes its responsibilities seriously. In the middle of chaotic and dysfunctional government, we will therefore continue to examine the wider issues of the deal and perhaps offer some advice on the way forward. To assist the House, we will be taking the Prime Minister’s Statement around 5.30 pm today, when some greater clarity may emerge, but that also means that our proceedings on the debate will take slightly longer.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, what the Government are proposing is that while the Prime Minister is addressing the House of Commons withdrawing from the Brexit battlefield, and while the Leader of the House is making a Statement immediately thereafter, suspending debate on this issue, Members of your Lordships’ House—and, most importantly, Members of your Lordships’ House who have worked hard on speeches—are expected to sit in your Lordships’ House listening to those speeches, unable to go out to find out what is happening in the real world. At the end of this process, late in the evening, the Commons having stopped business hours before, Members of your Lordships’ House are expected to vote on Motions whose political reality has completely disappeared.

If the Government Chief Whip wishes to continue with this charade we will continue to make speeches and to vote. The situation may be that we have a Government in name only and that the country is a humiliation across the globe, but there is no need to bring your Lordships’ House into such a charade and such a surreal set of proceedings. Your Lordships’ House should now adjourn the debate.

Exiting the European Union

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 10th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, having had an unexpected opportunity to watch the Prime Minister delivering her Statement earlier today, I listened with great care and have also read it through. I was hoping that there would be some greater clarity about the Prime Minister’s and the Government’s intentions. Yet the Statement provides less clarity rather than more. The only reason the Prime Minister has given for denying Members of Parliament in the other place the opportunity to vote on the deal is that,

“it would be rejected by a significant margin”.

So what happens next? The Statement says that the Cabinet will step up preparations for no deal. Yet to date the so-called no-deal preparations are not going too well. The Government are already behind on legislation and statutory instruments. This is not strong or stable government. Despite the chaos unfolding around her, the Prime Minister appears to be in denial and the Statement says that she has “absolutely no doubt” that this is the right deal.

The Prime Minister seems to be saying to Brexit supporters that, unless they support her deal, they could get another referendum and lose and it would be divisive, as if the country is not divided enough already. Does the Prime Minister not realise that? To those who are against Brexit she says that, unless they support her deal, we will crash out with no deal, which would be catastrophic. It appears that the Prime Minister is trying to alarm and frighten Members of Parliament into backing her. That is hardly a great strategy and not a great endorsement for her deal.

I know that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House understands her responsibilities and duty to this House in answering for the Prime Minister, in such unprecedented circumstances, and I know that she will want to be helpful today. Given that the Cabinet has discussed this issue today, and she has spoken with the Prime Minister, can she give any indication of the timetable of when the meaningful vote will take place in the Commons? My information is that the Prime Minister would only tell Cabinet Ministers—probably because they would leak—that it would have to be before the statutory deadline of 21 January 2019. That is no answer because, if that is the case, the Commons would be unable to conduct any substantial business before such a vote.

This attitude is in danger of deepening the constitutional crisis that we are hurtling towards. Is there likely to be a vote before Christmas? What are the Prime Minister’s intentions at the European Council meeting later this week regarding the Northern Ireland backstop? Is she seeking changes—and if so, what—which would risk opening up other issues, or merely clarification? If it is the latter, why could she not have sought that already without delaying the parliamentary process?

Finally, as the noble Baroness has spoken to the Prime Minister today, does she have confidence in her to be able to squeeze concessions out of the EU 27, given that they consider the matter closed and she says that she will not shift from her red lines, or does she think that is stretching the season of good will just a little too far?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement.

This is a curiously insubstantial Statement. It appears to be a demonstration of one of the Prime Minister’s most tried and tested political tactics: kicking the can down the road for another week. Why? She is open and straightforward about that; she has been listening to what has been said and has formed the understandable view that the deal will be,

“rejected by a significant margin”,

in the Commons. What is her response to this imminent rejection? She says:

“I spoke to a number of EU leaders over the weekend, and in advance of the European Council I will go to see my counterparts in other member states and the leadership of the Council and the Commission. I will discuss with them the clear concerns that this House has expressed”.


I am sure that she will explain that she cannot get the current deal through in its current form, but what happens next? She says that she will seek to ensure,

“additional reassurance on the question of the backstop”.

What does “reassurance” mean in this context? What specific reassurances is the Prime Minister looking for, particularly given that she knows that the reopening of the whole withdrawal agreement is simply not on offer? I think Leo Varadkar speaks for everyone who has given an opinion from the EU side today when he says:

“It is not possible to reopen any aspect of that agreement without reopening all aspects of it”.


Obviously, the Prime Minister is not in the market for reopening all aspects of the agreement, therefore she accepts that the backstop is not negotiable. Indeed she does, because she says:

“Many of the most controversial aspects of this deal—including the backstop—are simply inescapable facts of having a negotiated Brexit”.


She then challenges her opponents in her own party:

“Those members who … disagree need to shoulder the responsibility of advocating an alternative solution that can be delivered”.


It is quite clear, from everything the Prime Minister has said in recent weeks, that she does not believe that such an alternative solution exists.

Having in effect accepted that she will not secure significant changes this weekend on the backstop, the Prime Minister has reverted to one of her other most common tactics: the Government’s own Project Fear with regard to no-deal Brexit. She says that,

“the Government will step up their work in preparation for that potential outcome and the Cabinet will hold further discussions on it this week”.

I wonder how many weeks and how many Statements have contained that statement that the Cabinet will have further discussions on something and step up preparations for a no-deal Brexit. Can the noble Baroness the Leader tell us how much money has already been spent on a no-deal Brexit, and what the Government’s plans are with regard to expenditure between now and the end of March?

The Prime Minister then says that there is a real danger that if,

“we fail to agree a deal, the risk of an accidental no deal increases”.

But the possibility of an accidental no deal has disappeared with the Grieve amendment. You will have an accidental no deal only if the Commons, by some means, is denied the opportunity to vote on something else. The Grieve amendment now means that the Commons will have the opportunity to vote on something else in any circumstance. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, shakes his head; perhaps he can advise the Leader what to say in response to that, because I thought that is what the Grieve amendment meant. If it does not mean that, perhaps she will tell us what it means.

Not only is there a whiff of decay around the Government in general, but there is an overwhelming sense that the Prime Minister is going through the motions before bringing the same deal back to Parliament either next week or early in the new year. It is now clearer than ever that the Government’s deal—the best possible deal, according to the Prime Minister—is an extremely unappetising dog’s breakfast. The Commons has already, in effect, rejected it; its last rites should now be given by the people.

G20 Summit

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 3rd December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating today’s Statement. Aboard her flight to Buenos Aires, the Prime Minister told waiting reporters that she was off to sell UK trade to world leaders. It is hard to understand what exactly the Prime Minister means by this, considering that we have no idea what our trading status will be after March. The Government’s withdrawal agreement looks set be voted down, a third of the Prime Minister’s own trade envoys oppose her plans for future trading arrangements, and, with the Attorney-General refusing to publish his full legal advice on the backstop, it is fair to say that we are a long way off negotiating any kind of trade policy. Yet we are told that, from Canada to Japan, one by one the Prime Minister sat down with world leaders to set out future trade deals. I hope that the noble Baroness will say a little more about this and detail to the House exactly what the Prime Minister could have discussed in these bilaterals.

We are told that trade at least was not on the cards during the Prime Minister’s bilateral with Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman. Did she have a frank discussion over the UK’s sale of arms for use in the brutal Yemeni civil war? The UK is not a spectator; as long as we are selling arms to be used in that war we are very much involved. The Prime Minister says in her Statement that one of the reasons for the meeting was,

“to urge an end to the conflict”.

Surely we can do better than that. Crucially, the Prime Minister needs to put an end to the flow of British arms for use in this civil war. It is now time for action. We have a moral obligation to help the people of Yemen. Ahead of the Stockholm talks in the coming days, the Government should do everything possible to bring about a permanent end to the barbaric bombardment of Hudaydah. As an urgent priority, she needs to fully support humanitarian relief to find a route to allow food and medicine to reach the 14 million starving Yemenis. Can the noble Baroness the Leader tell us whether any of these issues were raised by the Prime Minister in her bilateral meeting?

We welcome confirmation that the Prime Minister raised the murder of Jamal Khashoggi with the Crown Prince. During the summit, President Macron told the Crown Prince that international experts must be part of the investigation. Turkey called for a full UN-led investigation into the incident. We are told that the Prime Minister asked for transparency. Can the noble Baroness expand on this and clarify what the Prime Minister’s exact demands are for the Khashoggi investigation?

Prior to the summit, it was well briefed that the Prime Minister would use the trip to engage in a new security partnership as part of her preparations for the UK’s new satellite system that would rival Galileo. That raises several immediate concerns. What will be the cost of creating a new, separate system? Will it be as effective and will we have full access by 2026, as was the plan with Galileo? Despite all the pre-briefing, there is nothing in the Statement. Can the noble Baroness confirm that, given all the pre-briefing, it was discussed at the summit?

On climate change, the Prime Minister told the summit that the UK was determined,

“to lead the way on the serious threat that climate change poses to our planet”,

to quote from the Statement. That is a worthy aim, but it needs more than just words. For example, did the Prime Minister urge President Trump to reconsider his rejection of the Paris agreement in her informal discussions with him?

Aside from the bilateral meetings, after hours of negotiations it emerged on Saturday that the G20 had agreed a joint communiqué that reaffirmed the commitment to a rules-based international order, which I am sure all of us would welcome. However, we need just to scratch the surface of the declaration and we see that the actions of some of the signatories are at odds with the spirit of the agreement. The UK has a responsibility to support and to defend these values of multilateralism, and the Prime Minister must encourage our international partners to do the same.

Against the backdrop of the communiqué, the US and China agreed a trade war truce, which the White House has labelled “a wonderful humanitarian gesture”. However, apparently this “wonderful humanitarian gesture” includes support for the expansion of the death penalty in China for those importing the opiate drug fentanyl to the US. Meanwhile, in the face of Russia’s arrest of Ukrainian soldiers, Kiev has suggested that democratic elections could be suspended. Neither of these is consistent with the principles of a rules-based international order.

The Prime Minister must seek to use any influence the UK has to encourage all countries to genuinely and honestly abide by this agreement in both domestic and international policy. There has to be real value to such summits. For that to be the case, the communiqué cannot be just warm words to be discarded when they are inconvenient.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Leader for repeating the Statement, but am rather disappointed that it contains an omission. We are told that all the leaders had a bit of downtime during their stay in Argentina, during which they demonstrated national character traits. Angela Merkel went to a steak house for a good meal; President Macron went to a bookshop for a meeting with writers and thinkers; and President Modi held a public yoga session in front of several thousand—no doubt somewhat surprised— Argentinian residents. Can the Leader tell us what the Prime Minister did to reflect our current national mood and character?

More seriously, the Statement contains a number of references to Brexit which are rather curious. First, it says that the Prime Minister held discussions on,

“the good deal an orderly exit will be for the global economy”.

How is that compatible with the Government’s own long-term economic analysis, published last week, which showed that even if the Government get free trade agreements with every single country with which they do not currently have one, there will be a reduction in GDP in the UK because there will be a reduction in trade? The inevitable corollary of that is that there will be a reduction in GDP in the rest of the world because there is a reduction in trade.

Secondly, the Prime Minister said:

“Once we leave the EU, we will strike ambitious trade deals”.


Given that the EU has rejected the Government’s proposal for a facilitated customs agreement, how can we strike trade deals on our own while keeping a frictionless border in Northern Ireland? The Prime Minister had specific discussions on trade with a number of Heads of State and Government, including that of Japan. In her conversations with the Japanese Prime Minister, did she discuss the commitment given to Nissan some two years ago guaranteeing that it would be no worse off under Brexit? If so, what assurances did she give, or could she give, to Japanese companies in the UK that they would not face additional barriers to trade, particularly those working in the services sector, not least the financial services sector, after Brexit?

Finally, the Prime Minister said that the UK was,

“creating the right environment for tech companies to flourish”,

after Brexit. Why then does the Prime Minister think that, last week, a letter was delivered to 10 Downing St signed by more than 2,300 tech entrepreneurs warning that, under the Government’s plans for Brexit, the industry would be hit by a drastic reduction in market access and difficulty in attracting new talent and investment from outside the UK?

The Prime Minister is living in a fantasy world increasingly at odds with reality. Fortunately, with next week’s votes, reality is about to intrude.

Leaving the European Union

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 26th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

Well, my Lords, another day, another Statement. I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating today’s Statement.

Exactly 886 days have passed since the EU referendum, and it is more than 600 days since the Prime Minister wrote to the President of the European Council to invoke Article 50. At that point, the clock started ticking. Many of us struggled to understand why, in her Lancaster House speech, the Prime Minister tied her own hands with a series of hard red lines. Having set out what appeared to be a hard Brexit before talks had even begun, the most enthusiastic Brexiteers felt emboldened.

The problem for the Prime Minister is that all too often, rather than taking a clear position, she has sought to please one or other of the many camps in her own party, and her message at home has at times been different in both tone and content from her message to the EU. So, as time went on and with negotiations stalling, Mrs May had to fly to Florence to extend an olive branch to the EU 27. But for many of our EU neighbours their good will had already been tested. After she failed once again to make a breakthrough in Brussels, the Cabinet met at Chequers in July, agreeing a proposal that could not even survive a weekend before the first Brexit Secretary resigned, goading Boris Johnson, the then Foreign Secretary, to follow suit. Despite such high-profile resignations, the Prime Minister insisted that her way was the only way. She was clear: there is no alternative. That has a familiar ring. As ever, she forged on.

I have reflected before that the Prime Minister’s strategy is to live in the moment—to simply get through each week at a time. This has never been as true as it is now. Last week, with a defiant flourish, the Prime Minister presented the political declaration to Parliament, which was a clear admission that the Chequers deal was dead in the water—the deal that she had defended so strongly. Yet again we are told that this is the only proposal on the table—the only show in town. I think I am not alone in failing to understand why the Prime Minister is continuing on this course. She must know that her deal, which is little more than a blind Brexit, cannot possibly win a majority in the other place. As we discussed on Thursday’s Statement, it is pretty much an aspiration without promises or guarantees.

The Prime Minister also knows that no deal would be as disastrous for UK families, communities and businesses, yet she continues to present this flawed, inadequate deal as though it is “my deal or no deal” and seeks to pray in aid EU Presidents Juncker and Tusk. I can understand senior EU figures lending their support to the Prime Minister at this exceptionally precarious time in her premiership. But, despite the Prime Minister’s “carry on regardless” approach, there are other options on the table, including that, as Michel Barnier has always been clear, the EU’s offer can, and will, evolve if the UK changes its red lines. This is in relation not just to the withdrawal agreement but to the terms of the future relationship as well.

We have been very clear that we could accept a deal only if it delivered a permanent UK-EU customs union, a strong, ongoing relationship with the single market and high-level protection for workers, consumers and the environment. Also, it remains obvious that too little consideration was initially given by the Government to the complex issues affecting Northern Ireland and the Good Friday agreement. That is equally true of Gibraltar, which I first raised in your Lordships’ House just four months after the referendum in 2016; for both, the details have yet to be resolved. So, this deal does not deliver on the key priorities. Indeed, leaked emails describing it as “not a good deal” explain last week’s lacklustre response from the CBI. In fact, the only support the Prime Minister has been able to garner is pretty lukewarm and seems to be more about the fear of a no-deal exit if she cannot get her deal.

There are many, many questions that I could ask the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. I know that she has been inundated with questions in response to recent Statements; it is always hard to answer everything. I therefore want to be very clear and straight to the point with just two questions: does she consider that the deal before us is the very best that is available? And does she consider that the deal before us is better than what we currently have?

If Ministers are unable to honestly answer yes to both these questions, then they have failed all those who voted in the referendum, whichever way they voted.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Leader for repeating the Statement. We now have the agreement signed and sealed; the time for wishful thinking is over. Given the constraints that she imposed upon herself, I agree with the Prime Minister when she says that she has probably reached the best deal available. Even if she had had a dream team of negotiators, drawn from the Brexiteers normally to be found on the Conservative Privy Council Bench in your Lordships’ House, she could not have achieved the “cake and eat it” deal which so many of them have advocated.

In normal circumstances, we would now concentrate on questioning the Government on what they meant in various particularly vague clauses of the political declaration. We might, for example, probe paragraph 107, which is about space and simply reads:

“The Parties should consider appropriate arrangements for cooperation on space”.


This is not a policy on space; it is a waste of space. We might equally probe paragraphs 73 to 76 on fishing. But the truth is that there is absolutely no point in worrying about the details of the declaration because it is now abundantly clear that it will not be approved by the Commons, and this is despite the time-honoured Whips’ tactic of offering baubles to wavering Conservative MPs. Clearly the offer of a knighthood does not do the trick. I would be extremely worried if I were the noble Lord, Lord Burns; I suspect that his hopes for reducing the size of your Lordships’ House are now in vain.

The Government are promising us an economic assessment of the consequences of the deal later this week. We already have one today from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which estimates that the cost of the deal could be up to £1,100 per person by 2030. I know that some people will pooh-pooh this, as they do all forecasts, but no reputable forecast argues that we will be better off, and I suspect that later in the week the Treasury will confirm that. Therefore, I ask the Leader of the House why the Prime Minister repeatedly claims that her deal is good for the economy. It clearly is not.

If the deal is dead, what are the options? There is much discussion among fevered Conservative MPs about plan Bs, but the problem for them is that all these plans have been examined and rejected by the Government because they are either practically or politically unworkable, and they have not become more workable now.

The Prime Minister is right to say in the Statement that voting against the deal would take us “back to square one”, if by that she means that the only realistic alternative to the deal is remaining in the EU. Can the Leader confirm that this is indeed what these words mean?

In her letter to colleagues yesterday, the Prime Minister said that no one should be in any doubt that that there are some who want a second referendum, which she then bizarrely describes as a politician’s vote—Alice in Wonderland in action. Well, too right—they do want a referendum on whether this deal is better than continued EU membership. I suspect that the 59% of people in her own constituency who would now vote remain would like a vote, as would the 56% of the population as a whole who would now vote to remain.

I understand that the Prime Minister is about to embark on a nationwide tour to promote the Brexit deal. Given that she knows that the deal is dead in the Commons, I can only assume that these are in fact her opening shots in a campaign to win popular support in advance of a people’s vote on the deal. We look forward to joining her on the campaign trail.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments. In relation to the noble Baroness’s comments on Gibraltar, we have ensured that Gibraltar is covered by the whole of the withdrawal agreement and implementation period. Our position on Gibraltar’s sovereignty has not changed and will not change. The words of the Chief Minister quoted in the Statement were strong. They showed our commitment to Gibraltar during the negotiations, and that will continue.

This deal will deliver an economic partnership with the EU closer than that enjoyed by any other country, and it will ensure an unprecedented security partnership. It is a good deal and, as Donald Tusk, Jean-Claude Juncker and Michel Barnier have all said, it is the best one available.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about Galileo. Of course we have been in discussions with the EU about this, but we could not depend on Galileo for defence and security on the basis of the existing and proposed security restrictions for third countries. We are therefore rapidly advancing the development of a domestic system that will fulfil our defence and security needs and support the world-leading British space sector.

The noble Lord also talked about the vote, and of course it will be one of the most significant votes that Parliament has held for many years. However, as the Statement made clear, we do not know what will happen if the deal does not pass. All we do know is that further uncertainty and division would inevitably follow, and I do not believe that any of us wants that for this country.

Brexit: Negotiations

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Thursday 15th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement today, although I have to say that I did not detect any great enthusiasm there. I am grateful for her statement at the beginning about timing. Last night, the usual channels agreed the normal arrangements for a Statement, with Back-Bench contributions for 20 minutes today and a more substantive debate of three or four hours on Tuesday, when noble Lords will have had the opportunity to read and consider the detail of the deal and the documents. However, with such significant developments this morning—four resignations so far from the Government, including the Brexit Secretary—it is clear that there is a crisis at the very heart of government. I am disappointed that the Government would not accede to our request for extra Back-Bench time today—I think that was wrong. However, we welcome a longer four-hour debate next week, when we can consider the deal in greater detail. Given the importance of the issue, and because that debate is instead of time today, will the noble Baroness the Leader confirm that she will lead the response next Tuesday?

As the Government descend further into chaos, one thing has remained consistent: the Prime Minister’s approach of living for the moment—getting through today, and worrying about tomorrow later. That has not served her or the country well. But we should not forget that this situation is not entirely of this Prime Minister’s making. The entire Brexit process has been about the internal politics of the Conservative Party. It cost David Cameron and George Osborne their jobs—although the latter has done fairly well for himself since—and it could be about to cost the Prime Minister hers as well.

Last night, outside Downing Street, the Prime Minister claimed that the withdrawal agreement and the outline political declaration had been agreed by “a collective decision of the Cabinet”, and yet this morning, so far, two Cabinet Members have resigned—I do not know whether there is an update on the figure yet. She has failed to unite her Cabinet again. She has failed to unite her party, with MPs reportedly rushing to submit letters to the chairman of the 1922 Committee. Watching the Statement in the other place, we have seen that she is failing to unite Parliament, where there is seemingly no majority for any course of action, other than opposing no deal.

So let us be clear about what is most important: the Prime Minister is failing the people of our country. Families, communities, businesses and workers will not be able to understand why the Conservative Party is behaving in this way, putting the economic well-being of the country behind petty infighting and personal ambition. As Frances O’Grady, the general secretary of the TUC, said this morning, we need Parliament and the country to come together and find a real alternative to this agreement—a deal that the Prime Minister’s former adviser has labelled a “capitulation”.

Those who have welcomed the deal have either said it is “the best we can get”—faint praise indeed—or, as the CBI made clear, support the very measures that the Brexiteers have opposed: a long-term transition and frictionless trade. The draft agreement and political declaration published last night are exactly what we expected: vague promises of a future trade deal, but no clear road map as to how, or when, this will be achieved.

So, what has our sovereign Parliament been offered? The documents contain no commitment to a permanent customs union, despite the support of business and the trade unions; no detail on our future relationship with the single market, despite the EU being our biggest single trade partner; and no clarity regarding the terms on which the UK will continue to participate in EU agencies and internal security systems.

Your Lordships’ House worked hard to secure a meaningful vote for the other place, but the Government are telling parliamentarians that they must decide between this bad deal or no deal at all. It is a Hobson’s choice—that is, no choice. As many predicted, last night’s Cabinet marathon meeting has become a disappointing sequel to July’s Chequers summit. An agreement that has been toiled over for many months has yet again unravelled overnight.

On social media, I am known as @Lady Basildon. It is not just about my former constituency and my home, it is after a character in an Oscar Wilde play. As I watched the news of resignations unfold, a Wildean phrase came to mind: to lose one Brexit Secretary may be regarded as a misfortune, to lose two looks like carelessness. We now understand why the Prime Minister was not prepared to allow a vote in Cabinet. She could not because she did not have the support of her colleagues. She must have known how fragile the position was when she made her statement last night.

I have little time for David Davis and Boris Johnson. They failed in Cabinet to convince their colleagues of their so-called vision for Brexit or to come up with any viable alternative. They now stand back and attack the Prime Minister from the sidelines. Dominic Raab has criticised the deal but, again, offers no credible alternative. While many in the Cabinet, including, apparently, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, voiced their concerns about the draft agreement last night, no alternative was offered at the meeting. It remains unclear exactly what Brexiteers want, other than to lead this great country off a cliff edge in a few short months’ time.

The situation will undoubtedly evolve in the coming hours and days. Noble Lords will use the expertise of this House to track developments. We will have our debate on Tuesday, but today, it would be helpful if your Lordships’ House were left in no doubt about the noble Baroness’s position. Does the Leader of the House give the Prime Minister and the draft withdrawal agreement her full support?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I commiserate with the noble Baroness who had to repeat this Statement, because we know that she does not agree with it. It appears that she was one of 10 Cabinet Ministers who expressed severe reservations about the agreement. Will she explain her reservations in her reply? I think that the House would like to know.

There is a lot of real and mock surprise and indignation about the contents of the withdrawal agreement. Yet how could anybody reasonably expect it to be materially different from what has emerged? Once you accept a frictionless border in Northern Ireland, provisions such as those now in the agreement become inevitable. That was recognised by the Government in the agreement they reached with the EU last December and, incidentally, which they have spent the last 10 months denying. They have now reaffirmed that December commitment.

If the outcome on the transitional period and the backstop are predictable, I am genuinely shocked at the outline of the political declaration. In some ways, this is a much more important document because it covers our long-term relationship with the EU, not just the position during the transitional phase. I had expected the document to be layered with fudge, but I could not imagine that it would be so vague and unspecific—a mere seven pages.

It is vastly less detailed than the Chequers agreement, which listed some 68 programmes or bodies by name of which the UK wished to remain a member post Brexit. This document mentions hardly any. I believe that we are to get a somewhat extended version next week but, based on the seven pages we have before us today, it is unlikely to answer any of the difficult issues which remain. Fisheries and the European arrest warrant are but two of the myriad tricky issues that are clearly nowhere near being resolved. I cannot believe that the country would accept this pig-in-a-poke Brexit.

However, it is clear that we are not going to get to the point where these things matter, because the agreement document bears all the hallmarks of Monty Python’s dead parrot. It is bereft of life. In her statement last night, and again this morning, the Prime Minister admitted for the first time that there are three possible outcomes to the Brexit process. We can accept her deal, we can crash out without a deal, or we can remain. The noble Baroness has said many times that remain was not an option. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has probably said it hundreds of times.

October European Council

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 22nd October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, first I concur with the comments about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. It is important that we understand exactly what has happened, and also why the truth is having to be so painfully extracted. This obviously has implications for our future relationship, and the Government will have to be clear at some point about what action they will take.

On the substance of the summit, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, although the top lines were already well known following Downing Street’s pre-briefing to the press. I can understand why the Prime Minister may have been informed by her Chief Whip that an advance operation was needed before she rose to her feet in Parliament. However, pre-briefing such a significant Statement, purely for the sake of internal party management, goes totally against the procedures that govern this House.

We understand that this is a difficult week for the Prime Minister, and I am sure that I am not alone in the House in being shocked and appalled by comments from—perhaps wisely—unnamed Conservative MPs. They spoke of the PM having to “bring her own noose” and made obscenely offensive comments about knives and stabbing the Prime Minister. Few of us are impressed with the Prime Minister’s negotiations, but such comments go way beyond what is reasonable or rational. If bullying in Parliament is to be rooted out, it must apply to everyone. As a House, I am sure we are agreed that we totally condemn such comments and if, as has been reported, the names of those responsible are known to others, they must face the consequences of their unacceptable behaviour.

Before turning to Brexit, I welcome the other conclusions relating to migration, internal security and external relations. It is vital that swift progress is made on illegal migration. We saw tension between member states at the June summit, leading to the important acknowledgement that this is a challenge not just for any single EU country but for Europe as a whole.

Those noble Lords who watched the BBC2 programme “Mediterranean with Simon Reeve” last night will have seen one particular interview with a young migrant who had sought refuge in Europe, but got as far as the Med. I think he said he had known no peace since he was five years old, and he had a level of despair and sadness rarely seen in one so young. Until we have left the EU’s institutions, our MEPs and Ministers should continue to offer their expertise and exercise their influence to shape an effective and a compassionate response. [Interruption.] I think that was an echo of the need for compassionate and effective response. I hope the Leader of the House will confirm that the UK Government intend to do just that.

On internal security, we welcome the EU leaders’ condemnation of the cyberattack carried out against the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and their calls to increase resilience against such attacks going forward. The conclusions note the need to prevent and respond effectively to radicalisation and terrorism, with full respect to fundamental rights. With the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill now being considered by your Lordships’ House, we all want to ensure that the appropriate balance is struck.

The EU has played a significant role in promoting development in Africa, and it is promising that the conclusions note the importance of maintaining strong levels of co-operation with our African partners. Could the noble Baroness confirm what role, if any, the UK intends to play in the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa and other EU development initiatives post Brexit?

With unseasonal warm weather, and alarming weather reports from across the world, we need to ensure that we are vigilant and robust on tackling climate change. Yet, when the President of the United States asserts that global temperatures could simply “change back again”, we recognise the challenges to ensure we have a fact-based approach to this issue and not allow some to seek refuge in fake news. I welcome the EU’s unequivocal backing of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s recent special report. I hope that the Government will work closely with EU partners to ensure that December’s COP 24 meeting is a success, and that the Prime Minister will continue to press Mr Trump to reverse his decision on the Paris agreement.

This time last week, following Mr Raab’s unsuccessful trip to Brussels, the Prime Minister sought to reassure her colleagues, and then the country, stating:

“I do not believe that the UK and the EU are far apart”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/10/18; col. 410.]


When I asked whether the Government were confident that sufficient progress had been made to enable an extraordinary summit next month, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said:

“The Prime Minister is looking to continue negotiations as planned in November”.—[Official Report, 15/10/18; col. 326.]


And yet, although she got the backing of her Cabinet before leaving for Brussels, the President of the European Parliament expressed dismay that the Prime Minister had failed to offer “anything substantially new” on the unresolved issue of the Northern Ireland backstop.

The result? Having scrapped—at the UK Government’s request—their original plans for a detailed discussion on the proposed terms of the future UK-EU relationship, the EU 27 leaders determined that,

“despite intensive negotiations, not enough progress has been achieved”.

Today, we are told by the Prime Minister that there is no need to worry. The line is apparently that 95% of the deal is done, so what is the problem? The Prime Minister may claim that she is calm about the state of the negotiations, but the reports of hastily arranged conference calls with her Cabinet indicate otherwise.

Of course we welcome the news that agreement has been reached on the future status of Gibraltar, that there is now a protocol dealing with the UK’s military presence in Cyprus, and that there is an outline agreement on dispute resolution—although, as we all know, this is dependent on the withdrawal agreement. Nevertheless, we welcome the progress. But we are all too familiar with the problems that remain unresolved.

In an attempt to break the impasse, and recognising the amount of work yet to be undertaken, the Prime Minister seemed to accept the principle of a short extension to the transition period, only to row back at the first sign of trouble from Back-Benchers. Now she talks of “an option to extend” rather than taking the common-sense step of negotiating a permanent customs union. Such an arrangement would avoid the need for the so-called backstop and would then help get that deal over the line.

But at each stage of the negotiations we have found the UK lagging behind the agreed timetable, and the Prime Minister seeking to manage internal party-political divisions. The priority for negotiations has to be the interests of the UK, our citizens and our economy, and time is running out. The Leader of the House said last week that noble Lords,

“do not have to stress … the consciousness of the amount of time we have”,—[Official Report, 15/10/18; col. 326.]

to agree a deal with the EU. But in relation to the border and the backstop, it does have to be stressed. The apparent lack of urgency from the Government should concern us all.

To reassure your Lordships’ House that these matters are in hand, can the noble Baroness confirm when she expects the Cabinet to agree—and this is an agreement which lasts longer than the paper it is printed on—a new position in relation to Northern Ireland? How will that position be communicated to parliamentarians who are concerned about the future status of the Belfast agreement, and the need to ensure that there is no hard border? Could she also confirm whether the UK Government will still seek an extraordinary summit in November, even if it is later than originally planned?

Finally, I return to an issue I have raised on a number of occasions, most recently last week. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her written response since she did not have the answer to hand at the time. But her letter to me, my noble friend Lord Foulkes and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, of 18 October does not take us any further. She confirms that the citizens’ rights section of the withdrawal agreement will,

“protect the ability of UK nationals in the EU … to continue their lives broadly as they do today”.

However, my question was specifically about onward movement, which will not now be dealt with in the withdrawal treaty but as part of the future relationship. Could she clarify when the 1 million Brits living in other European countries can expect certainty on their future mobility rights? This is not just about ensuring that our UK citizens do not lose any of the rights that they currently enjoy; it is essential for business planning for those companies that operate across EU borders. They need the certainty that is so sadly lacking on this issue. The Prime Minister referred to the brilliant entrepreneurs and small businesses in her Statement, but it is they that need that certainty. If this forms part of our future relationship will the Government stop blocking the publication of the EU’s proposed political declaration?

I hope that the noble Baroness can respond to these questions, but she needs to understand that time is running out and that the nation remains concerned.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I begin by associating myself with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about the unacceptable use of inflammatory language in the Commons. At this point in our national life, matters are inflammatory enough without use of words such as “knives” and “nooses” about a Prime Minister. I hope that the person who used that terminology is unmasked and suffers the consequences that he or she richly deserves.

Before getting on to Brexit, it is instructive to read how the Government dealt with the two other big issues that faced the summit last week and have faced us subsequently. On the Khashoggi incident, the Government have taken a joint initiative in condemning what has happened and wanting further information with Germany and France—not with President Trump, but Germany and France, our closest allies.

Secondly, when it comes to the question of reining in chemical weapons, the Prime Minister takes credit for the fact that the Foreign Minister has agreed with his French counterpart a new EU sanctions regime. We have had this before. What does the noble Baroness think the future of that sanctions regime and that process of agreeing joint sanctions regimes on such important issues will be after 29 March next year?

We are then told that 95% of the withdrawal agreement and its protocols are now settled. Noble Lords will remember this document produced by the Commission six or seven months ago: the draft withdrawal agreement. The bits in green were agreed. As one flicks through it, one finds page after page of green bits. There were some bits that were not agreed and those have been reduced, but as we know it is not the volume of what has been agreed, but the substance of what has and has not been agreed. The fact that the difficult 5% remains unagreed should give nobody any reassurance that agreement is near.

According to the Prime Minister, four steps are now needed to break the impasse:

“First, we must make the commitment to a temporary UK-EU joint customs territory legally binding”.


Before she uttered that sentence, she said, two paragraphs higher up:

“The EU argue that they cannot give a legally binding commitment to a UK-wide customs arrangement in the Withdrawal Agreement”.


So what powers of persuasion and legislative sleight of hand or ability does the noble Baroness think the Prime Minister will be able to produce to persuade the EU that something it says is legally impossible is actually the basis of an agreement within the next very short time?

The second step is the option to extend the implementation period. The argument then is that you have two options, one of which the EU says is legally impossible and the other an extension. The UK then says that it wishes to be able to make a sovereign choice between those two. So ultimately it will say to the EU, “Thanks very much for agreeing these two things, but actually we’ve decided we’re going to go for X”. Why should it agree to that? Why is it our sovereign choice? This flies in the face of negotiations and common sense.

The third thing is to ensure that both or either of those options are not potentially permanent arrangements. This gets us back to the philosophical discussion we had last week about the meaning of “temporary”. The Prime Minister says that she wants it to be temporary so that the UK does not find itself,

“locked into an alternative, inferior arrangement against our will”.

But the truth is that it is not an inferior arrangement that she is scared of but of being locked into something that a future, non-Tory Government thinks is a superior arrangement and therefore stays in the customs union in perpetuity. She and her colleagues want “temporary” to be defined to mean “before the next general election”, which is a novel definition of the word.

The fourth step, to ensure that Northern Ireland has full continued access to the UK internal market, is not a step at all. It is simply a consequence of steps one and two.

In her conclusion, the Prime Minister talks about the challenges ahead. She says that, whatever it means and whatever will happen, we must not give in,

“to those who want to stop Brexit with a politicians vote”.

What she means by a politicians’ vote is actually a vote by the people to have a say on any deal she reaches. We have this marvellous Alice in Wonderland definition that a vote by the people is a politicians’ vote but a vote by the politicians is a people’s vote even if, as is now the case, she and the Government Front Bench know that the people say they want such a vote. This is the kind of Alice in Wonderland use of language that surely the Prime Minister will not get away with much longer.

However, we can be reassured that, whatever she says about not having a vote on the outcome, she is planning for it. We know that the Government have been conducting war-games about how any referendum on a Brexit deal can be conducted. They are to be congratulated on that. Could the Leader of the House confirm that the starting point for the timetable against which those war-games are being conducted is the 22 weeks required for a referendum to be held, set out in UCL’s Constitution Unit’s recent report on the mechanics of such a referendum, not the 12 months recently suggested in your Lordships’ House by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan? Could she give an undertaking that the outcome of this planning will be published, just as the various notices have been published against no deal, in the interest of transparency and good government?

The key final point is what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said: what happens next? We do not know how a deal can be struck within the Cabinet, but what is the prospect of a November summit? It is probably very small. But, closer to home, what is the prospect of this House discussing the Trade Bill before Christmas? What has happened to the backlog of all the other Brexit legislation, of which there is no sign? What has happened to the 800 statutory instruments— 200 of which require affirmative resolutions—that this House has to debate and approve in the next four months? Could the Leader of the House give us some indication of the flow of business and timetable that she believes will now follow?

This Statement, like all the previous ones, has enabled the Prime Minister to survive another day, but when she speaks of difficult days ahead she knows that Brussels is the least of her problems. Her problems are in her own party, and this Statement does nothing to make one think she has a clue how to resolve them.

Brexit: Negotiations

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 15th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure I am not the only Member of your Lordships’ House who spent much of yesterday evening with a sense of intrigue as the Brexit Secretary dashed to Brussels for what we were told was a spontaneous meeting with Michel Barnier. With expectations of an October deal being downplayed in recent weeks, it seemed that there might have been a sudden, and possibly decisive, breakthrough. For a brief, shining moment it seemed that the Prime Minister’s attendance at this week’s European Council summit could amount to a victory parade rather than an interrogation—another opportunity, perhaps, to break out the dance moves. Alas, as those experienced in government will know, last-minute meetings are more likely to be about crisis management than celebration.

I appreciate that in her Statement the Prime Minister says that she wants to,

“set out clearly … the facts as they stand”.

But I am surprised that this Statement is being made at all. First, it is customary for a Prime Minister to report back from a summit but not to give a preview of one. Secondly, if anyone was in the best position to update the Commons on the events of yesterday evening, surely it was the Brexit Secretary—but perhaps the Prime Minister owes Mr Raab, who rescued her from making last week’s Statement. Thirdly, and more importantly, it contradicts the Prime Minister’s words of a little more than two years ago when she said:

“We will not be able to give a running commentary or a blow-by-blow account of the negotiations because we all know that isn’t how they work”.


Perhaps the rules have changed.

Recent progress at the technical level must be welcomed, but, as the Prime Minister’s Statement makes clear, the sticking point remains Northern Ireland and the backstop. Since the backstop was first agreed, we have heard different interpretations from the Government about what they thought it meant when they signed up to it. Too often in this debacle the Prime Minister and Ministers have sought to get past the immediate political crisis of their making without working through the longer-term implications.

The Chequers agreement was published in July. It quickly became clear that a facilitated customs arrangement would not wash with Brussels, yet the Government failed to put forward any alternative proposals. Unsurprisingly, Chequers is not even mentioned in today’s Statement. Despite red lines and protestations, the Prime Minister has had to accept what she calls a temporary customs union. She has done so because it is so clearly in the best interests of the UK and goes some way to address the Northern Ireland issue.

The Government argue that the customs union arrangement can be temporary because we will be transitioning to a new relationship with the EU—but there is nobody in government who can tell us what the new relationship will be. Has the time not come to admit that an ongoing customs union and a strong single market relationship are essential and desirable? Can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House today what we are going to be transitioning to? The Statement refers to,

“protecting the integrity of our United Kingdom”,

and to how the Prime Minister wants to,

“look the British people in the eye”.

But if her foremost advisers on Northern Ireland are the DUP as they prop up her Government, she will not be able to fulfil those objectives.

Can the Minister shed any light at all on why the UK Government stepped in to request that the EU 27 did not publish their draft political declaration? It is an important point; they would have published it, but the UK Government requested that they did not. If she cannot explain that today, I hope she will write.

After rebuffing the Prime Minister in Salzburg, the President of the European Council said:

“In October we expect maximum progress and results in the Brexit talks. Then we will decide whether conditions are there to call an extraordinary summit in November to finalise and formalise the deal”.


When the Prime Minister returns to the summit on Wednesday, does she still expect to deliver an after-dinner speech to EU leaders in the evening? And is there anything she can say at that summit that will last until the end of the following Cabinet meeting? Do the Government believe that the conditions are there for the extraordinary summit in November, or does the Minister agree with the Irish Prime Minister that there is a chance of it slipping even further, possibly to December?

Time is running out—and I do not just mean for the Prime Minister. Time is running out for the Government to get this right in the interests of the country.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, which is sober and sobering. It begins by saying that the Prime Minister wishes to set out clearly the facts as they stand. Unfortunately, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, there are virtually no facts in the Statement at all. It is extraordinarily difficult simply by reading or listening to it to have the faintest clue as to what is really going on.

Take, for example, not the immediate cause of the rupture but the longer-term relationship. The Prime Minister says:

“We … have broad agreement on the structure and scope of the framework for our future relationship, with progress on issues like security, transport and services”.


Leaving aside that the “like” covers 80% of the economy, it is clear that there is no agreement on these issues. Indeed, Dominic Raab said last week in relation to them that,

“we continue to make progress … although there is still some way to go”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/10/18; col. 51.]

In other words, we are nowhere near having an agreement.

I think that answers the noble Baroness’s question as to why the future relationship document did not go to the Commission last week as was expected: not enough of it had been agreed. But how do we know? We do not have the faintest clue. There are no facts or even suggestions from the Government as to how discussions on the future relationship document are progressing.

So we come to the immediate cause of the breakdown: the question of the backstop and its backstops. If we were on a cricket field, we would be inventing new fielding positions, each one more ludicrous than the last—and each one unnecessary if we had a well-run team. As far as the backstop is concerned, the Prime Minister states the obvious concern of the EU that,

“while we are both committed to ensuring that this future relationship is in place by the end of the implementation period, we accept that there is a chance that there may be a gap between the two”.

In other words, the Government do not believe that they can sort this out during the transition period. So is it surprising that the Commission is saying, “Actually, let’s work out what we do in those circumstances”?

That brings us to the backstop to the backstop. The Prime Minister says that there are two problems with this. The first is that the backstop we proposed—I hope that everyone is following this—has not been accepted by the EU because, it says, there is not time to work out the detail of this UK-wide solution in the next few weeks. Well, why is that? Whose proposal is it? Can we not just tell the EU that we know what it is going to be? Are we expecting the EU to tell us how our backstop—not the EU’s backstop—works? The clear implication of the Prime Minister’s Statement is that we are waiting supinely for the EU and not helping it out on our problem and our proposed solution to it.

The next problem is the issue of “temporary”. This is a huge issue because it is an attempt to define the undefinable. All Members of your Lordships’ House know that the word “temporary” is in the same category as “in due course” and “soon” as definable only in the mind of the speaker at the time. No two people using those phrases necessarily have the same thought in their mind—so it is hardly surprising that it is a struggle to define it. But why would you need to define it anyway? The only reason is that there is no trust or good will between the parties.

There are two problems about “temporary”. The first is that a large proportion of the Tory party in the Commons does not trust the Prime Minister that temporary means temporary and thinks that it is being sold down the river. The other is that the EU more generally does not trust the Government and there is no body of good will that would enable it to agree on something such as this without a definition of something that cannot be defined.

So we have a withdrawal agreement on which progress has stalled because an attempt to define the indefinable failed, and the future relationship negotiations clearly have a long way to go. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, this leads us to the question of timing. She asked whether it would be possible to get a deal in December. Earlier today, for the first time, I read the suggestion that a summit was being cooked up for January, because we are so far behind that the chances of getting a deal in December are now deemed to be not all that good—not necessarily that there will be a crash out, but the British Government have not come forward with enough detailed proposals to enable us to get to that point.

Can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House say, from her experience of negotiations within government, whether there is any discussion of a further summit in January to discuss where we might have got to by then? Indeed, in the Government’s view, what is the latest date by which an agreement not just on withdrawal but on the future relationship would have to be signed and sealed if they are to meet their deadline of 29 March? Can she give us any glimmer of hope that the passage of time might reduce to a manageable level the splits within the Tory party that have made today’s sobering Statement necessary?

Salisbury Update

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Wednesday 5th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating what is a detailed Statement. The House is grateful for the information that she provided. This was undoubtedly a shocking and deplorable act. I am sure that the House will join me in sending our thoughts to those whose lives are in danger and our deepest condolences to the friends and family of Dawn Sturgess, who tragically died following exposure.

We must also pay tribute to the dedication of the staff at Salisbury District Hospital and their tireless work in responding to this appalling crime. Like the noble Baroness, I also want to praise the resilience of the residents of Salisbury, Amesbury and the surrounding area. They have lived with this from day to day while most of us were able to read about it then move on to something else in our lives. For example, nearly 100 Wiltshire Police officers and staff have sought psychological support following the attack. The chief constable said that the cuts to police increases the pressure on his officers. Given the impact that this has had on the local community, what support, including financial support, have the Government provided to Salisbury and in what form? We should also pay tribute to the extraordinary diligence of and forensic work undertaken by our police and security services to identify those responsible and establish both the identities of the two Russian suspects—who can now be charged—and on whose authority they were acting.

I congratulate the Prime Minister and I welcome the confirmation of a European arrest warrant being obtained and an Interpol red notice being issued shortly. We know from bitter experience that it is futile to seek an extradition warrant from Russia. What will happen to that specific warrant if we leave the European Union either without a deal or having been unable to negotiate the remaining part of the European arrest warrant? The noble Baroness will be aware that there are difficulties with us remaining. I appreciate that a pragmatic, common-sense decision has been taken, rather than an ideological one, but what will happen in future? What would happen to this warrant, had it not been executed and those two people detained, by the time we leave the EU?

Russia’s reticence to allow its citizens to stand trial in the UK is unsurprising. Both suspects have been identified as officers of the Russian military intelligence service, known as the GRU. As referred to by the noble Baroness, the GRU is highly disciplined with a well-established chain of command. This attack was almost certainly approved at a senior level of the Russian state. The use of a nerve agent is a clear breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention and international law; we condemn the attack and its perpetrators in the strongest terms.

Given the findings of the OPCW and Russia’s record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations, including against its own citizens and former intelligence officers whom it regards as legitimate targets, what action are the Government taking at an international level to ensure that state actors cannot act with impunity? What discussions have there been with the US and European countries about further sanctions against Russia? As we leave the EU, our relationships and partnerships with our European neighbours will undoubtedly change; additional effort from us will be required to maintain them. What action are the Government taking on this issue at both a European and international level? We need to ensure that we maintain those relationships for the future so that action can be taken.

How closely are the Government working with the UN to strengthen the international monitoring and prohibition of chemical weapons? I am sure the noble Baroness recognises that the first duty of any Government is the safety and security of their citizens. The noble Baroness may be aware from debates in this Chamber that the police and security services have been clear that in protecting our citizens, one of our greatest assets in the community is local knowledge provided by police officers on the ground, yet police officer numbers across the country are falling and police stations are closing. Some £3 billion has been lost from the policing budget over the past eight years and there are 21,000 fewer police officers today than there were eight years ago. What assessment is being made of the impact of falling police numbers on maintaining national security? Is this being kept under review, including with a commitment to any necessary funding? I know that funding for the security services will increase but I am talking particularly about the ability of police officers on the ground to get local intelligence.

On funding, I would like to ask about CBRN training and support. I have asked this question in your Lordships’ House before, having previously been a Minister with responsibility for CBRN. In how many of our public services is training provided, and is funding being provided for the equipment, given the previous cuts?

Finally, I emphasise our gratitude for the work of our public servants and recognise the pressures we have seen on our health service staff, emergency services, the police and the security service in their ongoing work. They are not just dealing with this incident and the fallout from it; they are looking at ongoing threats from many different sources and they need our support, not just our words—and our response to their need for resources.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I would like to thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement, which demonstrates what excellent work the police and security services can achieve when working together. They deserve our heartfelt congratulations for identifying the perpetrators of this terrible crime. Sadly, I suspect that identifying the perpetrators will prove to be the easy bit. The question is: what happens next? Central to the Government’s response is issuing a European arrest warrant. I would like to echo the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about the future of this vital component of our crime-fighting armoury. The Government’s White Paper on the future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union recognised the importance of the European arrest warrant. On maintaining our ability to access the warrant, it says:

“The UK recognises that being a third country creates some challenges for the full operation of the EAW as it stands, particularly in terms of the constitutional barriers in some member states to the extradition of their own nationals. The withdrawal agreement will address this issue as part of the implementation period”.


Could the Leader of the House explain exactly how the Government plan to achieve this, and what progress has been made since the publication of the White Paper?

The Statement also contains two further proposals for EU co-operation. It says:

“We will continue to press for all of the measures agreed so far to be fully implemented, including the creation of a new EU chemical weapons sanctions regime”.


It goes on to say that,

“we will not stop there. We will also push for new EU sanctions regimes against those responsible for cyber-attacks and gross human rights violations”.

But how credible is it for the British Government, at this point, to go into a meeting in Brussels and say, “We actually think it’s crucially important that we have this new sanctions regime. Will you please do it? Oh, and by the way, we are then leaving you to it”? We have just passed legislation to set up our own sanctions and anti-money laundering regimes explicitly because we will not be part of these mechanisms, which the Government are here lauding as crucially important. How will the Government square that circle to make sure that we benefit from common European sanctions?

The response of our European partners to the Salisbury attacks, as the Government have said, has been truly extraordinary. I was in Estonia last week. It is a very small country which abuts Russia. Their Prime Minister, after literally years of delicate negotiations, had arranged to make a cultural visit to Estonian communities in Russia. Immediately after the Salisbury attack took place, he cancelled it. This is a big deal for them, but he did it in support of us. I think the question has to be raised about the extent to which we can expect members of the EU to show that kind of major solidarity, at a time when they feel sad, frustrated and neglected because of our actions in respect of Brexit.

The key question, however, concerning the European arrest warrant or anything else, is: how can we seek effectively to stop such attacks taking place in future? It is not credible to expect that we will get these two characters, whatever their real names are, in front of a British court. Obviously, there are no easy answers but I have two questions for the Leader of the House about specific action. First, is there any scope for the charge of conspiracy to be brought against individuals higher up in the GRU who must have given the orders, if intelligence suggests who those individuals might be?

Secondly, more generally and more likely to be effective—arguably, the most effective of all—is to look at attacking, if we can, those Russian oligarchs whom we know to be cronies of the Russian regime and who have put their money here in London. The Government talk of radically stepped-up activity in this area, but can the Leader of the House tell us what that radical stepping up means, how many unexplained wealth orders have so far been issued and how many she believes the Government could issue in the near future? If we are to be successful in stopping such attacks in future, we have to hit the Russian regime where it hurts: in the pockets of the people who benefit the most from it. This must be a key component of the Government’s strategy. How confident is the Leader of the House that the Government have got a grip on that?

NATO Brussels Summit 2018

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 16th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Death of a Member: Lord Carrington

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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


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

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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


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

Exiting the EU

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 9th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

“A week is a long time in politics”.


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

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

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

“strong and stable government in the national interest”,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Could the noble Baroness provide clarity on this specific point?

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

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

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

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“to travel to each other’s territories”—

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

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

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

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

European Council

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 2nd July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“first, second and third priority”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 18th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this is the first of the Motions before us today. In addressing it, I will briefly reflect on the role that your Lordships’ House played in consideration of this Bill, and, for the avoidance of any doubt, our approach to today’s business.

Despite attracting perhaps a little more excitement, this is the same procedure that we have for every legislative Bill that comes before your Lordships’ House. I have said before that the process of Brexit cannot be left to those who have no doubt. It is only through consideration and challenge that we get better, if not the best, outcomes for any legislation. This Bill came to us deeply flawed and divisive. Together as a House, we approached it thoughtfully and diligently. We have had some long days and some long nights in Committee and on Report. We are grateful to those Government Ministers across departments who have been willing to engage on some of the less controversial but equally important issues.

Of around 200 amendments passed, 15 did not enjoy the full or initial support of the Government. Of these, one was totally accepted on agencies and another largely accepted, with minor changes, on Northern Ireland. Eight were rejected, although on some of these enhanced protections for EU-derived protections the Government have since made further concessions, or, in the case of sifting, reinstated earlier amendments. Five have been replaced with amendments in lieu. We will consider these today, including the one we are talking about now on the customs union and the publication of primary legislation to enforce environmental protections.

We are grateful to the Government for their consideration and acceptance of so many of the points raised in your Lordships’ House. Even before the Bill returned to the other place, significant changes were made on a range of issues, including removing the power to levy taxes or establish new public authorities by statutory instrument, which is particularly important for the new environmental enforcement body; additional explanatory statements and reports to Parliament; the introduction of sunset clauses on some issues; the prevention of the repeal or amendment of devolution clauses by secondary legislation and significant amendments in your Lordships’ House on devolution provisions; and clearer guidance for courts and tribunals relating to future decisions of the CJEU. Importantly, we have seen the removal of a clause that I had never seen before in legislation; that is, one giving a Minister the ability to amend the Bill via an SI. That has gone.

Despite disappointment at the rejection of some Lords amendments, this legislation is better for the work that we have undertaken. We have not exceeded our defined and limited role, but we have used our remit to provide for greater consideration, further reflection and meaningful changes. As the Leader of the House has said previously, reinforced by Ministers in the other place, there is no legislation that does not benefit from scrutiny in your Lordships’ House.

We understand that in a democracy this can be both an asset and, at times, a source of frustration to government. Canadians describe their second Chamber as a Chamber of sober second thought—a further opportunity to think things through and fine-tune legislation. That makes the outbursts of some pro-Brexit MPs all the more ridiculous. As we discuss these final amendments from the House of Commons, we have seen a fair bit of sabre-rattling from some of the most enthusiastic Brexiteers and supporters. Inaccurate and misleading press headlines such as “Enemies of the People” and “Saboteurs” may add excitement and drama, but they do nothing to improve the quality of debate or journalistic integrity.

We have also heard calls for this House to be abolished, to be replaced with a committee of experts or an elected House. I know that many hold honourable and genuine positions on different kinds of reform, but to base a case for fundamental change to and abolition of the current system on disagreement on a Bill shows poor judgment. In response to proposals for an elected House or House of experts, I suggest that such a House might not be quite so compliant in accepting the primacy of the House of Commons.

Today, our role is very clear. This House does not and should not engage in ping-pong lightly or without thought. The process of ping-pong is not to challenge the elected House, but to provide an opportunity. Where matters are clearly and obviously unresolved in the House of Commons, that is where they should be dealt with. The reported disagreement since Friday between the Government and their own MPs is not one we should seek to intervene in, other than to provide an opportunity for MPs’ consideration, and it can be resolved only by those elected to the House of Commons.

Lords Amendments 1 and 2 on a customs union have been returned to this House with, in effect, just one amendment, changing “customs union” to “customs arrangement”. This is unnecessary, but I understand why the Government have done it. It is because the Government do not yet know, even today, what they want. Currently, they have two work streams: a customs partnership and maximum facilitation. However, when the Dutch Government are advising their manufacturing industry not to buy car components from the UK because our future customs relationship with the EU is unclear, we know that there is a problem that needs to be addressed urgently. As a result of the amendment from your Lordships’ House, the Government are now committed to return to Parliament in just over four months, by the end of October this year, with a Written Statement on what they have done and how they will proceed. I do not now feel that this is an issue that we should return to the other place.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I associate myself with much of what the noble Baroness has said about the role of your Lordships’ House. The role played by the Lords on this Bill has been completely in line with constitutional precedent. We indeed defeated the Government 15 times, but the Government used the Lords stages of the Bill to introduce more than 150 amendments of their own, including extremely important ones on devolution. That is because they recognised that your Lordships’ House was indeed the place in which the Bill could be improved.

Of the 15 amendments we passed, as the noble Baroness said, the Government have accepted almost half, either in whole or in part. This is not, incidentally, something that one would gather by reading the popular press. The Government have also chosen to use this stage of the Bill to introduce an amendment of their own in an attempt, possibly unsuccessful, to resolve the “meaningful vote” issue. They clearly recognise that the Lords has a vital part to play in improving legislation, even at ping-pong stage, and they are sensibly seeking to do so in this case.

G7: Charlevoix, Quebec

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 11th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


He went on:

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


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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 25th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Chief Whip. It is a very wise and sensible move to have a dinner break during long proceedings—but I am not very hungry yet, and I suspect that other noble Lords might have had a late lunch as well. I appreciate that there is a Motion on the table and I am grateful for his suggestion of a dinner break. I assume that the next group of amendments would take us to around 7.30 pm, which would be a more appropriate time for a break. If he insists on putting this proposition to the House, I would ask noble Lords not to support the Government.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, just said. It is 6.40 pm. It would be unprecedented to break for dinner at this time. I do not suggest that there is anything other than concern for your Lordships’ stomachs in the mind of the Government Chief Whip, but I ask him to reconsider whether he wishes to put this matter to a vote.

Syria

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 16th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

House of Lords: Allowance

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

European Council

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 26th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


that is, the border down the Irish Sea—

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

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

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

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

The Prime Minister concludes:

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


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

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

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

Tributes: Lord Richard

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Tuesday 20th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

Salisbury Incident

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Newby (LD)]

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

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

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

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

Secondly, the Government plan to,

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

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

Thirdly, the Government plan to,

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

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

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

Salisbury Incident Update

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 12th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement and I join her and, I am sure, the whole House, in paying tribute to the dedication and bravery of our emergency services and Armed Forces who are responding to this incident. Our thoughts remain with Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey and his family at a stressful and worrying time for them, and we wish him a full recovery. This is a deeply shocking attack which we agree was reckless in its disregard for the lives of UK citizens, as well as a direct attack on Sergei and Yulia Skripal. We commend members of the public in Salisbury who have assisted the investigation. We have to understand the emotional impact on the residents of Salisbury.

The noble Baroness is right that this investigation must be led by evidence, not by speculation. However, she has now been clear about the facts known so far and the evidence that links this attack to Russia, whether government or rogue. I am grateful for the details of the Government’s follow-up engagement with the Russian embassy in the UK, and I welcome the Minister’s agreement to update Parliament on the Russian ambassador’s response as a matter of urgency after he has responded by tomorrow evening. Can she give the House an assurance that this will be discussed in Cabinet and that the response will be formulated before it is brought to your Lordships’ House? We welcome the assurance that a full range of measures will be brought to your Lordships’ House.

The implications of this attack are international and national but they are also very local. Are the Government confident that members of the public have been given all the information they need to cope with this incident in a timely manner? Have all the relevant authorities responded quickly enough in offering help and advice to people in the area? Following the incident, the Chief Medical Officer told the community in Salisbury that there was a low risk to the public. It was not until a week after the attack, on Sunday 11 March, that possibly affected members of the public were told that, although the risk remained low, there were actions they should take for their own safety. They include washing clothes as normal in a washing machine. However, clothes that cannot be washed are apparently safe to handle but must be covered and sealed inside two plastic bags and safely stored. For other personal items, such as mobile phones, the instructions say that a wipe down with a baby wipe is adequate. At the moment at which reassurance is needed, the information that is reaching the public has been delayed and, at times, contradictory. We are told that staff working in the Zizzi restaurant on the date of the attack were told to destroy any clothes they were wearing and visit their doctor for a health check. Can the noble Baroness tell the House when staff were informed that that should be their course of action? Why were they told to do that when members of the public in the same restaurant and bar were not told at the same time? We also know that the table at which Mr Skripal and his daughter ate has been destroyed. Are the investigators aware of whether any other members of the public sat at the table in the hours immediately afterwards? If so, have they been identified and contacted?

The Public Health England guidance for those who visited either the restaurant or The Mill pub states:

“You do not need to seek advice from a health professional unless you are experiencing symptoms”,


but it does not give any information on the symptoms to look out for. Would they be respiratory symptoms or a skin rash? A little more information might be helpful for members of the public who are concerned and do not know whether they have symptoms.

The former Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, has today said there has been quite a long delay, and his experience led him to state that health chiefs should have set up an emergency health centre and a helpline. The public are entitled to more open, specific information rather than general reassurances. Although the risk remains low, members of the public need to be confident that they have all the information they need and know exactly what they are required to do to be safe. Do the Government have any plans to set up a public helpline as the investigation continues?

The former commander of the Joint Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Regiment—the CBRN regiment—which specialised in detecting chemical weapons, has said that it is important to be more open about what the city is facing. Taking a step back and looking further into the future regarding our response to this deeply disturbing attack, he has also raised the point that the CBRN regiment was disbanded in 2011 as part of a cost-cutting defence review. Will the noble Baroness consider whether that decision should be revisited? Can she update the House on what plans the Government have to ensure our Armed Forces are properly resourced and prepared for such attacks?

It is important that the emergency services work together and are fully briefed, trained and equipped. The fire and rescue service is responsible for decontamination. When was the guidance for dealing with CBRN last updated? I could not find anything on the government website since 2012, and issues have changed since then. Can the noble Baroness say whether the funding has kept pace with the threat, and whether it has increased or decreased since 2010? I am happy for her to write to me on those points.

Finally, the sanctions Bill that passed through your Lordships’ House with some amendments is now in the House of Commons, which has the opportunity to support the amendments on the Magnitsky clause. It targets sanctions against individuals who abuse human rights. Will the Government reconsider their opposition to that clause as it may well be appropriate when we are dealing with issues such as these?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in echoing the views of the Prime Minister about the bravery of the emergency services. Like her, our thoughts are also with Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, and we wish him a speedy recovery.

Although the emergency services are well rehearsed in dealing with chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents, that is primarily aimed at dealing with terrorist attacks, such as happened on the Tube. This is a very different sort of case and I wonder whether the Government will now consider giving revised guidance to first responders who might find themselves, out of the blue, dealing with a case like this, which at first sight is not necessarily a terrorist attack. In this case the effect on the first responder has clearly been very significant.

The Prime Minister says that there are hundreds of detectives working on the case. Given that police numbers are at their lowest for 30 years, could the Minister explain where these hundreds of detectives have come from? Are she and the Government satisfied that in drawing hundreds of detectives from elsewhere, they have not left unacceptable gaps in those parts from which they have come? When my noble friend Lord Paddick, commenting on this incident last week, asked the Home Office Minister about police resourcing, he was told that the police had the numbers “and more” to do the job they have to do. This flies in the face of the National Police Chiefs Council statement in December that the Budget settlement,

“does not fully meet the level of investment that we identified as necessary”.

I know there is not long to go, but can the Minister have a word with her friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and suggest that, when he makes his Statement this week, he reassures the House and the country that he is making available the level of resource required for the police numbers to be there to do the job they are absolutely required to do.

The Statement explains the steps that were taken after Mr Litvinenko’s death to prevent repetition of such an event. It is very tempting to say simply that they have not been very effective in this case. What is slightly more worrying, however, is that there have been suggestions from US intelligence sources and elsewhere that the UK Government have not been particularly rigorous in implementing those measures because of the levels of investment by Russians in London and elsewhere. I hope the Leader of the House can reassure me that that is not the case.

The Statement goes on to talk about international collaboration against Russian expansionism and unsatisfactory behaviour of various sorts via NATO. Yet the kind of sanctions that we are talking about here are nothing to do with NATO. We are not talking about putting up tanks against the Russian border; we are talking about targeted sanctions against individuals and companies. The way we co-ordinate that is through the EU. That is what we have been discussing with the recent Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill: how on earth we manage to have proper co-ordination going forward. It is rather typical of the attitude of this Government that they talk about NATO, which is almost entirely irrelevant to this incident, but fail to mention at all the EU, which is absolutely germane if we are to get a co-ordinated European response.

The Government say that we must now stand ready to take more extensive measures. I am sure they will have the support of the whole House if they come forward with credible measures to respond to this outrage and potential future threats. But we will be looking very carefully to ensure that any such measures are properly resourced and carried forward with a degree of energy and commitment that has not always and obviously been the case in the past.

United Kingdom-European Union Future Economic Partnership

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 5th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It seems that the Prime Minister is trying to create an optimistic, upbeat tone to quell the fears of those who are concerned about negotiations, so first I welcome the greater degree of candour from the Prime Minister. While others around her told us how easy it was going to be to leave the EU, she has admitted that it is complex, difficult and uncertain. She was clear that we have to face up to some hard facts, that life is going to be different and that our access to each other’s markets will be less than it is now. Her honesty recognised that we will not be allowed to have all the benefits without all the obligations, which is a far cry from Ministers telling us that we would have the exact same benefits. She also admitted that even after we have left the EU we will still be affected by decisions of the ECJ and that to ensure good access to each other’s markets,

“we must accept the need for binding commitments”,

and she accepted the principle of regulatory alignment in some areas. She has also accepted that in these negotiations neither of us can have “exactly what we want”. These statements are welcome in recognising the harsh reality of what has to be achieved with so little time left.

The Prime Minister has regularly stated her red lines—no single market, no customs union and no role for the ECJ—which we have consistently said she was unwise to use as a starting point for negotiations, yet some of those red lines are now looking distinctly pink.

On Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister said more about this in her Friday speech than in her Statement today, but it still seems to me, and others, that there is an inherent contradiction at the heart of the Government’s commitment that there will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland while they remain opposed to any form of customs union. We were relieved to hear the Prime Minister reject the Foreign Secretary’s assertion in his private memo to her that it is not the responsibility of the UK to resolve the Irish border issue. The Prime Minister was absolutely clear on Friday that it is her Government’s responsibility to resolve this issue. She spoke of her personal commitment and said she recognised the anxieties caused by Brexit and the “desire for concrete solutions”. It is not a desire; it is a necessity, and it is fast becoming an urgent one. If the Government really believe that this issue can be resolved without any form of customs union, they need to start telling us how and to do so soon. The Prime Minister remains resolute against a customs union, but she is seeking a customs arrangement or a customs partnership, so we look forward to hearing more details about the “not a customs union” as negotiations continue.

The Prime Minister has also recognised that some of her early red lines have had to fade. We appreciate her acceptance of the necessity to remain in at least some of the EU agencies, even as an associate member. The Prime Minister identified the European Medicines Agency, the European Chemicals Agency and the European Aviation Safety Agency as being critical. We agree with that description. Many of us are bitterly disappointed that given the importance of the European Medicines Agency, the UK is losing it. Have there already been exploratory discussions with the EU on the principle of remaining, in whatever capacity, in these agencies? Are the Government prepared to negotiate similar arrangements for other agencies? Does the Minister accept that this may well mean a continuing role for the ECJ in the UK? Before she answers, it may help if I tell her that at the weekend, when I did a radio debate with Jacob Rees-Mogg, he described this as “perfectly sensible”. The Minister will be aware that we were a member of Euratom before we joined the EU. She will have heard the debate on Euratom last week in your Lordships’ House. We have now had the Prime Minister’s comment that she wants a “close relationship” with Euratom. Can the Minister tell us what that means? The Prime Minister has not gone as far as she has on the agencies, where she wants associate membership, but she talked about a close relationship. This is also a critical agency for the UK.

In the same way that there has been an evidence-based shift on the position regarding the agencies and the role of the ECJ, the Government have to recognise that if they are genuinely serious about the Northern Ireland border, they need to look at it without unrealistic and unnecessary red lines. We are clear that remaining in a customs union is the best way to deliver the frictionless trade the Prime Minister wants. For Northern Ireland, that means no customs duties or checks at the border. It means no checks for transporters, food, animal hygiene and so on. It will resolve the issue.

I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister says that Brexit is not an end in itself, yet in a further contradiction she has repeated that no deal is better than a bad deal. Surely both statements cannot be true.

Finally, on Saturday morning I was very fortunate to enjoy the company of the political editor of the Sun, Tom Newton Dunn, as he hosted “The Week in Westminster” with two MPs, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Sarah Wollaston, and me. Perhaps that is where the Prime Minister’s biggest achievement was evident because with such divergent views, they both supported the content of the speech. Indeed, Jacob Rees-Mogg admitted that it was “very encouraging for the unity of the Conservative Party”. So much of the Brexit journey has been about internal Conservative Party management. As we have heard, that canny blend of “We’re leaving the EU” with some red lines becoming pink smudges or fudges just might buy the Prime Minister some time. She said that all negotiations are about cherry picking on all sides. Michel Barnier has welcomed her acceptance that negotiations require trade-offs. Perhaps the Prime Minister has finally accepted that negotiations must be less about red lines and more about a pragmatic Brexit.

The noble Baroness knows from our previous discussions that we welcome a pragmatic approach, in the interests of the economy, of jobs, and of maintaining rights and standards. As part of that, I hope she will be able to confirm that she understands that it becomes even more crucial that Parliament has not just a meaningful vote but an ongoing meaningful role.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister has set five overarching tests for a successful Brexit. Three are simply vacuous: respecting the referendum, being enduring and being consistent with the kind of country we want to be. Two are more substantive, but both are being actively undermined by the Government’s own Brexit stance.

The first is protecting people’s jobs and security. Has the Prime Minister given any thought to how that sounds to the 300 Ryanair workers at Glasgow Airport as the company closes its international base there, on the basis of Brexit, to the 288 workers at Landis+Gyr in Stockport as it moves its production to Romania, or to the small businesses which have contacted me explaining how leaving the customs union and single market will impose costs on them that will force them out of business? The Statement contains some welcome shafts of realism, none more so than the statement that our access to EU markets will be less than now. Does the noble Baroness the Leader accept that less access means less trade, which in turn means fewer jobs, lower national income and higher prices?

The second substantive test set by the Prime Minister is that Brexit must strengthen,

“our union of nations and our union of people”.

Leaving aside the impasse in discussions with the devolved institutions about the transposition of EU law, how does the noble Baroness think that sounds in Northern Ireland? The Prime Minister has come up with absolutely nothing new to reassure people that there will be no customs border between the north and the Republic. Of the options on the table, one simply says that SMEs, which represent 80% of trade, can carry on as if the border did not exist. How could that possibly work if standards diverge or if the UK strikes its own trade deals with different tariffs from those applying in the EU? This is the only example I know of where the Government’s policy is indeed bold and imaginative—but it is hardly credible.

As for the technological solution to the border, does the noble Baroness agree with Pascal Lamy that there is no such thing as a virtual border? Does she agree with the report, much touted by Brexiteers, from Lars Karlsson, which explains on page 11 that, on the highest tech option he can see, an app on a mobile phone of a lorry driver “opens the gate automatically” as the lorry approaches the border—that is, a gate, a physical thing, not a virtual border. Has she read his description of the Norway/Sweden border, the most technologically advanced in the world according to him, where at staffed customs posts most goods traffic is cleared “within 3-9 minutes”? There is no soft border there either.

The Prime Minister refers briefly to our being able, in theory, to negotiate new trade agreements after Brexit. When she rang Donald Trump over the weekend to complain about his plan to slap a punitive tariff on UK steel, did she ask him how that fitted into a comprehensive free trade deal? Did she consider that in fighting any US steel tariff, the EU as a whole was likely to have a bit more clout than the UK on its own?

More generally, the speech sets out a range of areas where the Government plan to follow EU rules but pay for the privilege and lose any say in how they are set. Having associate membership of various EU bodies is better than nothing, but in reality we become rule-takers. On the trade in goods, the PM admits that we will have to follow standards “substantially similar”—that is, as near as makes no difference to identical—to those set by the EU.

The rationale for becoming rule-takers instead of rule-makers is that Parliament retains the right to diverge from the EU rules if it chooses. But the speech demonstrates how in practice it will not dare do so because of the damage it would cause to business and the economy. The Prime Minister wants to exchange the reality of influence for the pretence of sovereignty—and what is worse, she clearly accepts that it is a pretence.

The Government are going through extraordinary contortions of both policy and language to try to replicate as far as possible the existing terms of our EU membership. It all begs the question, “Is it worth it?”—and invites the response, “No”.

Black Rod

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Tuesday 20th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has provided a very rounded picture of our outgoing Black Rod, Lieutenant General David Leakey. Like his predecessors, he brought his considerable military experience to Parliament and, as we have heard, he has used his logistical, management and diplomatic experience and skills to great effect, both in good times, for national celebratory events, and in very difficult times, when his diligent and considerate nature was greatly appreciated.

The role of Black Rod has changed over the years, and David’s time in office was one of significant change, particularly in relation to how Parliament manages the security of the estate and of those who work here. The noble Baroness the Leader was right to highlight his flexibility and professionalism in managing such change.

On a personal note, I was very grateful when David supported my campaign for a commemorative brass plaque to recognise the Westminster Hall lying-in-state of those killed in the R101 airship disaster of 1930. After two years’ of Questions and lobbying, finally, with David’s strong support, we were able to welcome the descendants of those who had died and lain in state to an unveiling service in Westminster Hall, where the new plaque is proudly on display—a missing piece of parliamentary history now recognised. Thank you, David.

One of my favourite stories about David was told to me by my noble friend Lord Collins. When he asked Black Rod whether it was compulsory for Peers’ spouses to wear tiaras at State Openings, he was told very firmly and succinctly, “Yes, of course”. “That’s good”, replied my noble friend Lord Collins, “my husband has just bought one”. David’s response is not recorded—it may have been a rare speechless moment—but no tiara was worn.

From men in tiaras to men in tights: the Leader mentioned that the collective memory of your Lordships’ House has been deeply affected by the sight of David on national television in just his long white shirt, quickly and I have to say rather expertly managing to pull on his ceremonial black tights. One day, feeling quite courageous, I summoned up the nerve to ask him why. How did the crew manage to get him to dress in front of the camera? Somewhat embarrassed, he replied that he had got so used to them following him around that, “I just forgot they were there”.

One of the highlights of the parliamentary calendar has to be the State Opening of Parliament, when TVs around the world show that slow parade from your Lordships’ House to the other end of the building, so that Black Rod can summon Members of the elected House to hear the Queen’s Speech. As 2017 brought an unexpected election, the Queen’s Speech unfortunately clashed with a previous commitment in the royal calendar—Ascot. In a full House of Commons, with such formal ceremony, it was a delight to watch David struggle to keep a straight face as Dennis Skinner quipped, “Get your skates on. First race is half past two”.

The Leader paid tribute to and thanked the Yeoman Usher, Brigadier Neil Baverstock, for stepping up as the acting Black Rod following David’s departure. On behalf of these Benches, I add our appreciation and thanks. Neil has served as Yeoman Usher in good and in difficult times, and his calmness under pressure alongside an easy, yet highly efficient manner has been greatly and warmly appreciated.

And now we move into a new era with our new Lady Usher of the Black Rod, Sarah Clarke. When Sarah first saw the newspaper advert, she knew that that she would have to demonstrate that her experience would enable her to fulfil the responsibilities of this position. Following her interviews, we were absolutely confident that she has the skills, the understanding and the personality to take on this role. Who knows, her Wimbledon experience could be very useful during any parliamentary ping-pong—although some things take more time. We warmly welcome her and look forward to working with her, although she may not appreciate the ping-pong joke.

The last word has to be for David Leakey. We wish him and Shelagh a long and enjoyable retirement.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I too welcome Sarah Clarke very warmly to the House. I and my colleagues look forward very much to working with her. I also express our thanks to Neil Baverstock for serving as acting Black Rod in the intervening weeks since David Leakey’s retirement. We are extremely grateful to him for filling this role with his customary professionalism.

David Leakey had an extremely distinguished career in the Army before he became Black Rod. One of his military roles was particularly useful preparation: from 2004 to 2007 he was commander of the European Union’s peacekeeping force in Bosnia and Herzegovina. His civilian opposite number was my colleague and noble friend Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, then the EU’s high representative. I doubt whether they saw their regular dealings in Bosnia as training for their eventual roles here, but in any event it clearly stood Black Rod, at least, in good stead. Being a professional peacekeeper would, I am sure, have proved extremely useful training because, in addition to the ceremonial roles played by Black Rod, sorting out disputes between Members of your Lordships’ House has traditionally been an important element in his work. I know from my own period as Chief Whip on these Benches that there were times when Black Rod had to deal with disputes between Peers, sometimes of an essentially trivial nature but of great importance to the Peers concerned. He did it with calm authority and due seriousness.

It takes much meticulous planning to ensure that the great ceremonial and state occasions referred to by the Leader of the House run smoothly and without a hitch. David approached all of these with great skill and care and ensured that they were all flawlessly executed time after time. We are all deeply grateful to David for his dedication to public service and this House. We on these Benches wish him and his wife extremely well in his retirement.

Working Group on Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Thursday 8th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement, and certainly welcome the general point she made at the beginning of her remarks about the intimidation and aggression shown towards anyone who seeks to become involved in public life and expresses a view that someone else does not like. People who involve themselves in public life should be celebrated, not denigrated.

I said in response to the repeat of the Urgent Question last year that this is a human and workplace issue. It cuts across parties and clearly the actions have to cut across the parties as well. We have a duty to address any issues robustly and find mechanisms for advice, making complaints, seeking support and taking action. We are all agreed that the workplace should be somewhere where every individual feels that they can give their best and no staff member or colleague should ever have to cope with or try to manage inappropriate behaviour. Further, no one should be frightened to speak up or make a complaint to do with any form of harassment, bullying or sexual intimidation.

I thank the committee for its work but I place on record because it is worth noting that, even during the time that this committee was working, leaks that were usually inaccurate were made to the press from the committee in an attempt to undermine its members. I know that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House had no responsibility for this—she was quite clear on that—but that one member of the committee should be targeted in national newspapers when everyone was trying to grapple with the problems and deal with them was something I found unacceptable. This was difficult and challenging to get right so I acknowledge, recognise and thank the committee for the care and commitment it and the staff who served it in its work showed in putting in place procedures and safeguards to deal with bullying, discrimination and sexual harassment at Westminster. It is an important first step, and we welcome the report.

At the outset, we called for the immediate establishment of an independent specialist adviser on sexual harassment and, although we would have preferred that to be done immediately, we welcome the fact that it is acknowledged in the report. We hope that the adviser will be put in place as soon as practicably possible. As the noble Baroness said, the scheme is to be underpinned by an advice service for MPs’ and Peers’ staff. I recognise that most Members of your Lordships’ House do not have staff but obviously, even if the numbers are far lower, the same principles and expectations of behaviour still apply. Can the noble Baroness confirm that as well as advice for the staff of MPs and Peers, advice on HR issues will be available for MPs and Peers themselves? That could help to avoid inadvertent mistakes or misunderstandings. I welcome her acknowledgement of the need for a comprehensive culture change, and providing advice for all Members could be very helpful in that.

This new scheme has been no small undertaking. As the noble Baroness said, it will cover approximately 15,000 people working across the Parliamentary Estate and it is hoped that in addition it will form part of any contracts let for the building programmes. I think what I am looking for is an assurance that it will involve anybody who is employed by anybody on the Parliamentary Estate because a number of workers are not employed by Parliament but by contractors, whether they are cleaning, catering or building staff. I hope that they will be included and thus will be able to have the same expectations of behaviour.

I will ask a couple of questions. One is on the possible sanctions. Understandably there is a lack of clarity in the report and more work to be done, but my question concerns what sanctions apply in what circumstances. Inappropriate behaviour of any kind ranges from the relatively mild to the very serious. I hope that the commission has been involved in this. Was there any discussion with the commissioner prior to the report coming forward on how the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges as well as the House of Lords Commission could be involved in this?

I will also ask something about the role of the commissioner. I appreciate that this is a Commons Statement and any references in it probably refer to the Commons commissioner, but it says that the commissioner’s role, which I took to be that of the Lords commissioner as well, would be “expanded and reformed”. Has what form that will take been discussed with the commissioner? Will resources be made available for that and will the time of the commissioner be made available? I am concerned about any delays. Having spoken to colleagues who have had issues considered by the commissioner in the past, I know that they can take a long time to resolve. If we are expecting more from the commissioner we should make sure that the resources are there for that work to be undertaken.

I also raise trade unions; I have raised this before. There should be trade union recognition by Parliament. I may have missed it in the report and I apologise if it is in there—I have not had time to read every word in detail. There has to be the opportunity for staff to raise concerns and grievances collectively, not just as individuals. I know that there have been some issues around the anonymity clause in here—that if somebody is reported for bad behaviour they should remain anonymous. It is worth emphasising that in the environment we work in, where there might be one or two people working to an individual MP or Peer, to identify the person being complained about often identifies the person complaining as well. I would be very concerned if that was a barrier to somebody bringing forward complaints. In this instance it is entirely justified.

I am grateful that the noble Baroness acknowledges that this is not the end of the process. There are timescales for the various work streams because there is still a large body of work to be undertaken. Could I have an assurance that this work will be undertaken speedily to try to put in place these recommendations? Having the recommendation is all well and good, but we need action. I hope a progress report can be made.

As I have raised before, I am still concerned about how the mandatory training of Members will be enforced and what sanctions there will be if that training does not take place, but it is right that training is available for Members of your Lordships’ House and to our staff on issues concerning consent, equalities and how to tackle bullying and harassment.

It is always worth saying that I am still of the view that, for most people, working on the Parliamentary Estate is a positive experience and one that they enjoy. Most of our Peers and MPs are good employers and they enjoy the relationship that they have with their staff, which is positive and productive. But that makes those who fall short of those standards even more culpable in many ways, because the culture should always be one of respect and one where we should aim for the highest possible standards. We have a duty as a Parliament to set the highest standards and, where people fall short of them, to ensure that it is dealt with appropriately.

There is still much to do to tackle pervasive prejudices and unacceptable behaviour. They must be tackled at every opportunity. This report is an important start, but we need to continue to work across parties to ensure that we provide the best possible working environment for everybody who works in the Palace of Westminster.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement and I thank even more the members of the working group who have worked very hard on an intensive programme to produce this report. I begin by associating myself with what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, just said about the behaviour that we see from the majority of people who are Members of or work in these institutions. That is what we would expect. But the report underlines—as if we needed telling—that not everybody meets those standards. The number of people who claim to have been the subject of sexual harassment or intimidation and bullying is shamefully high.

Any of us who have been around Parliament for any length of time are not totally surprised, because the abuse of power that it is possible to use as a Member of either the other place or here is pretty considerable. If we search our memory, all of us can think of people who have abused that power for a number of unsatisfactory purposes. It is very good to see that at the heart of these proposals there are sensible and comprehensive ways in which people can complain and have those complaints dealt with.

As I said when we discussed this before, underpinning all of this and more important than the complaints procedure is improving the culture of this place. The complaints procedure is dealing just with what happens when things go wrong. The key thing is to ensure that things do not go wrong to the extent that they have in the past. For this, the Code of Conduct is absolutely key. We have seen how the Code of Conduct of your Lordships’ House, which has been strengthened during my time here, has had a very significant impact on the way Members view their role and how they approach some potential conflicts of interest, for example.

The code and the importance attached to it are fundamental elements of these proposals. For example, I hope that all Members and members of staff will have to sign it in a somewhat formal way. In his last intervention in Parliament, Lord Callaghan wrote to the committee considering the Bill that was bringing together the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise. He said that he hoped that the new merged department would keep the oath that all members of the Inland Revenue had had to sign on joining the department. He told how, as a young man, having formally to sign something that said “I will keep taxpayers’ information confidential” and “I will be honest” had a profound impact on him. Although on one level it seems a small thing, formally getting people to sign something will be very important.

When things go wrong we have very sensible ways to start to deal with them, but like the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I question the role of the commissioner here. The Statement says the Commons commissioner will,

“have access to legal advice, and will be able to impose a new range of lower level sanctions that may include a written apology, mandatory training or future behaviour agreements”.

The idea of having future behaviour agreements for Members of your Lordships’ House rather appeals to me, but it is quite a change. If we are to do it—this will no doubt be one of the things that we will discuss in our debate after Easter—we will need to make sure that the commissioner here has a very clear remit and that all noble Lords and staff are absolutely clear what that remit is and how it should be exercised.

There is also a question for us as to which body will be reviewing this on a regular basis. The idea of having a six-month review is great, but which committee will have this formally in its remit? I suspect it is the House of Lords Commission but I am not absolutely sure. Some body here has to own this policy or it will not be properly implemented.

However, these are largely questions for the future. Today, we must simply welcome the Statement and the substantive work that underpins it and commit ourselves to do whatever we can to make sure it is properly implemented.

Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Thursday 21st December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for bringing forward the Statement. I realise that it has been an intensive work programme for members of the working party and we are grateful to them for the work they have undertaken. However, it is important that the deliberations of the working party are confidential. Obviously there is a great deal of public and press interest in the outcomes, but that is not necessarily the same as the interest in getting things right. They need space to be able to do that. The task that has been set is to ensure that good policies and practice are in place so that problems can be deterred and a proper course of action is available where something goes wrong and deterrence fails. Wide consultation on this is important. I understand that there are still those who are being consulted, which I welcome.

Your Lordships’ House is less well represented on the committee than is the other place—that is a comment not on the quality of the representation but on its number, I hasten to add—with the noble Baroness and the Convenor of the Cross Benches, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, representing us. I hope that that can be taken into account, with wider consultation of your Lordships’ House as the working party progresses.

I reiterate the point—I made it when we discussed this matter previously—that there is a need for this work to proceed without any undue delay, but there is that responsibility to consult, to engage and to ensure the workability of the proposals. We also need to be able to monitor the effectiveness of what the working party comes up with and seeks to implement. I also reiterate how essential it is that an independent and qualified sexual harassment adviser is in place as soon as possible—I think that everybody would agree with that; it does not need to wait for the outcome of the working party.

Someone who makes a complaint needs support in doing so. I noticed the comments in the report about rape and about advice being given, including if somebody chooses not to go to the police. It is worth noting that very few women who are subjected to rape have as a first point of call gone to the police. They need an adviser and support to be able to do that. Harassment in any form is not something that people come across very often. When they do, they need advice and support to be able to report it and the confidence to do so.

I also welcome the independent HR service for staff. I would advise all staff to be in a trade union. I hope that there will be consultation with all the trade unions which represent staff across the parliamentary estate. I appreciate that one trade union and a staff association are on the working party, but many other staff are represented by other trade unions and they should be consulted as well. Can the noble Baroness confirm that HR advice will be available also to those who are employers, ensuring that best practice is available to them?

Can the noble Baroness say something more about “voluntary and mandatory training”? If training is to be voluntary, I am not sure how we can be confident that we have in place people who are trained in the process and understand it. How will such training be delivered? I have heard a reference to e-training. Those of us who have had any responsibility in this House for fire training will know that it is not always as easy as it sounds to ensure that Members undertake appropriate training. How can that be done?

On the code of conduct, I hope that our own commissioner and committee on standards will be consulted on this policy prior to it going forward. The position of Peers is somewhat different from that of MPs. We would want to ensure that we were fully engaged. Can I have an assurance that our commissioner and committee will be consulted, particularly with reference to sanctions?

As a party, we have found that policies cannot be static on an issue such as this; they can always be refined and improved in light of experience. We have sought that confidence by taking the advice of an independent QC with experience in these issues. Will the working party ensure that Parliament does the same?

Getting this right is very important for the confidence of everybody on the Parliamentary Estate and those who wish to work here in the future, as well as for the confidence of the public in the institutions of Parliament. A flawed policy would be the worst possible outcome. There has to be a policy in place that has the confidence of those who may be thinking of making a complaint and those who may be complained against. It has to have the confidence of everybody to ensure that it is workable.

I welcome this interim Statement. We want to support the committee in its further work and engage in further consultation to ensure that we have a policy that is fit for purpose, a policy that will inspire the confidence not just of Parliament but of the public as well.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

I too thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, but more significantly for the work she is undertaking, along with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on the committee. I gather that the group has met 11 times so far and not all the meetings have been short. The members of the group have taken on a very significant commitment and we are very grateful for their work. I think they are finding that it is a lot more complicated than it looks, because of the plethora of employers and the different sorts of case that might arise. At one level it is relatively straightforward, although not totally straightforward, dealing with complaints that take place with a single employer, whether it is members of staff or members of an individual political party. The problem that arises here is when you have people involved from different areas—members of House staff and members of parties. This is why we are going to need a twin-track system in place under which the parties will retain disciplinary procedures but there is also an independent route for when a potential case of harassment involves a perpetrator and a victim from different parties. Getting that right is going to be extremely important.

I stress the importance in all of this of changing the culture of Parliament. It is vital, of course, that we put procedures in place to deal with cases that have occurred, but the main benefit of this whole process, we hope, will be to help to change the culture of Parliament. A number of proposals which are being worked up will help to achieve this: the behavioural code will help; the mandatory training will help, although I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that this must not be just e-training. I have tried three times this morning to complete the fire training, only to have the system block me. My response now is to question whether I am going to do it at all. In any event, there is inadequate assurance, in my mind, that people have got the message if they are just doing a cursory bit of e-training.

People need to understand that coming to work here requires a particular standard of behaviour, which at the moment, they clearly do not. The decision, for example, to close the sports and social club sends something of a message about the way we want people to behave, but that is only one of a range of things. My main plea to the noble Baroness as she and her colleagues continue their work into the new year is that we must put as much stress on the culture of the place, so that we have fewer of these incidents to worry about in future, as we do to making sure that the procedures for dealing with them are as good as they can be.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their comments. I shall keep my comments relatively brief because I am not sure how much longer my voice is going to hold out. Certainly, we want wide consultation. It is critical that we have everyone on the parliamentary estate brought into the new procedures, so I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that there will be further consultation. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and I have been giving a strong voice to your Lordships’ House in the committee. I accept that we are smaller in number than our colleagues in the other place, but of course we want to make sure that Peers are properly represented. There will be much further consultation to be done and quite a lot of this will be done in stages: some things can be done quite quickly but some things will take longer. There will be a lot of opportunity for other people to get involved as and when they can.

I certainly agree with the noble Baroness’s comments about the need for a new independent sexual violence advocate. Certainly, the majority of the evidence we have had from the experts is that many victims do not want to go to the police initially and they really do need support and help. That is absolutely critical and we are mindful of that. We are very keen to get that up and running as quickly as possible.

I want to stress how extremely valuable the staff representation on the group has been. We have had two unions represented—Unite and the NUJ, which is linked to the SNP—as well as MAPSA. They have been excellent in representing staff views and bringing them to us. They have undertaken surveys of members—

European Council

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 18th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. The past couple of weeks have been very eventful for the Government. The Prime Minister has travelled to Brussels three times. On the first occasion, she returned empty-handed because of her partners in the DUP. The second was a last-minute dash across the channel for breakfast with Barnier to save the deal that allowed for progress to phase 2. Now, on the third occasion, she returns home early as the UK once again has to sit out the second day of a major EU summit.

When the Prime Minister returned last week to make her Statement to Parliament, for one, brief, shining moment, her Cabinet was united. Some on the Tory Benches even found themselves echoing the warm words of EU figures such as Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker. We all paid tribute, quite rightly, to the Prime Minister’s tenacity in securing a sufficient-progress decision, first from the Commission and then from the European Council.

Unfortunately, the Cabinet unity was short lived and gave way to a weekend of unsanctioned briefings and policy proposals. Yet again, the Foreign Secretary used a newspaper interview to engage in an open conversation with the Prime Minister, with a warning that she should not seek to maintain full regulatory alignment with the EU to avoid the UK becoming what he described as “a vassal state”. The Environment Secretary suggested that the Tories should abandon their manifesto commitment to keep EU-derived employment and workers’ rights and scrap the vital protections contained in the working time directive. Such briefings from Cabinet members are not only unhelpful and undermine the Prime Minister and her Government, but could damage the UK’s wider interests.

Despite the positive news that EU leaders gave formal approval for the launch of phase 2 talks, the summit served as a reminder that, while we focus on our withdrawal from the EU, the EU is focusing on its own challenges and shaping its own future. Important discussions took place on co-ordinated efforts to stem illegal migration; the need to increase the resilience of the economic and monetary union; education and culture; and climate change. While Theresa May confirmed the UK’s intention to remain a part of Erasmus+ until 2020, the EU27 took decisions on the longer-term future of that programme and many others. The conclusions also feature important commitments to the implementation of the Paris agreement, the continuation of sanctions against Russia, and restating the agreed position on Jerusalem and a two-state solution. To give the Prime Minister credit, she has spoken out on these issues, but will the Leader tell the House whether President Trump has returned the Prime Minister’s call from last week? If he has, what discussions took place regarding Israel?

It is quite an irony that while Michael Gove prepared to launch his broadside on EU-derived workers’ rights, EU members committed to implementing the European pillar of social rights, accelerating important social initiatives already in progress at national and EU levels, and taking renewed action to tackle the gender pay gap. I suspect that the Prime Minister might have a particular interest in the last area, given last week’s revelations of a significant gender pay gap among special advisers at No. 10.

Returning to the Brexit negotiations, it is clear that the second phase will be challenging and needs good will and trust on all sides. In that respect, I repeat my comment from last week, to which I have already alluded: the Cabinet must stop freelancing and the Prime Minister must insist that her Ministers back her. David Davis’s mixed and contradictory messages last week were unhelpful. I hope that at the next Cabinet meeting, which I think is tomorrow, the Prime Minister will be able to ensure that all Cabinet members are prepared to accept the principle of collective responsibility and accountability, even during the upcoming Christmas Recess.

Tomorrow, the Cabinet discusses our future relationship with the EU. Perhaps because of deep divisions, it has taken 18 months for that discussion to take place. The clock is ticking down. It is clear that a transitional period will be possible only if there is high-level agreement on a future relationship that can be struck in the EU’s original timescale, but with phase 2 talks beginning shortly it is essential that these discussions are productive and that the Government can set out their end goal, engage with the public to explain it, urgently communicate it to the EU and remain committed to securing that outcome.

Assuming that consensus is achieved at tomorrow’s Cabinet meeting—that might be a big “if”—will the Minister confirm when the UK expects to communicate its detailed wish list to Parliament and to Michel Barnier’s team? The noble Baroness will understand why I raise this key point again: businesses are making decisions now about their future regarding location and employment issues. Will she confirm the terms that the UK is seeking for the transition period? In the light of the comments made from the EU side that it would not extend transitional arrangements to Gibraltar, will she confirm that the Government will challenge that position?

The noble Baroness referred to Northern Ireland in the Statement. What we have heard on Northern Ireland so far has been nothing beyond the aspirational. Will she tell us what practical considerations have been made and what decisions are being taken to ensure there is not a hard border, given the Government’s commitment to saying it cannot remain in the single market and the customs union? Some of us are struggling to understand how that can be achieved.

The Prime Minister’s very welcome commitment on Erasmus+ was in the context of only the current Budget. When can universities and students expect certainty on their ability to participate in the programme post-2020?

Last week, the noble Baroness disappointingly confirmed that the joint report does not cover onward movement of UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU but said that this would be revisited in phase 2 of the negotiations, yet today’s Statement refers to UK citizens’ rights being “protected”. Can she reflect on that? “Reciprocal agreement” implies equal status between citizens of the EU and citizens of the UK. However, a Commission memo published on 12 December suggests that UK citizens will have to rely on limited rights under the Blue Card directive or the ICT/students and researchers directives to settle in another member state. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could comment on this and give a definitive answer on whether the Government expect to maintain and secure full onward movement rights for UK citizens in the EU. If not, the Statement is possibly not being entirely accurate in saying that UK citizens’ rights will be fully protected.

The Prime Minister said in her Statement that until the UK withdraws from the EU, it continues to play a full role in meetings. Can the noble Baroness therefore say whether the Fisheries Minister, George Eustice, last week left the Agriculture and Fisheries Council early to attend votes in the Commons? If so, has there been any detrimental impact on the UK fishing fleet or has it lost out on access to any EU quotas as a result? Or did it really not make any difference?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, it is the time for end-of-term reports, and this Statement represents that of the Government in respect of Brexit. Like the assiduous student that she was, the Prime Minister has carefully presented her course work. She has one agreement to show for almost nine months of negotiations since the triggering of Article 50. It is in three parts. The Government have agreed to honour their financial commitments—good, but this was merely bowing to the inevitable. They have agreed to allow EU migrants to stay in the UK—good, but this principle was never seriously in contention. They have kicked the Northern Ireland problem down the road—bad, but given the fundamental incompatibility contained in the Government’s position, this is an inevitable delay until or unless the Government work out what they want their trading relationship with the EU to be.

In terms of legislation, we are to have at least eight Brexit Bills and 1,000 statutory instruments before March 2019, and in reality many of these will be needed well before then. Yet not a single piece of primary legislation, far less a single statutory instrument, has been enacted and no Brexit-related Bill has even completed its passage through a single House. It is extremely difficult to see how the Government plan to get all this legislation through in a timely manner, but given the importance of the subject matter, can the Leader of the House give us an assurance that the Government will produce their proposals in time for both Houses to deal with them properly and within the normal conventions on timetabling?

As far as the future trading relationship is concerned, and indeed on a host of other issues, including the Government’s attitude to ongoing migration to and from the EU, it is pointless pressing the Leader on the Government’s attitude because they literally have no policy. Can she, however, confirm that last week’s agreement means that Northern Ireland citizens who retain their EU citizenship will have more rights than other UK citizens? If, as I believe, this is so, it will be deeply offensive to many people. Given that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said to your Lordships’ House last Monday that,

“we are not ruling out”—[Official Report, 11/12/17; col. 1368.]

UK nationals retaining EU citizenship, will the Government now positively propose to the EU that UK citizens will be able to retain their EU citizenship so that the majority of us are not reduced to second-class status in comparison with our Northern Ireland compatriots? Given that when the Government do eventually adopt a policy on our future trading relationship with the EU this will be of fundamental importance to the Brexit negotiations, and indeed the country’s position going forward, will the Leader of the House give an assurance that both Houses of Parliament will be able to have a full debate and vote on the Government’s proposals before they are transmitted to the EU? Would not anything less be inconsistent with Parliament taking back control?

In order that people at large might have a clearer understanding of the consequences of Brexit for the economy, will the Leader now seek to persuade the Prime Minister and the Brexit Secretary to publish the infamous sectoral reports? They contain nothing which is commercially sensitive or could jeopardise our negotiating position and there is no reason why everyone should not be able to see them. The current arrangements for parliamentarians to see them are disproportionately restrictive and should in any event be relaxed, but the documents should simply become publicly available. The only conclusion one can draw from the Government’s current approach is that they do not want people to see how complicated Brexit will be in practice or to understand the depth and beneficial nature of our current economic relationships with the EU.

Finally, will the noble Baroness confirm the estimate in today’s Financial Times that Brexit is already costing, not benefiting, the UK some £340 million a week, as a result of lower growth which has flowed from the referendum result? It is very tempting at this stage of the term to give the Government an overall mark for their term’s work, but I fear that that would be embarrassing. I simply pose the question asked by many a frustrated and disappointed supervisor: “Don’t you think it would be better if you took another course?”.

Brexit Negotiations

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 11th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I listened with interest when she said that there was now a new sense of optimism, because, if ever the term “political rollercoaster” was apt, it has to be now.

We welcome an agreement that—subject to this week’s European Council—allows the UK to proceed to the next stage of these talks, allowing exploration of what the future relationship will look like and providing certainty about how our exit will impact individuals, consumers and businesses. It is important now for negotiators not to have their hands tied by unhelpful and ephemeral red lines, but to keep options on the table. Swift progress on a time-limited transition, rather than implementation, is essential. We have always said that these negotiations are complex. On both sides, integrity and honourable behaviour are essential, as is competence. The Government must be serious in both intent and actions—and that is all the Government, not just some Ministers. There can be no freelancing on this and the Prime Minister has the right to insist that her Ministers back her.

Last week, many of us cleared our diaries for Tuesday in expectation of a Statement regarding an agreement on a deal with the EU that would allow us to progress to the second crucial phase of the Brexit negotiations. On Monday evening, it became clear, in the most spectacularly embarrassing way, that such optimism was misplaced, as the Prime Minister’s DUP colleagues who keep her in government would not support the arrangements. It is hard to understand how such a humiliating failure could have been allowed to happen. But then, after renewed and long, intensive discussions by the Prime Minister and her team, it was finally announced that the Government had reached agreement with the EU to move to phase 2. We welcome the fact that talks will move on. However, there is a fear that this seems to be unravelling quicker than a hand-knitted Christmas jumper.

Can the noble Baroness confirm the status of the agreement that has been reached? Yesterday the Brexit Secretary, David Davis, said that the agreement was not legally binding unless there was a final deal and that it was instead a mere statement of intent. Today, however, he said that the agreement is a legal guarantee that will be honoured whatever the outcome. Which is correct?

Is this agreement conditional or not? In all three areas—the honouring of obligations through the financial settlement, on citizens’ rights and the border with Ireland—there needs to be clarity on whether there is a genuine, lasting agreement or a possible agreement dependent on the next stage of negotiations and our future relationship with the EU 27. That has to be made crystal clear so that there can be no misunderstanding at any time. In her response the noble Baroness may find it useful to clarify the implications for this agreement of the phrase:

“In the absence of agreed solutions”,


in paragraphs 49 and 50 of the joint report with regard to the border with the Republic of Ireland.

Given that the European Council has yet to formally accept the Commission’s recommendations, does the noble Baroness consider that the comments by David Davis will help or hinder in future negotiations? Even today he confessed on the radio that, “I don’t have to be very clever. I don’t have to know that much. I do just have to be calm”. That does not seem to be a great strategy for proceeding. Across the country many businesses do not feel at all calm. They need certainty to plan for their future, and the Government have a duty to provide such certainty. Given that the Brexit Secretary is all over the place and hardly a safe pair of hands, can I seek assurances that there is now ongoing engagement with the European Parliament given its role in advising the Commission and the Council, and its power of veto on the withdrawal agreement?

The Prime Minister previously declined an invitation to address the European Parliament and recently had her session with its Conference of Presidents cancelled at the last minute due to political group presidents being unable to find diary space. Can the noble Baroness indicate whether the Prime Minister has scheduled a new meeting with representatives of the European Parliament given the importance of engaging with them? To return to a point made earlier, does the noble Baroness also agree that when continuing such negotiations it is unwise to set unrealistic red lines?

The Commission’s communication to the European Council notes that “significant divergences remain” on future governance and enforcement and, specifically on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, it questions the agreement regarding the border. On page 9 it says that the intention to avoid a hard border,

“seems hard to reconcile with the United Kingdom’s communicated decision to leave the internal market and the Customs Union”.

I heard what the noble Baroness said regarding Northern Ireland. Can she tell us whether this is a commitment, an agreement or merely a statement of intent?

The Government’s future partnership paper outlined a number of potential dispute settlement methods without committing to or endorsing any of them. Can the noble Baroness tell us when we can expect the Government to commit to a specific approach?

On citizens’ rights, both the joint report and the Prime Minister’s open letter to EU citizens earlier today leave many questions unanswered. For example, when will this new independent national authority—I have never heard of it before—be created, and will separate primary legislation be required? It was not mentioned in the previous Queen’s Speech. Clearly, there has been some consideration of its role; how much will it cost? The noble Baroness spoke of significant amounts of money coming back to the UK that would not be spent in Europe, and I recall that significant financial savings of £350 million a week would be made available to the National Health Service. Can she tell us specifically how much of that will be spent on this new agency or authority?

The Prime Minister’s Statement talks of,

“a fair and reciprocal deal that will guarantee the rights of more than 3 million EU citizens living in the UK and 1 million UK nationals living in the EU so they can carry on living their lives as before”.

Can the noble Baroness confirm whether this is absolutely accurate? The joint report makes no reference to preserving the ability of UK citizens living in the EU 27 to continue moving freely between those countries. For example, will a UK citizen working for a company in Frankfurt with offices based in Milan and Paris still be able to be posted to any of those offices to live and work or will it just apply to the country that they live in now?

Finally, in my lifetime there has been no more important negotiations for the future of this country than these. We need wisdom and thoughtfulness, not just wishful thinking. Take the events of the last week or so, particularly those over the weekend. Not only do they not inspire confidence for British business and in Parliament but, equally seriously, they may damage our reputation and standing with the other EU countries. When the noble Baroness is sitting round the Cabinet table with her colleagues later this coming week, will she read the riot act to squabbling, inconsistent Ministers? It is not just themselves and their party that they are damaging but the national interest.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I begin by congratulating the Prime Minister on an achievement which many —including many of her colleagues—thought was impossible. She has survived to fight another day and on that she is to be congratulated. The deal she struck last week, however, is not the stuff of congratulations. Before we look at it, can the Leader of the House confirm its status, to take up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith? Is it a mere “statement of intent”, which the Brexit Secretary believed it to be yesterday, or “more than legally enforceable”, which he believes this morning? Or does its status change with the Secretary of State’s mood?

There are three main pillars of the deal, and the first is citizens’ rights. Friday’s agreement confirms that there will be no certainty until any final deal is reached, leaving EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU as continuing bargaining chips. How then can the Prime Minister claim that this is her top priority? This uncertainty is compounded by the provision that all 3 million EU citizens in the UK will then have two years to submit applications for registration. Until these applications are satisfactorily processed, their status will be unconfirmed. Can the Government give the 3 million any assurances as to when they hope to complete the registration process? A charge is payable also by those who currently do not have permanent residency. How much will that charge be and how many people do the Government estimate will have to pay it?

On the financial settlement, the Government argue that the payment will be up to £40 billion. Can the Leader confirm that this figure does not include over £10 billion of contingent liabilities and could, therefore, be significantly greater?

I have mentioned so far issues that are capable of resolution, albeit at significant cost. The issue of the Northern Ireland border is not. As Jonathan Powell put it in Saturday’s Financial Times:

“In fact, the problem of the border is not resolved at all but simply left hanging”.


The Government’s preferred solution to the border issue appears to involve agreeing with the EU that we remain effectively, if not in name, inside the single market in terms of rules and regulations. In other words, we will supinely accept whatever rules the EU adopts. Can the Leader confirm that this is indeed the Government’s preferred outcome? If so, will she accept that far from taking back control of our markets and trade, we have completely lost control, and in doing so made it practically impossible to carry out independent trade deals which improve on EU trade deals because we have agreed to follow EU rules?

One aspect of the Northern Ireland agreement is particularly troubling to me. People in Northern Ireland will retain EU citizenship. They will, in the words of Leo Varadkar,

“have the right to study in Paris, buy property in Spain, work in Berlin”.

They will also retain an EU passport. I and my children are denied these rights. I will be reduced to waving to friends from Northern Ireland, with as cheery a hello as I can muster, as they sail past me in European airport passport queues—they in the EU citizens’ line and me with the rest of the world. I will be furious, and I suspect that many millions of citizens of Great Britain will also be furious, when they learn that they have become second-class citizens in their own country.

However, despite all the flaws, the Government will now move on to the trade talks. I realise it is pointless asking the Leader what the Government hope the outcome will be as they have not made up their mind but, before they do, I suggest that she has a quiet word with the Brexit Secretary. In his interview yesterday on “The Andrew Marr Show”, he said that he would take the best bits of existing EU trade deals and,

“add to that the bits missing, which is the services”.

Could she point out that services represent 40% of our exports to the EU and that this share is growing rapidly? Far from being the bits which are missing, free access to EU markets for our service exporters would be vital to the economic prosperity of the UK were we to leave the EU.

The Prime Minister deserves a celebratory glass for surviving until Christmas. She should savour it because the difficult part of the EU negotiations is now about to begin.

European Council

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 23rd October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. It serves to remind us how interlinked with the EU we are on so many issues, as she outlined. It is not just about having common interests; we are co-dependent on issues that affect not just our economy, but our safety, security and well-being as a nation. We also add our appreciation for the work of the Royal Navy for intercepting criminals involved in people trafficking and smuggling, and for the lives it saves.

At a previous European Council summit in June 2015 the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, said that the digital single market,

“is a prime example of where we need the EU to unlock the potential”,

of the,

“single market for the benefit of businesses and consumers”.

Since then, we in the UK have played a leading role in the EU’s approach. That has clearly been of great benefit, given the comments in the Statement, but can the noble Baroness tell us how we will continue to play that role in shaping policy, given that we will no longer have a seat at the table?

Important progress has been made since the last summit on security and defence across a number of areas, including cybersecurity, which is essential across Europe and here at home. Amber Rudd, as Home Secretary, has been very clear that it is totally unthinkable that we could crash out of the EU with no ongoing arrangements on those issues, yet David Davis, as Brexit Secretary, still maintains that leaving the EU without any deal must remain an option. Liam Fox is adamant that there will not be the Armageddon some have predicted, which implies that all will be okay. It will not. Surely we should aim for better than it just not being Armageddon. Will the noble Baroness clarify that, if no agreement were to be made on the key issues and we crashed out of the EU in what has been described as the no-deal scenario, it would not be business as usual on defence, security or policing? Does she accept that that scenario is the worst possible outcome and totally irresponsible?

Leading into this summit, the Prime Minister’s Florence speech was helpful. We welcomed the change in position and tone, but we await the details. She will be aware of the very deep unease from businesses about what the transition or implementation deal will look like. The importance and seriousness of this is highlighted by the strongly worded letter to the Government from the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce, EEF—the Manufacturers’ Organisation—and the Federation of Small Businesses. Surely even the most ideological and ardent of Brexiteers recognises the legitimacy of their concerns. With investment being held back, their warnings about the future of the economy must be heeded.

The transition period is now accepted by most as essential. I am happy to call it an implementation period if that helps. I also welcome the Government’s recognition of the so-called divorce bill, without which we cannot make any significant progress. However, the negotiations are complex. The Prime Minister is right to seek out opportunities for more informal discussions as well.

David Davis, the Brexit Secretary, was mocked in the House of Commons last month when he said that no one said Brexit would be easy. Yet that is exactly what Ministers, including him, said. Yesterday, Liam Fox defended his comments that securing a post-Brexit trade deal would be the “easiest in history” because apparently he was talking only about trade and the real problem is politics. Today, Boris Johnson jumped in feet first, as usual, telling EU leaders to “get on with it”. Perhaps Liam Fox is right that politics is the problem—not the politics of the EU, but of the Cabinet. There is no doubt that the progress so far is inadequate for the talks to move on formally to the next stage.

In recognition that some progress has been made, it has been agreed that preliminary talks about the next stage of negotiations should start. In effect, these are talks about talks. That is not, as some in the Cabinet appear to prefer, the EU being difficult; it is quite the opposite. What makes the negotiations harder for the Prime Minister is not the European Union, but her own Cabinet. Every time they speak out to contradict her, every time they speak out to attack the EU, the process or the progress, every time they fly yet another kite about what they think will win them votes in the next Tory leadership election, they seriously weaken her authority and undermine her ability to negotiate. The prime aim of negotiations is clarity about objectives, but for that the Prime Minister needs the Cabinet to unite or to choose one that will.

When Boris Johnson asserts that,

“the entire British cabinet is united around every dot, comma, and syllable of the Florence speech”,

we know he says that in full knowledge of the limits of his own credibility. That is also undermined by the Cabinet Minister quoted today in the press as saying:

“We haven’t grasped the nettle on the trade deal yet and we really have to soon. Theresa’s fear is that the moment we do, half of us will walk out—we just don’t know which half it will be”.


Such division and dysfunction at the heart of government weakens the UK’s position at every single point in negotiations. Given all that, we understand why the withdrawal Bill is now stalled. Can the noble Baroness give us any idea when it will be picked up again and when its Committee stage will start in the House of Commons, given the importance of the issues in the Bill?

On the three issues in the conclusions of the summit, first, we welcome the progress being made on citizens’ rights. It has taken far longer than necessary and the Prime Minister should recognise the urgency and bring it to a conclusion. Secondly, despite the optimism in the Statement, the progress on the Irish border seems a recognition of the issues that have to be resolved rather than a way of resolving them. Agreement on those principles is welcome, even essential, but it is the action that brings those principles into being that is important. What progress has been made on that?

The financial obligations—the divorce bill—are becoming confusing. The Prime Minister put a figure on the financial obligations in her Florence speech. Is there now a recognition that that is not the final word and it has yet to be negotiated? Finally, can the noble Baroness confirm that when David Davis talks about the timetable of the talks being “Barnier’s timetable”, it is in fact the timetable that he agreed back in June? It is as much David Davis’s timetable as it is Michel Barnier’s. I hope the noble Baroness will take the message back to the Cabinet that the frustration—not just of Parliament but of the whole country—with its antics is making it harder for the Prime Minister, and that she will be able to answer the questions I have raised today.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, during the past week the Prime Minister has adopted two novel negotiating tactics. First, she decided on a personal diplomatic mission to the Commission, to be conducted over dinner. Yet according to reports, the meal lasted only just over an hour, which was barely enough time for a leisurely pizza, far less the sort of event that was likely to commend itself to the President of the European Commission. What was the purpose of this event, given its brevity and the lack of any new substantive proposals made at it by the Prime Minister? Secondly, the Prime Minister adopted the stance, “Please give me a good deal because my domestic parliamentary position is so weak”. Is the noble Baroness aware of any successful negotiations in which pleading one’s weakness has strengthened one’s hand? Do the Government really believe that the threat of no deal is credible, when the Brexit Secretary has described it as in effect a negotiating ploy just left on the table for the time being and the Home Secretary has called such an option simply untenable?

One of the first issues debated at the summit was the digital single market. The Prime Minister says that,

“it is right to keep up the pressure on completing its implementation … This will continue to be of benefit to us even after we leave the European Union”.

But we will not be members of the digital single market, so it is inconceivable that we will be as well off in respect of it outside as we would inside. What commitment are the Government prepared to make that, outside the EU, they will adopt the standards and regulations of the digital market so that we will gain the benefit of it?

The Government say that they welcome the EU sanctions on North Korea—as does the whole House. We are shortly to get a sanctions Bill in your Lordships’ House to deal with the position post Brexit, under which we will take control of and have sovereignty over own sanctions, but does the noble Baroness agree that, on matters such as North Korea, such sanctions are effective only if we are in lock-step with the EU so that a common front is presented to the North Koreans, or against whomever else such sanctions are adopted? Have the Government given any thought to what sort of mechanism they will put in place to ensure that, as far as sanctions are concerned, it is possible to adopt that kind of lock-step? At the moment, it is completely unclear how that will be achieved.

The Prime Minister states that, up to now:

“Both sides have approached these talks with professionalism and a constructive spirit—and we should recognise what has been achieved to date”.


That is undoubtedly true, but we should also recognise what has not been achieved to date. Last week should have been the point at which substantive progress had been achieved on the three matters which it had been agreed would be prioritised so that we could get on to discussing the future trading and other relationships with the EU, but the truth is that we are nowhere near that point. At best, we might have reached it by the end of December, in which case substantive negotiations on all future aspects of our relationship will not start until January, a mere few months before those negotiations must be completed.

On citizens’ rights, one of the individual issues that have caused the hold-up, the Government come out with warm words, but why have they not simply given an unequivocal commitment that they will protect in full the rights of all EU citizens now? The Government say that we are making great progress and that we are almost there, but we do not know that and, certainly, the 3 million EU citizens in this country do not believe it. They retain a huge degree of scepticism about their status going forward. This is to be “settled status”, which we are told is going to be done easily and cheaply, but what time period have the Government in mind to grant settled status to more than 3 million EU nationals in this country? What resources are available? Are they satisfied that the Home Office and the Immigration Service have either the track record, the ethos or the resources to do this in a fair and expeditious manner?

On Northern Ireland, the principles are all agreed. We want—the Government want and the Irish want—a frictionless border. However, we have had a customs White Paper which should really have been a Green Paper because it asks as many questions as it answers. It said, for example, that more than 80% of north-south trade was by SMEs and there will be no requirement for customs processes at the land border. That sounds rather reassuring, but the weasel words are “at the land border”. What sort of processes do the Government have in mind not at the land border, and what kind of costs do they think SMEs are going to have to incur to establish these processes? In what degree of detail have the Government, somewhere in their mind, any sense of what these processes might look like?

On the financial settlement, absolutely no progress whatever appears to have been made last week.

Finally, the Prime Minister spent quite a bit of her Statement under the heading “Moving forwards”, which is quite an achievement, given that there has been virtually no moving forwards. She says that she wants to leave in a smooth and orderly way. One key element of leaving in a smooth and orderly way is to transpose all existing EU law into domestic law. The withdrawal Bill, a relatively straight Bill in concept, is totally bogged down because of divisions in the Cabinet. What can the noble Baroness say about when she expects that Bill to start in the Commons, far less here? Because once it has gone through, and with a bit of luck it might be done by Easter, we will have 1,000 statutory instruments to get through before we are in a position to begin to contemplate withdrawal in a smooth and orderly way. There is nothing in this Statement to give any objective observer any sense that smooth and orderly is the way that this Government are heading.

Business of the House

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Thursday 19th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I am sorry to detain the House on this matter. The Motion before us looks pretty innocuous and we on this side have no objection to the Government’s proposals.

However, as the noble Baroness has explained, the need for this Motion arises from the fact that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has not considered the SI. The reason for that, as we have heard, is that it has not been reconstituted since the general election. Indeed, I believe it has not met since March. The reason for that is because the Commons has not nominated its Members. I fully understand the convention that this House does not criticise the workings of the Commons, and I have no intention of doing so. The delay in this case is caused entirely by the Government’s contentious approach to party balance on all Commons committees, which rightly caused significant political controversy, debate and delay in the other place.

I have three questions for the noble Baroness, as I understand the process in the Commons is slowly cranking into gear. First, will the Government now do all they can to expedite the formation of this very important Joint Committee? Secondly, do the Government have any date in mind when they believe that this will be achieved? Thirdly, how many affirmative resolution statutory instruments are there in the pipeline that we would normally have considered and which have not been able to be brought before this House since the last meeting of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in March?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I concur with the comments made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Democrats. This is a really sad state of affairs. I congratulate the noble Baroness on bringing this Motion before the House today as it is the right course of action. It is exceptional and urgent, and not to do so would have grave consequences.

Having said that, this is unprecedented. I do not know whether any other noble Lords can recall this happening before; certainly I cannot. On a straw poll of other colleagues, I am not aware that it has ever happened before that the JCSI has not been set up in time for the House to consider business of this kind.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, makes an important point. The Labour names are ready and waiting to set up this committee. The only thing holding it up is that the Government have failed to do so. So it is right that we consider this today, but it is an emergency situation; it is unprecedented and can only be exceptional. In this case, I think the noble Baroness has to speak for the Government and not just for the House of Lords. She has to tell us when the committee will be set up and assure us that it will not happen again and another such Motion will not come before this House.

Brexit: UK Plans

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 9th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is the first day back and we are discussing Brexit already. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, although I admit I felt an increasing sense of déjà vu as she went through it—probably I was not the only one. So much of it is vague and repeats previous speeches, Statements and comments that we have heard before.

At the outset, I want to pick up on one specific aspect. The noble Baroness will know of my interest in it from when the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, and I faced each other across the Dispatch Box on Home Office legislation. I listened carefully to the section on security—it is so vague and unspecific that it tells us absolutely nothing about priorities for negotiations or expected outcomes. Given the importance of the issue, we need more than that; phrases such as “bold, new strategic agreements” and “comprehensive frameworks” have been said time and again, but at this stage I do not know what they mean. I want to flag that up early on.

The noble Baroness mentioned the two White Papers that were published today—one is on the customs Bill. Is she aware that there are only 10 copies—nine now, because I have one—available to Members of the House of Lords? That seems entirely inappropriate and I hope she can look into it. Can she also say something about the consultation period? Cabinet Office guidelines indicate about 12 weeks as the norm for consultation, yet this paper—and similarly in the one on trade—has no deadline for consultation except to say that responses are encouraged on this by 3 November. That is less than four weeks away, and the other deadline is 6 November. That does not seem appropriate. I assume that if responses are encouraged by those dates, they are also the deadline for responses to be considered, and negotiations. I would be grateful if she could comment on those two points.

This is a hugely significant point in negotiations, the importance of which cannot be overestimated. On the day Article 50 was invoked, the countdown started for the UK to leave the EU. Only one thing was clear: two years is a very short time to ensure that we resolve all the issues relating to Brexit and our future relationship with the EU, including on trade, security, finance and our domestic regulations and legislation for public protection. We are around a third of the way through and it seems that too little significant progress has been made. Within days, we should have clarity on whether sufficient progress has been made in phase 1, to allow us to proceed to phase 2 in a couple of weeks’ time, or if negotiations will have to be delayed.

It is clear that the Prime Minister’s visit to Florence was designed to break the deadlock, and her speech was important for a number of reasons. First, it was the first time that she had accepted the need for a transitional phase—she prefers “implementation” phase; I do not care what it is called, but her recognition that such a period was required was important. Recognising the problems ahead, she tried to use the speech to jump-start the negotiations by supporting talks on a transitional, or implementation, deal.

We have always been clear, especially given the number of issues on which there is no certainty, that to prevent a Brexit cliff edge for our economy we must negotiate a time-limited transitional deal that maintains the same basic terms as we currently have with the EU. That means remaining in a customs union with the EU and within the single market while we build the bridge about which the Prime Minister spoke to a strong final deal. I welcome her commitment on that, but any negotiations should start from where we are now. Ruling out options at the start is like trying to operate with one arm tied behind our back.

This pragmatic approach has been welcomed by many of those organisations, including the CBI and trade unions, which fear the impact on businesses and jobs of a cliff-edge exit. It was a significant policy shift for the Prime Minister. She rightly recognised the warnings from businesses that opposition to transitional arrangements was already hitting the economy. Both the head of UBS Investment Bank and the chairman of RBS, and many others, have reinforced the message that unless transitional arrangements are agreed soon, there will be a significant shift of both staff and businesses out of the UK. Yet within days of the Prime Minister’s welcome comment, five of her Cabinet Ministers revealed conflicting and contradictory views. It is no surprise that the list of names is probably very similar to that for the next Conservative leadership contest. I am sure that many share the view that, following a disastrous election campaign which has weakened the Prime Minister at a time when, in the national interest, she has to be at her strongest, she is being further undermined by members of her Cabinet.

The Prime Minister’s speech was also part of her pitch that on the three key phase 1 issues, progress had been made and that progress was adequate for phase 2 to proceed. It will be a huge failure of government strategy if those talks are delayed. The Prime Minister is right that some progress has been made on the three issues, but the question is whether it is enough. It is clear from last week’s events in Strasbourg that the EU does not think that it is.

Let us look at those three issues. For those of us who voted in your Lordships’ House before the negotiations started on arrangements for EU nationals and the consequences for UK nationals in the EU, it is disappointing that this issue has not been resolved. I can see the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, pointing around the Chamber and muttering. Unless he wishes to comment, I will continue. Businesses and academia are already experiencing some of the difficulties that we feared. The lack of agreement means that both here and across the EU, British and European Union citizens feel their lives blighted by uncertainty. Many in your Lordships’ House and the other place were persuaded by the Government not to vote for our Article 50 amendment, as the Government had promised that this was an early priority and would be resolved at the start of negotiations. The Government might find it harder to earn such trust in the future.

On the matter of the Irish border, there is an agreement on the required outcome, but the Government have been unable to say how it can be achieved. Initial proposals for a “technical solution” have been ridiculed by experts. A leaked report by the Irish Revenue Commissioners sets out in stark detail the vast increase in the amount of resources and bureaucracy that may result from Brexit, which will be significant at all levels and for all communities. Not only do the Revenue Commissioners warn that an open border will be impossible from a customs perspective but they even expect the important annual ploughing championships to be hit. That will affect the quarter of a million people who attend that event, and it makes a serious point about the possibility of additional paperwork being needed for machinery imported from the UK.

On the third issue—agreeing a formula for the “divorce bill”—not only is there no agreement with the EU but there is no agreement within the Cabinet either. Depending on your point of view, Boris Johnson is either an unprincipled, gaffe-prone Minister who shoots from the hip or a first-rate diplomatic Foreign Secretary. But even he has had to retreat from telling the EU to “go whistle” to accepting the need for an agreed formula and for quick progress to be made.

There is a debate to be had on whether progress is adequate to proceed to the next stage. The Prime Minister’s confidence about this is not widely shared. A war of words seeking to apportion blame will not make it any easier, but discussion and negotiation will, as will honesty and openness about the sticking points and difficulties. It is therefore all the more worrying that two Conservative Party Members of the European Parliament, a former chief whip and a deputy leader, who were honest enough to express their view and vote accordingly that progress was not yet sufficient, have been suspended from their party. That does not inspire confidence that these issues are being examined with an open mind.

I have three specific questions for the noble Baroness. Your Lordships’ House will have seen the joint statement from the TUC and CBI on citizens’ rights. The Prime Minister said in her Statement that she expected a quick agreement, but we have heard that before. Can she be more specific? Can the noble Baroness confirm that the UK negotiating team expects an agreement on citizens’ rights this week, thus concluding phase 1 of the negotiations? If not, will the Government keep an open mind, as urged by your Lordships’ House and now by many others, including the CBI and the TUC?

Secondly, returning to last week’s events in the European Parliament, it was significant that both President Juncker and Monsieur Barnier have addressed MEPs, as they do regularly. The Prime Minister has had an opportunity to do so and has not accepted the invitation. Given the possibility of a delay to phase 2, will the Prime Minister now reconsider the invitation for her to do the same?

Finally, if the Prime Minister’s Florence speech is really to break the impasse, it is clear that we must overcome the sticking point that is the financial settlement. I am not asking for details of figures, but have the UK’s negotiators been permitted to discuss potential figures at this week’s talks? I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to address those questions as well as the points made about the two White Papers published today.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, since our debate in September on the Government’s so-called position papers, there have been three developments. First, we had the Florence speech, of which this Statement is a précis. Secondly, we had the Prime Minister’s conference speech, which was noticeable for the fact that less than 5% of it was devoted to the most important issue facing the country; namely, Brexit. Thirdly, we have had an extraordinary degree of infighting among members of the Cabinet. Many of us have lived through periods when there has been infighting within our own parties, and we know what it means: it becomes all-consuming; it becomes completely debilitating. That is the state of the Government today.

As I said, the Statement is a précis of the speech made by the Prime Minister in Florence, which, in her own terms, was intended to move the negotiations forward. How does it fare in doing that? It starts by talking about the economic partnership, which is to be “unique and ambitious”. The rest of the section simply sets out what the Government will not do. It says nothing about what the Government intend this to be. This is the first of what one might call “the ball in whose court?” issues. The Government say, “We’re not having this; we’re not having that; we’re not having the other”. The assumption is that somebody will come up with a solution, but not them. Certainly, there is no suggestion in the Statement of what the solution might be.

Ditto the security relationship. The phrase there is that there is to be a partnership that will be,

“unprecedented in its breadth and depth, taking in cooperation on diplomacy, defence and security, and development”.

We wait to see what that might mean, but that is it. We then move on to the next phase, implementation. The Government have accepted that there has to be an implementation phase, and there is to be a two-year standstill. The Government should not take any great credit for this. It is impossible to move from our current position in the EU to a new position without an implementation or transition phase. All they have done is accept the inevitable with extraordinary bad grace.

Half way through the Statement, the Prime Minister marks her success in the Florence speech. She says that it was extremely successful and that Michel Barnier said,

“there is a ‘new dynamic’ in the negotiations”.

Well, there is a new dynamic for the Secretary of State—he is staying put. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is not going to Brussels today, and has not been, so all his input, at most, this week as in the past, is going to be some kind of Panglossian statement on Thursday afternoon, when he has just whizzed in, which will be immediately contradicted, no doubt, by Michel Barnier.

The Statement then gets back to the substance, the three big issues, of which Northern Ireland is the first. The Government say that we and the EU,

“have both stated explicitly we will not accept any physical infrastructure at the border”.

The problem here is that nobody—not this Government, not the Irish Government, not the EU, not a think tank, not a lawyer, not a company—knows how you can be without the customs union without some kind of border control. There is not a soul on the planet who has come up with a viable proposal for dealing with that, so how can the Government believe that they are making progress there, or that they could get a quick outcome?

We then come to the EU budget, where we want to make a contribution,

“to cover our fair share of the costs involved”.

What does “fair” mean? It is a very interesting word, but the Government give zero indication of what it means. Does the EU have any idea what our view of fair is? If it does, it is certainly something that has not slipped out from anybody in Brussels or in this Government.

We now come to legislation and the two White Papers that have been published today. I have not had a chance to look at them, but I have just one question for the noble Baroness. On customs, we are about to create “an innovative customs system”. It sounds great, but is she aware that, as we speak, HMRC is in the process of reducing regional and local offices so that the ports of East Anglia, Harwich and Felixstowe, are about to be managed from Stratford, in east London? I accept that this is, indeed, innovative, but it does not fill me with any confidence that the Government have even the vaguest idea how they are going to implement a new customs regime.

Finally, we come to the conclusion, which is that, as we look to the next stage,

“the ball is in their court. But I am optimistic it”—

I do not know whether that is the ball—

“will receive a positive response”.

What is “it”? On too many issues there simply is not an “it”: there are simply vacuous statements and pious exhortations. With parliamentary Liberal Democrat colleagues I spent a couple of days in Brussels during the recent Recess attempting to find out what was really happening in the negotiations. We met representatives from the Council and UKREP, other permanent representatives, MEPs and many others. Everybody, with the inevitable exception of UKREP, was at a loss as to what the UK was really after. It was not that they were objecting to what we were after; they simply had no clue. There was no beef, as they saw it, in the negotiations. Today’s Statement, I am afraid, suggests that on current trends they are likely to be kept waiting for this beef for quite a long time.

G20

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 10th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, from a number of reports I have read, this seems to have been quite a challenging G20 meeting, but the Prime Minister’s Statement strikes an extremely optimistic note about future trade relationships—she spoke about “exciting opportunities”. It is clear that, for her, our role in the global economy and trade relationships and trade deals following Brexit were high on her agenda.

The Statement refers to the bilateral meetings with America, Japan, India and China. We have had reports of that meeting with President Trump. I understand that the Prime Minister claimed to be “optimistic” that President Trump could be taken at his word regarding a swift trade deal with the UK. Let us remind ourselves of what President Trump said, because, as we know, he never knowingly understates a case:

“There is no country that could possibly be closer than our countries. We have been working on a trade deal which will be a very, very big deal, a very powerful deal, great for both countries and … we will have that done very, very quickly”.


Yet the experienced Canadian negotiator who dealt with the Canada-US trade agreement described that statement as “political puffery”. As well as understanding the complexities of international trade deals, the President would have to consult Congress, which would have to take at least six months to consider the issue. Is that the Prime Minister’s understanding as well? It would be helpful to have some clarity and detail about those discussions, as well as about the timescale that the Prime Minister discussed with the President given his quite emphatic statements. We also need assurances that, in her eagerness to ensure a deal, we do not negotiate away the protections that we have gained—for example, for the environment, for employees and for food safety—that have served this country well.

Many of us may have heard the report a few weeks ago on Radio 4—I think that it was on the “Today” programme—about American poultry farmers who, post Brexit, want to export their chickens and turkeys to the UK. US standards allow chemicals in production that we in this country do not consider safe or appropriate. We have to maintain our high standards, so assurances on that issue would be welcome.

Is the noble Baroness able to provide some more information on the other bilateral discussions with Japan, China and India, which do not seem to have received the same attention? At the last G20 meeting in September, following our bilateral with Japan, the Japanese Prime Minister issued a 15-page document on its specific concerns regarding a trade relationship. When the Japanese returned to the bilateral at this meeting, did they discuss that document and have those concerns been addressed? Last time, the Prime Minister was unable to say whether they had discussed car manufacturing. Is the noble Baroness able to do so today, particularly with reference to any financial assurances that have been given for the post-Brexit era? Also, the Statement referred to a meeting today—not at the G20 but today—and discussions at No. 10 with the Australian Prime Minister. I am not quite sure why that is in the Statement: it does not seem any different from the casual assurances and statements made at last year’s meeting, but seems to be just a repetition of an ambition, at some point in the future, post Brexit, to do a trade deal. Can the noble Baroness tell us what those discussions were today and why that is in the Statement?

Staying with trade issues, the Statement refers to the risks created by the dumping of steel on global markets. One report at the weekend said that UK officials acted as a go-between during the disagreement between the US and China over the alleged overproduction of steel. The Statement refers to calls to remove excess capacity in steel from global markets. The noble Baroness may recall that the steel industry in this country was desperate for the Government to back European intervention to protect our steel industry from being destroyed by imported steel, yet the UK Government at that time refused to act. Therefore, I am curious now about the role the UK played as a so-called go-between. Can she enlighten us on that?

On economic issues, the declaration raises a number of matters under the heading “Building Resilience”. Mark Carney, who is also the chair of the G20 financial stability board, has warned about the continued economic risks to the UK banking sector. While the UK’s financial stability remains resilient, there are a number of worrying trends; specifically, the increase in consumer credit, which at more than 10% is outstripping household income. The ratio of household debt to income is high by historic standards. Is this the case across the G20, and was this considered at the summit?

On counterterrorism, which was the first issue the Prime Minister raised in her Statement, the noble Baroness will be aware that I have returned to this issue many times to express concerns about how our leaving the EU improves our serious and organised crime and counterterrorism operations and investigations. Obviously, we welcome any successful co-operation on counterterrorism, including tackling the funding of extremism. In the Statement the Prime Minister says that:

“The UK is leading the way”.


Does she understand and recognise that part of leading the way is through the co-operative work we lead and are part of within the EU? What consideration has been given to post-Brexit negotiations on this issue? Given that the Statement refers to tackling the funding of such activities as being key—the noble Baroness will be aware that this issue has also been raised many times in your Lordships’ House—when will the Government release the report into the foreign funding of extremism and radicalism in the UK?

Before she met President Trump the Prime Minister said she would raise with him his personal attacks on Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London. The President’s attacks on the mayor on Twitter were extraordinary. What the mayor said, in reassuring people after the horrific terrorist incident in London, was “You have no need to be alarmed about additional police and armed police on our streets; they are there for your safety”. This was a perfectly reasonable and responsible comment to make. The President attacked him constantly on this on Twitter and the Prime Minister said that she would raise that directly with the President. Did she do so? The Observer newspaper reported that she failed to do it. If that is true, and given that she said she would, can the Minister assure us that she is seeking another opportunity to do so? The mayor was speaking and acting for Londoners at a difficult time and should not be attacked for doing so by a foreign leader.

Finally, my favourite film is “Casablanca”. Bear with me—it might not seem relevant but I am getting there. One of my favourite scenes, and the saddest, has Rick saying goodbye to Ilsa at the airport as she leaves with her husband to continue their work trying to save France from the Nazis. Rick tells her not to worry, saying, “We’ll always have Paris”. When the Paris agreement on climate change was signed last year, to great acclaim, I am sure that I was not the only who thought of that scene. To protect the world from climate change, we’ll always have Paris. But will we? Nineteen of the 20 countries remain committed. But President Trump’s rejection is a bitter blow. In the Statement, the Prime Minister said that she raised this personally with President Trump but I understand that she did not raise it in the bilateral, which was the appropriate and proper place to do so. So how and when did she raise it? I hope it was not an informal chat over a cup of tea later on. It is all very well being “dismayed”, as the Prime Minister said in the Statement, but if our close relationship with President Trump is to be meaningful, it has to be two-way and it has to have an honesty about it. If she did not discuss it with the President in that informal meeting, did she talk to, support or advise President Macron in any way, and thank him for taking a lead on this issue? What are the implications of the US rejection of the agreement?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. “Casablanca” is also one of my favourite films. I think the line that the Prime Minister takes from it is, “Play it again”, because the use of exceptionalist phraseology is played again and again in prime ministerial responses to this kind of international gathering.

I suspect that this summit will not be remembered for any great new international agreements, for there were none. But it is possible that historians will look back on it as marking the end of US primacy in world affairs and the point at which the US accepted tacitly the Russian strategy of regional hegemony, to which there was no opposition, as far as one could see, in the long meeting between President Trump and President Putin. I suspect that at the end of those two hours it was President Putin who was smiling behind his hand, rather than his opposite number. The change in the balance of power in the world was evidenced by the summit’s communiqué, which made no attempt whatever to hide the differences between the US and the rest of the world on climate change. I was intrigued when the Prime Minister said that she urged President Trump to rejoin the Paris agreement and that she hopes that he will do so. Has she any reason to believe that this is even a slim possibility?

Many of the issues debated at the summit were worthy and important and it is a great sign of progress that we have the 20 most important countries in the world discussing issues in a constructive manner, whether it is security, migration, modern slavery or women’s empowerment. Modest baby steps forward were taken on all those issues. However, listening to the Statement, one cannot but be struck by the lack of progress on—or even mention of—some of world’s flashpoints; for example, there is nothing about the Middle East or North Korea. Clearly, this is to be regretted.

On our own domestic agenda, the summit did discuss trade, where again the US is in danger of taking a unilateral line which would weaken the world trading system. But clearly the key trade issues for the UK relate to Brexit. The Prime Minister met the leaders of America, Japan, China and India, all of whom, we are told, expressed an interest in having new bilateral trading relationships with Britain post-Brexit. The situation in respect of Japan is particularly concerning. Japan has just signed a deal with the EU which covers 19% of all world trade. It took four years to negotiate and along with the traditional tariff reductions, there are major new levels of co-operation on standards, regulation and opening up public procurement markets. What is rather chilling is the thought expressed by a leading commentator in today’s papers that unless the UK replicates the EU’s trade agreement with Japan, Japan will have a closer trading relationship with the EU than we will. Even if we replicate it, there is a major challenge to the British motor industry if we are not inside the customs union. First, Japanese direct investment is likely to go to the EU, and, secondly, rules of origin mean that unless 50% of a product is made in the country, it does not qualify for free entry into the other country. How many motor cars made in the UK have 50% of their parts made in the UK? Very few. I wonder how the Government hope and expect to be able to, at worst, replicate the trade agreement now entered into or coming into force between Japan and the EU.

As far as America is concerned, the Prime Minister seems to take President Trump at his word when he says we are going to have a terrific, new, quick trade agreement. She is the only person in the world to do so. The rest of the world just does not think it is doable. Even if were doable, it is very noticeable that the EEF has said today that the damage caused by the kind of Brexit being pursued by the Government would not be made up any potential trade deal with the US. Equally, this very weekend we had the head of the German industrial federation saying that, as far as he and Germany are concerned, trade with Britain will be second to protecting the single market and the four freedoms. So how do the Government think they are going to be able to protect trade in a situation where they are not prepared to contemplate the single market or the customs union at a time when, as the ONS pointed out this very day, some 2 million people working in Britain today owe their jobs to direct investment from the EU? That investment is jeopardised by the Government’s stance.

This was an eminently forgettable summit for the UK. The major challenges to our well-being, whether in terms of the economy, security or influence, stem from Brexit, and here the Prime Minister certainly has a lot of work to do.

European Council

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 26th June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. The European Council focused on work being undertaken across the EU to protect its citizens in counterterrorism, security and defence, external borders and illegal migration, and economic development. These are clearly issues on which co-operation at the highest levels is essential and a key priority for the EU. It must be hard for the Prime Minister at such Council meetings, because although on those specific issues our priorities are shared, this country’s priority is not how EU members tackle those together in the future. A quick glance at the Government’s programme in the Queen’s Speech shows that they are going to be preoccupied with Brexit throughout this Session, so I am a bit curious about the Prime Minister’s role at these summits. Our joint work across the EU, on which the UK has taken a lead, on tackling serious and organised crime, including terrorism, is essential. We share common goals, and in order to be effective we must have joint responsibility. However, as the EU discusses future work, it is our priority—and this will take the attention of our Prime Minister—not to be part of that work.

Given the seriousness of those issues, what was the Prime Minister able to say to the Council meeting on both defence and security about the UK response and responsibilities? Specifically, did she take part in discussions on the improvements of the European travel and authorisation system to enhance external border controls? Will that be taken into account in discussions about how to manage the border with Ireland to ensure that there are no changes from the current position? At the weekend, in a TV interview that others may have seen, the Brexit Secretary made some suggestions about how that could be managed. I have to say that he sounded unconvincing, even to himself. He should understand the need for clarity on this issue as soon as possible, but instead he spoke about issues such as monitors on cars and number plate recognition. The Irish border is not like the Dartford tunnel. This has to be resolved as a matter of urgency.

I want to pick up the issue of digital Europe. Is it not something of an irony that while the European Council was discussing an overarching approach to digital issues, including cybersecurity, our own parliamentary network was under sustained attack? I think the whole House will want to thank all our staff who have sought to resolve the problem and assist colleagues. Given that the digital economy knows no physical boundaries, and that UK exports of services are an important growth area of our economy, I would be interested to know what contributions the Prime Minister was able to make on this specific issue.

There was considerable discussion at the Council of the single market and trade, recognising the benefits and addressing areas where improvements are needed. One of the issues discussed was the European Fund for Strategic Investments. In the Council’s conclusions there is a call for rapid agreement on the extension and reinforcement of that fund.

That fund has provided £184 million for the northern powerhouse investment fund. I know that the noble Baroness and the Prime Minister have previously been clear that we are in until we are out and that we remain a full and functioning member of the EU until Brexit negotiations are concluded. Given the importance of that particular investment, can the noble Baroness assure us that no part of it will be lost to Brexit, and what advice would she give regarding further applications to the fund from the UK?

Turning to EU agencies, the background note stated that the EU 27 were to agree the procedure regarding the relocation of the European Medicines Agency and the European Banking Authority from the UK as a consequence of Brexit. There are several issues to be addressed. I understand why the EU has pushed the decision on relocation back to November, but for the UK these issues are live and need to be addressed now. I understand that more than 1,000 staff are employed in those two agencies. Can the noble Baroness confirm that? Do the Government know how many UK staff are employed by other EU agencies and the status of their position?

Outside the EU, we will need mechanisms, organisations or quangos to undertake the functions of those bodies and the other EU agencies of which we will no longer be part. We are all aware of the significant public safety issues that can arise and the economic implications that flow from effective regulation. Has any estimate been made of the cost involved in establishing new structures or agencies, what form they will take and how long it will be before we set them up? If we look at the European Medicines Agency alone and the importance of pharmaceuticals to public health and the economy, surely the Government must have a plan in place to address those issues. I think particularly of pharmaceutical companies, which currently invest significant amounts in research and development here in the UK because they want access to those European markets. Can the noble Baroness share the Government’s initial thinking on this issue with us?

Finally, we come to the point about certainty for EU and UK nationals. From the background notes to the Council meeting, it is clear that there was a short space at the end of the dinner on Thursday and before the session for the rest of the EU members on Brexit where the PM had the opportunity to “inform the leaders” about Brexit negotiations. As predicted, this issue has caused tensions. I have not yet had time, as I am sure other noble Lords have not, to digest all the implications of the new documents, but others across the EU apparently do not share the PM’s confidence that there was a “very positive” response. Reading the comments of other leaders, I would describe them as being underwhelmed but clearly open to further discussion.

I have had a brief look at the document. It seems quite complicated, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for reading out some of the details. It seems that the Government have now come round to the idea of an identity card, although I am not clear exactly how it will work when the only people who will carry them are EU nationals residing in the UK. The noble Baroness talked about a light-touch approach, but it seems grossly inefficient and disrespectful that 180,000 people who have applied for permanent residency will now have to apply again under the new system. Surely there is a better way to resolve that for those people.

I also understand that under the new arrangements there will have to be an assessment of conduct and criminality. Is the noble Baroness sure that all those can be undertaken within the two years between now and the exit from the EU? If some of them will be undertaken later, what guarantees have been made about access to EU databases so that the accuracy of that information can be checked?

We are talking about citizens from the other 27 EU countries living in the UK whose rights we seek to protect. There are also UK citizens living across the other 27 countries, many of whom have reacted with dismay to the Prime Minister’s comments. But there is also a third group. There are about 60 million UK citizens living here in the UK who will also have their rights affected. All these discussions focus on the rights of those who are already established here in the UK, or on UK citizens already living and working in one of the other 27 countries. But the future impact on UK citizens who want to travel, live and work abroad must also be addressed. Will they need visas? Will they need work permits? The Select Committee report on acquired rights is very helpful on some of these issues.

When your Lordships’ House agreed to the amendments on the Article 50 Bill, by a majority of 102, to protect the rights of EU citizens, it was not because we were being difficult or, as some claimed, trying to oppose Brexit. It was precisely because we recognised, as did the Select Committee report, that this is a difficult issue, and resolving it in a simple and straightforward way would not only give certainty but would ensure negotiations to proceed on key issues in a better tone and a better atmosphere.

The Government worked hard to make sure that that amendment was not agreed by the House of Commons. There were meetings at Downing Street and promises were made that this would be resolved quickly as an early priority, all in pursuit of a so-called clean Bill. I have to say that I wonder whether this House would vote the same way on that amendment.

As we have heard, nothing will be agreed until everything is agreed, so meanwhile there is a twilight zone of uncertainty for many. That is already having an impact. We have heard from the Nursing and Midwifery Council that there has been a 96% reduction in the number of nurses from the EU registering to work in the UK since the referendum. How many of our citizens have lost out on work in the EU?

The new editor of the Evening Standard said that all Cabinet Ministers backed David Cameron in wanting to address this issue immediately after the referendum result, but the then Home Secretary, now the Prime Minister, held out against it. Perhaps the EU’s proposal should have been used as a starting point for the Prime Minister to try to resolve these issues.

Finally, I appreciate that these issues are difficult for the Prime Minister. I was struck by President Tusk’s comments at the end of the Council meeting. He said:

“Brexit took up very little time at this European Council. We devoted most of our work to addressing people’s concerns over security, illegal migration and uncontrolled globalisation”.


These are the concerns of citizens everywhere, and a challenge for the Prime Minister is to make sure that these issues, plus jobs and the economy, remain at the top of our agenda for the UK while she negotiates Brexit.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. The two principal issues debated at the Council that are of relevance to the UK were, first, security and, secondly, citizens’ rights.

On security, the Prime Minister rather patted herself on the back that she had taken the lead in having had discussions with President Macron and then, at the Council itself, in moving the technology companies to responding more effectively to extremist content. It is clear that whatever happens over the coming months in respect of the technology companies, the area of security, which faces the whole of Europe, will not become less of a priority or less of a concern. My question for the Government is: what plans do they have to have a continuing voice on European discussions on security? They will not be at the EU table. Will they put proposals to the EU about how they will have a continuing voice in European security discussions? If we lose that voice it will undoubtedly be the case that the UK will be less secure.

The biggest area of interest for the UK, not so much in the summit but subsequently, is around citizens’ rights. We have now seen the Government’s paper. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, pointed out, when your Lordships’ House debated this issue four months ago, it took the view that the UK should unilaterally guarantee the rights of EU citizens in the UK. We on these Benches continue to believe that the Government should unilaterally guarantee EU nationals the right to stay in the UK now. It is to be regretted that it has taken so long for the Government to attempt to provide any certainty about their future status. The very fact that the Government have today announced a series of issues and proposals that are dependent on reciprocal decisions by the EU means that there is still no certainty or clarity for EU citizens living in this country.

I turn to some of the specific proposals in the Government’s document today. First, there is still no specified cut-off date. Can the Leader of the House explain why the Government have left that open and, in doing so, extended the uncertainty of people who are thinking about whether they might come from the EU to the UK at some point over the next couple of years, when they could have made a decision to specify the date today? At what point and by what process do the Government plan to announce a cut-off date?

Secondly, it is not clear how long the application process for residence status will take. We know about the huge backlogs in dealing with such questions at the moment. Do the Government plan to resource the relevant agencies properly so that applications, albeit in their cut-down form, can be dealt with speedily? What assessment have the Government made of how many EU citizens currently resident in the UK will need to apply for the new residence status?

The Government talk about avoiding a cliff edge at the point at which EU citizens cease to be able to settle freely in the UK, and propose a two-year period during which there will be a generic umbrella of temporary leave to remain. Do the two years apply to the period during which EU citizens must apply for residence status, or do the Government envisage that we will have processed all requests for residence status within the two years—and, indeed, that everybody wishing to achieve that status will need to have achieved it by the end of the two-year period?

The document states:

“Obtaining settled status will be subject to meeting certain requirements. The eligibility criteria will be set out in UK law”.


Could the Leader of the House give some further idea of what sort of requirements are envisaged? Will the UK law referred to be in primary or secondary legislation? Is this what is envisaged to be covered in the new immigration Bill and, if so, when do the Government plan to publish that Bill?

Finally, to take up another point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, today’s documents states that:

“Obtaining documentation showing their settled status will enable EU citizens resident here to carry on living here lawfully”.


But it then states about that documentation:

“The Home Office may also need to capture evidence of EU citizens’ biometric information during the application process”.


That raises concerns that what is being proposed is ID cards just for EU nationals with settled status. Can the Government guarantee that this new status will not require EU nationals who receive it to carry documentation signalling their status and this will not amount to an ID card? If there were to be some kind of ID card, could the Leader of the House set out how much the Government would expect such a policy might cost and how they might expect it to work—particularly given that it would result in only a small minority of those living in the UK being required to carry such cards?

This Statement and the policy paper begin to answer the many questions that EU citizens have about their future status in the UK, but it leaves many unanswered. The Government need to answer those questions quickly to bring about the certainty that they claim to seek.

Grenfell Tower

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating this very comprehensive Statement, with lots of information in there. She will understand that it also begs a number of questions, and I hope that she will be able to answer them today—but, if she is not, I shall be happy for her to write to me.

First, it is right that we recognise the almost unspeakable horror of the fire in which so many have lost lives, friends, family, their homes and all their possessions; it is a tragedy on an almost unimaginable scale. If you listen to those who are affected, it is clear that it is never going to leave them; it will stay with them for the rest of their lives. The noble Baroness is quite right to say that the support is not just for today or tomorrow—it is long-term support that we are talking about.

I also place on record our huge gratitude to the emergency services—the medical staff, police and, particularly, the fire and rescue services, which went above and beyond the call of duty. I understand from those who have seen and heard the recordings from the fire engines when they arrived at the fire, they could not believe what they were going to. They were saying, “How in the something or other are we ever going to get into that building to rescue people?”. Those were the comments that they were making as they arrived. There was no structural engineer on site at that point, so they had no way of knowing whether it was safe to go into that building or not—but they went in. Many years ago, I did some fire service training as a fire authority member, and I have done a mock-up wearing breathing apparatus. That was in safe conditions, but I know something of how terrifying it must be for those who arrive at such a scene, and the bravery of those men and women who attended the fire. No words can express how grateful we and others are to them.

The response from the local community and the public was almost overwhelming, such was the scale of the horror of what they witnessed. However, as the noble Baroness has said, the response from the local council was nothing short of appalling and a disaster. I pay tribute to the other London boroughs which do not have the wealth or resources or the financial reserves of Kensington and Chelsea but which went to the aid and assistance of people outside their borough to do what they could to help—and they seemed better able to provide some of the support that was needed. The noble Baroness made the point that the council was certainly not up to responding to residents’ needs.

I welcome the inquiry, which is a step forward. The noble Baroness is right to say that there should be an interim report—one hopes by the summer—but, as well as the other issues that it addresses, can it address the wider issues of accountability? The management of that block was outsourced to a private company, which does not seem—and this will be borne out by the inquiry—to have had any direct relationship with the residents so that the residents could force it to respond or have any accountability process. That should be looked at as part of the wider issues.

I note in the Queen’s Speech that the Government have taken up the proposal from my noble friend Lord Wills of a public advocate. It would seem that the quicker we can have somebody in place to advise those who want to play a role and be involved in the inquiry, the better. I hope that we can look at that ASAP.

Clearly, this is a fast-moving situation, with new information and details emerging all the time. I appreciate that government and local councils want to reassure people, but we can reassure people only if they are genuinely safe; people cannot be reassured unless the necessary checks have been undertaken and any changes have been made so that people are safe. Shortly after the Prime Minister gave her Statement to the House of Commons, we heard the alarming news that, when in the Statement today she mentioned that a “number” of high-rise tower blocks were affected, up to 600 in England alone could have combustible cladding installed. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the figure of around 600 is correct? If it is, when did that figure become known to the Government? What action are the Government taking? If there are 600 blocks of flats in England alone in that situation, the scale of the work to be done is just enormous. The Downing Street spokeswoman said earlier today that:

“Obviously nobody will be living in buildings that are unsafe. They will be rehoused if they need to be and landlords will be asked to provide alternative accommodation where that’s possible”.


If 600 blocks are affected, I am not sure that the checks can done as quickly as that. If 100 blocks can be checked today, it will still be quite a long time before all blocks are checked and any work is undertaken. If those people are to be rehoused, it will be more than a million people. There must be some contingency plans for the Government to work with local councils on that, because this clearly seems to be beyond the scale of most local authorities’ ability to cope. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether that figure is correct, when the Government knew and what action is being taken?

I have a couple of questions on resources for local authorities. This is clearly going to be an expensive business—rightly so—for local authorities to undertake properly, so are local authorities guaranteed the resources to carry out any necessary additional checks? What conversations or discussions have there been between central government and the private companies that have supplied and fitted such cladding on to high-rise blocks? There is an issue about whether all housing providers have been alerted by those companies that fitted such cladding. The inquiry is welcome, but the noble Baroness is right to say that we do not have to wait to take action. After the previous fire that we saw in 2009, I gather that the coroner’s recommendations were made in 2013 to the Department for Communities and Local Government about retrofitting sprinklers—those recommendations could be acted on now. We would be grateful if the noble Baroness could respond on that.

When the Prime Minister was asked in the House of Commons about whether the buildings were compliant with building regulations, she said that the police and fire services were investigating and would report in 24 hours. That is a reasonable response in terms of the buildings that we are talking about, but the legal position regarding that kind of cladding on high-rise buildings is not a matter for the fire and rescue service or the police to investigate; the Government must know whether or not the building regulations allow it. Can the noble Baroness respond immediately on that? I cannot see why we have to wait 24 hours for a statement from the fire and rescue services, because whether the building regulations do or do not allow it should be a matter of fact. In terms of this particular block, there were building regulations inspections. Were faults found during those inspections and, if they were, was action taken to remedy the faults? It is clear that there were complaints beforehand.

I have one final point: a Minister commented to me a while ago regarding deregulation that the Government’s policy was that you had to have three regulations out before you could bring another one in. We all know that society does not like to be overregulated—nobody wants unnecessary red tape—but that seems to not look at the value of regulation; it is a numerical chance exercise. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether that is the case? I would be delighted if it was not, but if that is still government policy, surely it should be reviewed. We should regard regulations on their merit, not on the number of regulations, which is completely irrelevant in terms of safety for society.

The Statement is comprehensive and welcome. As times goes on, there will be some challenging, difficult and perhaps uncomfortable truths to be faced about how society operates and how it treats poorer people, particularly with regard to housing. This is a disaster beyond anything we could have ever contemplated. If lessons are not learned from this, we will be doing the public an enormous disservice.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the extremely comprehensive Statement. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to all those who lost their lives in the tragedy; our sympathies are, of course, with all those residents who will have to rebuild their lives after such a horrific event and with the families of those affected. I also put on record again the huge debt of gratitude that we owe to those in the fire service and all the emergency services who worked tirelessly to rescue residents and support families in the immediate circumstances of the fire, and in the almost as bad circumstances of having to sift through the building day after day to see what they could find in the wreckage.

There was a huge gulf in the response to this tragedy between the public and the Government. The public acted immediately and with great generosity. Government, both national and local, acted slowly and, initially at least, without the same energy or generosity. It took the Government 48 hours to establish a central command centre, for example, and the borough council seemed unprepared and overwhelmed. If this had been a terrorist attack, the response would have been far more effective—we saw that in London only a few days ago. Things that have, for example, taken 48 hours in this case, would, in the case of a terrorist attack, be in place within 48 minutes. There was clearly a failure of emergency planning for this kind of incident, which we do not see for terrorist attacks, for which emergency planning is clearly extremely good. So I ask the Government: what immediate steps are being taken to ensure that such a failure will not be replicated in any future non-terrorist incident?

The Government say that they welcome—and indeed precipitated—the resignation of the chief executive of Kensington and Chelsea council. But what about the leader of the council? It was a political decision to stockpile huge cash reserves while apparently skimping on safety measures. Will the Government now be asking him to resign also?

We welcome the public inquiry that has been announced by the Prime Minister. We must obviously ask a raft of difficult questions, including why the fire spread so quickly and why the lessons of the past seem not to have been learned, but there are obvious concerns about how long such an inquiry might last. History is not very encouraging in this respect. Can the Leader of the House give any further assurances in terms of both the speed with which any interim recommendations might be produced and how we can ensure that the full inquiry does not drag on for years?

The Statement says that a number of tests already carried out have shown other blocks to be clad in combustible materials, and the Government claim that all local authorities and fire services are now taking all possible steps to ensure buildings are safe. Given that some—indeed many—of these steps will be costly, can the Government give an assurance today that they will not be delayed by any shortage of funding? In the case of such buildings which are privately owned, what steps beyond exhortation will the Government take to ensure that the owners fulfil their legal obligations to provide safe buildings?

It is clear that, when the tests on all these buildings are complete, there will be a need for large-scale remedial action. If there are 600 blocks, there will be a vast amount of work that needs doing quickly. This can be undertaken only by skilled workers in the construction sector. Given that there is already a shortage of such skills, particularly in London, and that 50% of the construction workforce in London is from the EU, can the noble Baroness give an assurance that, as the Brexit talks proceed, every encouragement will be given to such workers to continue to come to London, as any major labour shortage in this area could be literally a matter of life and death?

There are a number of issues in the Statement that could legitimately give rise to anger. But what got to me was the Prime Minister’s peroration. She said:

“It should not take a disaster of this kind for us to remember that there are people in Britain today living lives that are so far removed from those that many here in Westminster enjoy”;


and she went on,

“let the legacy of this awful tragedy be that we resolve never to forget these people and instead to gear our policies and our thinking towards making their lives better and bringing them into the political process. It is our job as a Government … to show we are listening and that we will stand up for them”.

This is a leader of a party who has just stood on an election manifesto to cut spending in schools by 7% and impose big further cuts in welfare payments and local government expenditure. This hypocrisy makes me very angry. Will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House suggest to the Prime Minister that if she really wishes to stand up for people such as the tenants of Grenfell Tower, she should start to adopt policies which follow her words?

Brexit: Triggering Article 50

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. It is now over nine months since the result of the referendum was announced and the Prime Minister has sent the letter that starts the process of our withdrawal from the European Union after a relationship of over 40 years. Just like any other divorce, there will be some who rejoice and look forward to new opportunities, but others will despair over the shared past and lost love. A few will fondly recall the marriage, divorces and remarriage of Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor with some hope, but, through it all, the only people to get rich were those trying to unravel those 40-plus years of relative harmony—the lawyers.

Through it all there will be one common emotion—uncertainty about the future, because the Prime Minister herself has to concede that no one can yet know what the final deal or arrangements will look like. So we now have to focus on what comes next, and what comes next is complex. While some fear for the worst, we will all work for the best. As I have said previously, the debates and negotiations cannot be left to those who have no doubt. We have to engage the talent, experience and wisdom of our whole nation together in the national interest.

Today’s letter specifies our negotiating position with the European Union. The Labour Party has set out six tests by which the Government will be judged on the final deal. They include migration, national security and crime, employment and social rights, and the need to support all regions and nations in the UK as we develop our future relationship with the remaining 27 countries in the EU. The sixth test is the Government’s own, as set out by David Davis to the House of Commons on 24 January: that on trade, the Government’s aim is to deliver,

“a comprehensive free trade agreement and a comprehensive customs agreement that will deliver the exact same benefits as we have”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/1/17; col. 169.]

That is a pretty high bar, but it is a bar set by the Government and one that the Government will be held accountable to.

Today, I set one further test for the Government. It is not controversial and I hope that it will be willingly accepted by the Government and the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. The seventh test is the one that will set the tone for the debate, the negotiations and the mood of the nation in accepting and understanding the outcome. This test is the test of complete honesty. As the Prime Minister and her team enter into the negotiations, there will be good days and there will be difficult days; there will be days when everything seems possible and days when nothing goes right. The Prime Minister has, on many occasions, been clear about her confidence that she can and will negotiate a good deal in the interests of the UK. But there are others who are confident that any deal, or even no deal, is better than where we are now. We totally reject that. This process must not be so ideologically driven that the Government accept anything and claim it is a good deal. That is where honesty comes in. If the Prime Minister is disappointed or dissatisfied with the negotiations or the outcome of agreements, she must in the national interest be prepared to say so. If there is to be a truly meaningful vote at the end of this process, it has to be undertaken with the certainty that Parliament has the information needed to make an informed decision in the best interests of this country.

I want to raise some specifics on the Statement and the letter. On the devolved Administrations, despite the Prime Minister’s warm words that she intends to strengthen the four nations of the UK, I have to say that that is not how it feels at the moment. I have three questions on the significant increase in the decision-making powers of the devolved Administrations. What discussions have there been so far? Can the noble Baroness give an assurance on the ongoing consultation, particularly given the concerns already raised by the First Minister of Wales? Will any of these powers require primary legislation?

I am pleased that in her letter to President Tusk the Prime Minister specifically mentions Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland border. It is right that she sets this as a priority, and I believe that the issue, if not yet the solution, is also understood by the remaining 27 European countries. However, the Prime Minister refers in the letter to it being the only land border with the UK. While that is technically correct, I remind her that we have a land border between the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar and Spain. I appreciate that a trigger letter could never include all of our negotiating issues, but I was extremely disappointed at the omission of any reference to the people of Gibraltar and their concerns in either the Statement or the letter. The Prime Minister says that she will take into account the specific interests of every nation and region. Can the noble Baroness the Leader give this House an assurance that we will not abandon Gibraltar and that its interests will also be represented?

The commitment to seek an early agreement to guarantee the rights of EU nationals in the UK and our nationals in the remaining 27 countries is welcome. The noble Baroness will be aware of the disappointment of your Lordships’ House that our amendment to include a guarantee in legislation was rejected by the Government and the other place. The Prime Minister confirms in her letter that making this part of the negotiations is complex. I hope, therefore, that given the support of your Lordships’ House, the Government will accept the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayter, to be debated next week, that the Government should report back to Parliament before the end of this Session on progress.

I also welcome the assurance in the Statement of what the Government call the “phased process” of implementation of the new arrangements and agreements. I know that the Government do not like talking about transition and call it instead an implementation phase. I am equally happy with either. What is important here is that change is practical, workable and pragmatic and not ideologically driven towards the cliff-edge scenario. I welcome that and thank the noble Baroness and the Prime Minister for their assurances on that point.

On Euratom, I understand from the letter that the Government consider that we must come out as part of our EU exit, but given the importance of this issue, I would have liked to have seen a commitment to seeking early agreement for a new practical partnership.

I want to register concerns about the misleading language where the Prime Minister appears to connect trade and national security in her letter to President Tusk. On page 3 of the letter, she makes reference to,

“a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, taking in both economic and security cooperation”,

and I wholeheartedly endorse that. She then rightly points out that:

“If, however, we leave the European Union without an agreement the default position is that we would have to trade on World Trade Organisation terms”.


So far, that is clear. But the very next sentence states:

“In security terms a failure to reach agreement would mean our cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened”.


Because it is unclear which agreement she is referring to, the letter to President Tusk appears to state that if we cannot reach an agreement on trade, this will have an impact on security agreements. I am grateful for the reassurance and clarity from Downing Street that that was not the intention, but given the complexity and sensitivities of the negotiations that we are about to start, it is essential that there is no misunderstanding at all or lack of clarity. I suggest that, for the avoidance of doubt, in future issues such as trade and security are never linked. They are both essential in their own right and a responsible agreement on one is not dependent on the other.

Tomorrow, we wait with some anticipation the White Paper on repealing the 1972 legislation and enshrining EU legislation, in which we played our part, into UK law. However, noble Lords will have seen the comments from some on the Government Benches about this being an opportunity for deregulation or cutting so-called red tape—in other words, doing away with protections and rights for UK citizens. I seek an assurance from the noble Baroness that this is not the part of the so-called great repeal Bill and that the Government will resist any attempts to bring in such changes by the back door, thus seeking to avoid proper parliamentary scrutiny. In that she will have our support.

Finally, I welcome both the tone of the Prime Minister’s Statement and the emphasis that she has placed throughout on partnership. Only the most ideologically driven have ever suggested that this process will be easy or problem free. It will not; it will be difficult and complex. The tone of the Prime Minister’s remarks about our place in Europe may help to ease that path, but it will be important that the Government commit to being open and transparent with Parliament and the country. As we move forward, transparency, openness, engagement and honesty will be expected and will be essential.

Next week, the other Motion that we will debate, in my name, seeks to establish a Joint Committee of both Houses to work together to establish the best way to ensure that Parliament has the best information possible and the best processes to have a meaningful vote on the final agreement. I urge the Government to support this because, as the Prime Minister makes clear, we must all work together in the national interest.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, today is for me and my colleagues an extremely sad day. It marks the point at which the UK seeks to distance itself from its nearest neighbours at a time when, in every area of public policy, logic suggests that we should be working more closely together rather than less.

But sadness is a passive emotion, and it is not the only thing that we feel. We feel a sense of anger that the Government are pursuing a brutal Brexit, which will rip us out of the single market and many other European networks from which we benefit so much. We believe that the country will be poorer, less secure and less influential as a result, and we feel that at every point, whether it be the calling of the referendum itself or the choices made on how to put its result into effect, the principal motivation in the minds of Ministers has been not what is best for the long-term interests of the country but what is best for the short-term interests of the Conservative Party.

We do not believe that the Government have the faintest clue about how they are going to achieve the goals that they set out in their White Paper last month or the Prime Minister’s Statement today, and we have no confidence in their willingness to give Parliament a proper say either as the negotiations proceed or at their conclusion. We therefore believe that, at the end of the process, only the people should have the final say on whether any deal negotiated by the Government —or no deal—is preferable to ongoing EU membership. We will strain every sinew to ensure that outcome.

In her Statement today, the Prime Minister makes a number of rather extraordinary claims. She says that she is going to build on existing workers’ rights rather than diminish them. Can the Leader of the House give just one example, or even a clue, of what that might mean and how it might be achieved? Can she also take this opportunity to repudiate the proposal by a number of leading Brexiters in recent days that the working time directive be either watered down or repealed altogether?

The Prime Minister says that the world needs the liberal democratic values of Europe more than ever. Far be it from me to claim any knowledge of liberal democratic values, but can the Leader explain how leaving the EU can do anything other than reduce Europe’s ability to project those values on the international stage?

The Prime Minister says that she will strengthen the union of the nations which comprise the United Kingdom. Given that to date the effect of the Brexit vote is to threaten the union at every point, what form do the Government expect this strengthening to take?

She says that membership of the single market will be jettisoned because it would be incompatible with the expressed will of the British people. Given that this proposition was not on the ballot paper, that it is the opposite of what was said in the Conservative Party manifesto, that many leading Brexit supporters left open or actually supported the continuation of our single market membership, and that all subsequent polling shows overwhelming support for our continued membership, on what basis is she making that assertion?

She says that Europe has a responsibility to stand up for free trade. Does she not think that the EU will find that a bit rich, coming from this country at the point when we are leaving the single market and customs union?

She says that she wants to be a committed partner of the EU, but when we are walking away from the EU because of the belief that membership of it is damaging to the country’s interests, what can commitment mean other than a shrunken and grudging relationship?

Moreover, does the Leader of the House accept that when the Prime Minister says that when she sits round the negotiating table, she will represent every person in the UK, she is mistaken? She has chosen to promote an extreme version of Brexit and one which is completely at odds with her own views of less than a year ago. In doing so, she has chosen not to speak for the many millions who voted to remain in the EU and the single market, and she certainly does not represent them or me or my colleagues on these Benches.

The Prime Minister claims that Brexit will make us stronger, fairer and better, but it will not. The Government’s approach will make us poorer, less generous and diminished as a nation. It is perfectly legitimate for the country to go down such a route, but it did not do so on 23 June last year, and the people should have the final say on whether this is the fate they really want.

London Attacks

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I endorse the Leader of the House’s comments. After the numerous meetings we had yesterday, I also thank her for the personal leadership that she has shown. I also thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for leading us in Prayers today. I think all of us feel the need to join in collective recognition of what London and our country have faced.

Last night as we returned home we were very grateful—not just because of the shocking and tragic events of the day but simply because we could return home and others would never do so. As the noble Baroness said, those injured and killed on Westminster Bridge were visitors and locals of our great global city. They were just going about their everyday business and enjoying their day. For many of the survivors, life will never be the same.

Each and every day, our police and security staff come to work not knowing what challenges and risks they may face. We all hope for the best—but their training, experience and commitment prepares them for the worst. They never know when they will be called upon to protect the public and those who work in the Palace of Westminster—and, indeed, protect the very home of our parliamentary democracy and all that it represents.

In doing so, police officer Keith Palmer lost his life. Every instinct he had was to protect others. There are no words that can do justice to the sense of loss felt by his family and friends, and by everybody across the Palace of Westminster—his parliamentary family.

In the Statement that follows we can perhaps look forwards to some of the wider issues, but now our thoughts are only for those affected in any way yesterday. It is hard to express the level of gratitude and appreciation due to all of those involved in the security and care operation. We pay tribute to the police, the medical and ambulance services, those staff at St Thomas’ who ran out to help those on Westminster Bridge, the fire and rescue service, our own Westminster security staff, and all staff and members of the public who sought to support those affected by these truly shocking events. In the worst of circumstances, they have given their best.

Lives have been lost and some lives will never be the same. Friends and families will share the pain and distress, as do we.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I begin by associating myself with the remarks made by the Leader and the Leader of the Opposition. From these Benches, our thoughts and prayers are also with the families of those who lost their lives yesterday and our profound sympathies are with the innocent victims—members of the public who were on Westminster Bridge and also subject to this senseless attack.

I of course also pay tribute to PC Keith Palmer, who lost his life yesterday—an extremely brave man—and to all the police and security staff who do so much every day to protect all who come to Parliament to work or visit. I also pay tribute to all those from the emergency services who attended the scene yesterday and who worked with such bravery and professionalism. In particular, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester and others, I thank those who helped Members of your Lordships’ House who are disabled and who needed particular help in being taken to a place of safety. Finally, I thank the Dean of Westminster Abbey and his staff, who opened their doors as a place of sanctuary to MPs, Peers and staff.

This morning we stand together against those who want to diminish our democratic freedoms. We are an open, tolerant country and we will never let those who spread terror and fear win—and we will not let them divide us.

London Attacks

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating today’s Statement. I understand that some of the words at the beginning of my previous comments were lost, so I will just repeat them. The noble Baroness and I had a number of meetings yesterday until quite late in the evening, and I add my personal thanks to her and pay tribute to the leadership she has shown.

The Prime Minister, in her words last night and as we have heard today, has I believe spoken for the nation. Yesterday showed us the best and the worst of society, the worst being those who seek to maim and murder. Yesterday’s atrocities can never be justified by any belief or cause. But we also saw the best, as the noble Baroness has said. We have paid tribute to Police Officer Keith Palmer, who was killed as he protected others. I hope we will be able to have a permanent memorial in the Palace of Westminster to him. Many others from inside this great building and across Westminster ran towards trouble to care for and give comfort to others. That is the London I know.

The full facts may not be clear for some time, but it is clear that this was a vile attack both on innocent individuals and on the institution and symbol of parliamentary democracy. As we receive more information, I have no doubt that security will be reviewed and assessed. That is right. Those who work here in the Palace of Westminster and in London and beyond, and those who seek to protect Parliament, public institutions and the public, should expect nothing less. We must do all we can to ensure the security and safety of our Members of Parliament and their staff. It is less than a year ago that I stood here after Jo Cox, our Member of Parliament for Batley and Spen, was murdered as she worked for her constituents. In seeking to protect lives, we must also seek to protect our way of life, our values and our democracy. At this stage I ask only that the noble Baroness keeps Parliament informed and engaged in this process.

Yesterday’s attack, as truly shocking as it was, ultimately failed—but at a very high price. Our determination to continue our work and our way of life is not false heroism, but based on sound values and responsibility. It is only possible because of the courage, commitment and professionalism of those such as Police Officer Keith Palmer who stand day in, day out in front of danger and evil to protect us all.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. The horrific events of yesterday were an attack not just on Parliament but on democracy. It was an attack on the values that are represented by this building and recognised across the world: freedom, openness, tolerance, human rights, mutual respect for our neighbours and the rule of law.

No doubt there will be lessons that we can learn from the events of yesterday, but we must not lose sight of the fact that the person who carried out this horrific attack was, as the noble Baroness said, prevented from entering the building and was stopped a matter of yards within its precincts. The security arrangements in place for such an attack swung into action, for which we thank our security staff and of course PC Keith Palmer in particular.

I hope that, as we move forward from yesterday’s events, we maintain the sense that Parliament is an open place which the public can visit to lobby parliamentarians and to see our democratic processes in action. But we must listen to the individual experiences of Members and staff to determine where improvements can be made.

I welcome the statement by the Lord Speaker that the House of Lords Commission will be considering these matters next week. No doubt individual Members will have views of their own. I, for example, would like us to look again at the long-standing proposals to pedestrianise some of the streets around this place. However, there are many other sensible suggestions that we need to look at tomorrow.

I have only one question for the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. We do not know at this stage the extent to which this particular incident was entirely home-grown, but we do know that terrorism is an international business. I hope she can give the House an assurance that as we move forward in the months and years ahead, the Government will do everything they can to ensure that our strong and growing security links with our closest neighbours across Europe are maintained and strengthened.

I hope that today, as we condemn this senseless violence, that condemnation will be expressed by both faith and secular communities across the country, for the greatest tribute we can give to those who have lost their lives is to come together as a country and uphold our way of life and democracy.

European Council

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I listened carefully to the Leader of the House repeating the Statement, and I am grateful to her for doing so. It must have been a strange meeting because there really was an elephant in the room. The one thing we most need to talk about with our European partners is what everybody else sitting round that table is thinking about but nobody is talking about—Brexit. I welcome the issues that were discussed, but the longer-term implications for all of these will naturally be different for the UK and it would be helpful to know whether at any stage during this informal summit acknowledgement was made of the different position of the UK, given the long-term nature of some of the plans being made.

The Statement says that, in all the items that were discussed,

“we were able to show once again how Britain will continue to play a leading role in Europe, long after we have left the European Union”.

That is certainly welcome, and it is that vision of a post-Brexit UK that we have all been waiting to hear more details about. We have heard aspirations and we have had general statements, but how it will be achieved has been missing. Given that the Prime Minister was able to show the summit how this will be achieved, is the Leader able to share this information with your Lordships’ House today? Perhaps she could follow up with a Written Statement to Parliament so that we can have the same information as was made available to the European summit.

The summit also discussed organised crime, which does not feature in the Prime Minister’s Statement, apart from a brief reference. Clearly, EU-wide co-operation on serious and organised crime and terrorism has been, and remains, essential. It is an issue on which the UK has taken a lead. The Minister will understand that any reduction in the capacity to tackle these issues, or in the level of co-operation, engagement and information sharing, would damage the interests of the UK, and indeed of the EU.

Given that part of the discussion of security and defence at the summit was on future legislative work, can the Minister say how far we will engage with such legislation, and whether, as a parallel process, the implications for UK legislation will also be examined? Can she also confirm that, following the great repeal Bill, primary legislation will be needed on these issues? Furthermore, in respect of information sharing, have any representations been made, or concerns expressed, by our own security and policing organisations about the implications of our leaving the EU?

Yesterday during Questions, the noble Lords, Lord Harris of Haringey and Lord Rosser, raised serious concerns about the Government’s failure to provide full information on illegal weapons imported into this country. I know that that information is available. Can the Minister say whether it is being shared across the EU with other police forces and security organisations?

I welcome the Prime Minister’s reassurance to the EU about our commitment to NATO. She also discussed this issue with President Trump, and indeed her comments to the summit about other countries investing more echo the comments that he made at the press conference he held with the Prime Minister. Given that the Prime Minister and President Trump appear to think alike on this point—and we agree that all members should commit to 2% of GDP on defence—can the Minister nevertheless confirm that our commitment to NATO is absolute?

In relation to growth and competitiveness, the Prime Minister called for,

“further steps to complete the single market and the digital single market”.

That was said without any sense of irony, but is the Prime Minister really pressing the EU on the single market that she is intent on withdrawing from? More out of interest than anything, I ask: what was the response from the summit?

The Statement also refers to the EU’s free trade agreement with Canada, and the Prime Minister pressed for an agreement with Japan, because,

“these agreements will also lay the foundation for our continuing trading relationship with these countries as we leave the EU”.

Can I ask how? We will have to negotiate our own trade agreements and, given that the Prime Minister has indicated that she wants to take us out of the customs union, surely it follows that we will lose access to all trade agreements negotiated by the EU.

Finally, we get to Article 50 and Brexit. In the Statement, the Prime Minister confirms her long-held date of the end of March for triggering Article 50. I would have hoped, however, that the Prime Minister would have taken this opportunity—her first Statement to Parliament following parliamentary acceptance of the Bill—to say something a little more meaningful, possibly even to confirm her personal commitment on EU and UK nationals living across Europe and on Parliament’s role in the process. We thought that there was a good case for the amendments on these points and that the outcome was the result of stubbornness on the part of the Prime Minister, who wanted a clean Bill. A Statement today, or something in this Statement, would have been extremely helpful and welcome.

The Statement also refers to us taking back control of our borders. Can the noble Baroness confirm that this will require legislation, and confirm the Prime Minister’s commitment to maintain the soft land border with the Republic of Ireland?

The time for broad sweeping statements has gone. It is time for the detail. Words in the Statement, therefore, that offer a “strong, self-governing global Britain”, “control over our borders”, a “stronger economy”, a “fairer society”, a “better deal” and a “brighter future” are meaningless: without some flesh on the bones, they are just words.

Furthermore, a lecture on not playing politics or creating uncertainty is misjudged. There is uncertainty here and now—across the whole of Europe—about the position of EU nationals, UK nationals, business and the environment, and the uncertainty is growing. We have now heard demands for a second referendum in Scotland and calls for an Irish border poll. The Government must act to reduce uncertainty and provide some certainty. I press the Prime Minister for detail not from any party-political motive but out of a need for her to do all she can to remove that uncertainty.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I was struck by the Prime Minister’s claim that she was,

“able to show once again how Britain will continue to play a leading role in Europe, long after we have left the European Union”.

The Statement sets out the roles we play at present in a number of areas but I wonder how these roles will be maintained in the years to come. For example, if we are,

“providing additional staff to support interviewing of Iraqi, Afghan and Eritrean nationals”,

in Greece, do the Government envisage that we will play this sort of role beyond Brexit? The Prime Minister then said that,

“we need a better overall approach to managing economic migration”.

In which form does she envisage that such an overall approach will be co-ordinated involving the United Kingdom?

On the western Balkans, the Prime Minister said:

“We will provide strategic communications expertise to the EU institutions to counter disinformation campaigns”.


This is very welcome but how does the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, envisage that we might provide that kind of support, vital as the Government claim it is, once we have left the European Union?

Turning to growth and competitiveness, the Statement says that the Prime Minister wants us,

“to build a new relationship … that will give our companies the maximum freedom to trade with and operate in the European market”.

That is of course welcome but outside the single market and the customs union it is impossible to have the maximum freedom to trade, so how do the Government marry that welcome assertion with their actual actions? The Statement goes on, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, pointed out, with the Prime Minister rather patronisingly calling,

“for further steps to complete the single market and the digital single market”,

at the very moment when we say that it is such a costly thing for the United Kingdom to be a member of the single market that we are leaving it. Was that well received? Did they think, “Yes, the Prime Minister really has a consistency of approach on that”?

The Statement mentions strengthening our trade relationship with the Commonwealth. Does the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, accept that our trade with the Commonwealth amounts to 9% of our total trade, compared to 44% of our total trade being with the EU? Does she believe that the scope for increased trade with the Commonwealth will be greater than the threat of reduced trade with the EU outside the single market?

On triggering Article 50, the Prime Minister said that,

“we will use this moment of opportunity to build a stronger economy and a fairer society”.

Those are very familiar words on these Benches:

“A Stronger Economy and a Fairer Society”,


was indeed the Liberal Democrat general election slogan. While imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I jolly well hope that the Government have more success with it than we did.

But a stronger economy and fairer society is impossible to achieve outside the European Union. There is no significant body of opinion, beyond one or two noble Lords opposite, which believes that we will have a stronger economy. If we do not have a stronger economy, we will not have as strong public finances, and without public finances being as strong, it is frankly impossible for the state to promote the kind of fairer society of which the Government, and in particular the Prime Minister, speak so often.

Finally, the Statement says that,

“this is not a moment to play politics or create uncertainty and division. It is a moment to bring our country together”.

I wonder whether the Prime Minister, or indeed the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, has tested that sentiment on the 3 million EU citizens living in the UK and their families.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 7th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and all who have spoken in debates on this Bill to date. It has been a great privilege to take part in such debates, which have been conducted with grace, erudition and great passion in equal measure.

The Companion enjoins those who move amendments at this stage to speak briefly to them, so I shall be brief. Amendments to the Motion that the Bill do now pass are rare, and on these Benches we have not initiated such an amendment in recent times. We do so only because of the importance of the issue before us and the strength of our opposition to the way in which the Government have approached this Bill and the Brexit process.

We on these Benches have argued, as we did in the Commons, that while it is perfectly proper for the Government to be triggering the Article 50 negotiations, they should do so only if the process to be followed throughout respects the principles of both parliamentary sovereignty and democratic accountability. In reality, the Government have shown disdain for both. Parliament must clearly play a full part in the entire process, but we also believe it is essential that the people take the final decision, for reasons which we fully debated in recent days.

The Government’s view is that they not only oppose giving the people the final say, but oppose in principle any amendments to the Bill. The noble Lord’s enthusiasm for scrutiny is rather tempered by the idea that such scrutiny might actually lead to amendment. Why is this the case? It is not in reality that it is somehow inappropriate, far less improper, to amend this Bill; it is simply that it is inconvenient for the Government. Their whole attitude is one of lofty disdain for Parliament and the people alike.

In moving this amendment, and voting on it, I do so in the certain knowledge that this Bill will now pass this evening back to the Commons. We on these Benches could not allow this to happen without registering our opposition to the brutal Brexit that the Government are now pursuing, whether in making the country poorer by leaving the single market, or by using more than 3 million EU nationals living in the UK as bargaining chips. These decisions will exacerbate our long-term economic problems—fiscal imbalances, balance of payments deficits and low productivity, as well as our reputation as a welcoming and tolerant country.

However, the Government now seem set on this course towards this brutal Brexit. This is a deliberate distortion of the mandate they received from the British people, and we on these Benches cannot in all conscience support it. At this historic moment, we wish to record again our opposition to the damaging course on which the Government are set, and our opposition to the Government’s refusal to allow the British people, who will feel the consequences of Brexit for generations to come, the right to decide their own future. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, this Bill is a direct result of two things: the outcome of the referendum and the decision of the Supreme Court. In all of this, countless behind-the-scenes hands have been at work. Wherever we stood as we voted on 23 June, all of us know that the tasks since then has been unprecedented. Civil servants have had to devise new structures and work teams to prepare Parliament for this. This is just our first Bill; others will come our way.

So it is appropriate to take a moment, as the Minister did, to acknowledge the work that has been done and to thank all those who have contributed, within the Department for Exiting the EU and within your Lordships’ House. As an Opposition we have been well supported by Dan Stevens, Ben Coffman, Ian Parker and their colleagues—and, while I recognise that the work on the Bill is not yet done, if I thank them now it might give them the energy for all the work yet to be done.

Thanks are also due to the Minister, for whom we have considerable sympathy. I apologise to his family. We have probably taken up far too much of his time and we would be very happy for him to spend more time with them in the months to come. We also thank the Minister’s colleagues and the noble Lord the Chief Whip for their help in dealing with the mechanics of the timetabling of the Bill. I concur with the Minister’s comments and thank all noble Lords who have spoken.

The debates we have had at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report have been a great credit to your Lordships’ House, both in the range of expertise we have been able to show and the quality of debate. I also thank my colleagues, my noble friend Lord Lennie and especially my noble friend Lady Hayter. She has worked tirelessly on this Bill and I have to say that she is lot more even-tempered than perhaps I am. It is a pleasure to work for her and I look forward to seeing her continued work on this Bill. She recalled how she was volunteered to wind up at Second Reading. She will be volunteered again in the future. I give sincere thanks to those noble Lords and all my colleagues on different sides of the arguments. I think we have conducted ourselves with great integrity and strong belief.

That is why I am rather puzzled in many ways by the comments today from the noble Lord, Lord Newby. As somebody who, alongside many of my colleagues, campaigned extraordinarily hard to remain in the EU, I regret the decision that has been taken. I think it has to be not just the 52% who are represented but the 48% as well. It has to be recognised by all in your Lordships’ House that we have a duty to perhaps try to heal and unite where there has been division—and the Government must recognise that they have to act in the interests of the whole country.

During this debate we have voted on two extraordinarily important amendments. The first, on EEA and EU nationals in the UK and UK citizens in the EU, aims to remove some of the uncertainty regarding their position. That was one very serious amendment. The second one was debated tonight on the issue of parliamentary sovereignty. In that case there was a majority of 98.

Both amendments fulfil the criteria of the role of your Lordships’ House in asking the other place, the House of Commons, to reconsider. The quality and content of those debates provide considerable material for MPs to do so. We passed those amendments not as some kind of vanity exercise or just to make a point—we are not a debating society where we have our debates and then afterwards shrug off home or off to the pub because we have made our point and have no thought about what happens next.

What happens in this House is really important. We passed those amendments for a very serious reason, as part of our constitutional responsibilities. I want to hear the House of Commons debate those issues. I want elected MPs to reconsider, and I hope that they will accept our amendments and the principles behind them. I would be very happy to see the Government, who have offered co-operation and help on this one, bring forward similar amendments to give effect to them. These amendments matter. That is why I find the Liberal Democrat Motion tonight absolutely incredible.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, stood in your Lordships’ House today and told us that he accepted the result of the referendum and the vote in the other place—but he failed to convince this House that a second referendum was the right course of action at this time. On the basis of that, as outlined in his Motion—not about anything else, not about all the issues he talked about surrounding a hard Brexit but on the one issue of that vote—Liberal Democrats are now prepared to vote against this whole Bill to stop Members of Parliament considering our amendments. I find that irresponsible.

It may be that he feels okay, as he said, about making a point about Brexit as a whole because they are not going to win the vote. But responsibility is not just about winning—it is about taking responsibility for our actions. As I heard him tonight, he failed to convince me that he is serious about these amendments that we have voted on.

If the Motion from the Liberal Democrats were passed tonight, it would stop the other place considering the amendments on EEA and EU nationals and on parliamentary sovereignty. Your Lordships’ House was never told when voting on these amendments that at the final hurdle the Liberal Democrats would say that they would not support the very amendments that they have asked your Lordships’ House to vote for. I am very much committed to those two amendments, and the Motion shows a lack of commitment to these two amendments and issues which have been voted on in this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby]

Like everybody else, I have got to live with my conscience on this Bill, and I am going to sleep easy tonight. I repeat what I said earlier. We are voting now to record our opposition to the damaging course on which the Government are set and their refusal to allow the British people—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I apologise to the noble Lord. He is again coming back to the point that the reason he is voting for his amendment tonight is because of his fears of a hard Brexit, which are shared with many across the House. However, that is not what the amendment says. It says that they want the Bill to not pass because they did not get their way on a second referendum vote.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, unfortunately, the noble Baroness did not allow me to finish my sentence. Our opposition is to the Government’s refusal to allow the British people, who will feel the consequences—ie, costs—of Brexit for generations to come, the right to decide their own future. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Death of a Former Member: Lord Waddington

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 27th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords as we have heard, Lord Waddington had a long and distinguished career as a lawyer, a politician, Governor of Bermuda and indeed Leader of this House and Lord Privy Seal. Many in your Lordships’ House today will know him well from his service in the other place as an elected MP and a government Minister, and will know that he was a man of strong conviction. I think he would have relished the description I read of him yesterday as being a no-nonsense politician.

Despite his very strong loyalty to Margaret Thatcher and his long and distinguished service as a Minister, he was surprised to find himself appointed Home Secretary, having himself recommended our Lord Speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for the position. I was surprised to find that we had something quite unusual in common: as the noble Baroness said, in his case it was during his maiden speech in this House that the then Prime Minister, John Major, listened from the Throne steps.

Like many noble Lords, Lord Waddington’s dedication to and affection for his constituency, Ribble Valley, continued long after his elevation to your Lordships’ House. There is no doubt that he missed being its MP, given his deep commitment. In some ways he wrote his own obituary when, in an interview in The House magazine some years ago, he said with disarming self-deprecation—I think he was having a joke:

“I would like to be remembered as a decent local buffer who wasn’t all that clever, but in his own way tried to do his best”.


What more can any of us ask than that we try to do our best? On behalf of these Benches I offer sincere condolences to his wife Gilly, his family, his colleagues and his friends.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, unlike many Members of your Lordships’ House I did not know David Waddington personally, although I recall a number of notable speeches that he made from the Benches opposite during my time in the House. It is fair to say he was not one of life’s natural Liberal Democrats, but my colleagues cheered when, as Home Secretary, he referred the case of the Birmingham Six to the Court of Appeal, where of course their convictions were eventually quashed.

The only thing I can really claim to have in common with Lord Waddington is that, like me, he was a proud northerner. He could not help being a Lancastrian but he certainly made the most of it and, as others have said, was plain-speaking and had the characteristics of straightforward behaviour that northerners like to think they share. It is typical of Lord Waddington that he is having his memorial service in Clitheroe rather than across the road; that says a lot about where his priorities lay, and those of his family. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I wish to pass on our good wishes and condolences to Lord Waddington’s wife and family.

Informal European Council

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 6th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement today and concur with her congratulations to Her Majesty the Queen on her 65th anniversary as the nation’s monarch. I hope that Her Majesty is able to commemorate the event in some way, but I suspect for her that this is an anniversary also tinged with sadness at the loss of her father. He endeared himself to the nation, and his early death was a terrible shock. She had not expected to be Queen at such a young age. That was at a time of great change in the world, which is also the case today. It was also a time when, following the war, there were many refugees across Europe. Here we are, 65 years later, and with yet another European summit discussing how to prevent further refugees and mass migration, this time from the Middle East and north Africa.

The Statement talks about the pull factors that lead to people seeking safety and a better life away from their homes. We should always keep in our mind the desperation that leads people to risk their lives and those of their families in leaving their homeland, often leaving behind all their possessions, other family and friends, and often paying large amounts to criminals. In looking at the push factors too, can I ask the noble Baroness about the EU external investment plan? The Statement refers to creating more opportunities in migrants’ home countries. Can she expand on that? I am not sure of the details at all. Is it limited to economy and employment opportunities or is it more linked to security? It would be helpful to have some more information and also to know how it is going to be implemented and monitored, and how success will be measured.

Can the noble Baroness say more about the conversations the Prime Minister had with President Trump when she was at the White House? She said she was able to relay the conversations that she had with the President on the relationship between the USA and European countries. I think we are all quite interested in that conversation and would be interested to hear more. The Prime Minister’s assurance that the President had declared his 100% support from NATO was particularly welcome, but we have not yet heard it from his own lips—or, perhaps more importantly, from his own Twitter account. What was the response from her European colleagues on this point?

The Minister had a number of side meetings but apparently not with the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, as they were able to discuss their issues informally in the margins outside the arranged meetings. Those all-important private discussions can be very productive in building relationships and being frank and open with European leaders, so it makes the situation even more difficult that the Prime Minister then had to pack her bags and leave while the remaining 27 countries further considered other issues relating to the EU that we cannot be part of. What plans do the Government have to ensure that we do not lose out by not being at the table, not just for the formal parts of the meeting where they are discussing the EU post Brexit but for those informal discussions that lead to trust and develop the relationships that will be all-important as we move forward?

Malta has been a close and important ally of the UK over many years; it is the only instance of an entire country being awarded the George Cross. Obviously it is important that we maintain what we would call that “special relationship”, so what are the Government’s plans to ensure that that relationship continues post Brexit? The Prime Minister met the Prime Minister of Spain. Did she discuss Gibraltar, and had she met the Gibraltarian First Minister before she was able to raise any such issues with the Spanish Prime Minister?

On the issue of EU citizens, I do not think today’s Statement gives anything like the reassurance they require so that they can continue with their lives, their jobs, their homes and their families in this country. It is in the Prime Minister’s gift to say so. Even UKIP said so on television yesterday, so why the Prime Minister cannot make such a commitment I have no idea. It is about time we heard something stronger from the Prime Minister on this issue.

The section in the Statement regarding Brexit says the European leaders,

“warmly welcomed our ambition to build a new partnership between Britain and the European Union that is in the interests of both sides. They also welcomed the recognition that we in Britain want to see a strong and successful European Union”.

I hope that is not an overoptimistic view. We have some tough negotiations ahead in which we have to get the best possible deal that we can in the interests of the UK and UK citizens. If there is any complacency at all that these negotiations are going to be easy, I do not see how we can get the best deal. I hope the noble Baroness can assure me that this is not an overoptimistic view and that there is awareness of the difficult discussions and negotiations that are going to take place.

On the last part of the Statement, I am sure I am not the only one in your Lordships’ House who is getting tired of the Government going on and on about not “obstructing”—I think that is the latest phrase—“the democratically expressed wishes of the British people”. I do not know how many times this has to be said about blocking, obstructing, wrecking or whatever is the latest word the Prime Minister has found in her thesaurus. I say to the noble Baroness that asking questions and making suggestions for amendment is not blocking, obstructing or wrecking; it is called parliamentary democracy. That should be welcomed by the Government because that is the way in which we will get the best deal, not just by accusing people who ask questions of blocking. I do not know why those who are in charge of the negotiations are so frightened of questions, because time and again we hear that only by questioning and scrutiny do we get better legislation, and that is all this House would ever seek to do.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I join the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House by congratulating the Queen on her Sapphire Jubilee—a truly remarkable achievement.

With every passing Council meeting, we see the influence of Great Britain and the Prime Minister diminishing. In October, she made a five-minute speech at 1 o’clock in the morning. In December she was pictured standing alone, desperately looking for someone to talk to. This time, she was rebuffed as she offered to act as a bridge between Europe and the USA. One does not need to be an engineer to know that, to be sustainable, a bridge needs firm foundations on both sides of the stream. At the moment the UK is demolishing one set of foundations—namely, those on the European side of the stream—and therefore is it surprising that countries within the EU, from the largest to the smallest, have treated with almost total disdain the Prime Minister’s suggestion that, in our new semi-detached state, we might act as a bridge?

One of the more useful parts of the Prime Minister’s visit to Malta might have been the formal meeting on her agenda with the Chancellor of Germany. Could the Leader of the House explain why that formal meeting was cancelled? Admittedly, the two of them did chat briefly while walking down the street, but frankly that does not constitute a sensible degree of conversation with the most important of our EU partners. Will the noble Baroness say what plans the Prime Minister has to have a substantive discussion with Angela Merkel, to make good the fact that they had very little time, while walking down the street on a sunny day in Valletta, to talk about anything of great substance? This was an extremely short visit by the Prime Minister. As at previous Council meetings, she had to leave after the pudding and probably even before the coffee was served. Not surprisingly, perhaps, she was not present as the other leaders of the EU discussed how they might make preparations for the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome. Will the Leader of the House say whether she expects the UK Government to be represented at those celebrations when they eventually take place and, if so, by whom?

The most substantive part of the discussions in Malta were about migration from Libya. We welcome the fact that it was possible to make progress, and the Prime Minister takes great satisfaction from the fact that she played a significant part in those negotiations. May I echo the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about how the Government expect to play such an important, useful part in future, when they are not even at the table at which those discussions take place? Of course, the vast bulk of the refugees from Libya is going to Italy. We have discussed before in your Lordships’ House the extent to which her Majesty’s Government are making good their commitment under the Dubs amendment to bring child refugees who find themselves in Italy to the UK. I apologise if I have got the figure wrong, but I think that when it was last discussed the Government said one person from the Home Office had been sent to Italy to help in that process. Will the noble Baroness confirm whether that is indeed the case, whether she thinks that to be an adequate response to this humanitarian crisis, and how many children have come to the UK from Italy under the provisions of the Dubs amendment?

Finally, on Brexit and the vexed question of acquired rights, many people in the country just do not understand the Government’s attitude in denying EU citizens living in the UK the knowledge that they will be able to remain post Brexit. The Government seem to be unaware of the crisis that is developing as a result of this policy. Those who saw the BBC news in London will have seen what is happening to the recruitment of EU staff in hospitals in London. Again, I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I think that the figure given of the number of nurses coming to London hospitals has, since last year, fallen by approximately 90% That is an extraordinarily worrying phenomenon, given that we are far from meeting the staffing requirements that the NHS has set itself, and it is by no means clear where else the Government expect those nursing numbers to be made up.

One reason why people are unwilling to come at the moment is that they feel that the attitude of the Government in respect of existing EU citizens gives them no confidence that they will be welcome. Another is that they have no sense of how the rules are going to operate in future. So while the Government have many things about which they do not want to give a detailed account, could they say how they intend to approach the question of migration from the EU of people whose skills we need—whether they are the brightest and the best, at a very high skill level, whether they are medium-skilled people or whether they are the kind of people whom we will require in future to enable our agricultural, horticultural and hospitality sectors to survive and prosper?

European Council: December 2016

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 19th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, for repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement. It was unusual that, following the Council meeting, there was no press statement or conference from the Prime Minister. However, can I say how much we on this side of the House appreciate those announcements being made to Parliament first, which has not always happened recently?

There were two parts to this European Council meeting. The first, as we heard from the noble Baroness, discussed the current and serious issues that affect all existing members of the EU, and we were part of those discussions. The second part was about our leaving the EU, and did not include us and was much shorter, but it is clear that considerable debate and discussion had taken place prior to the formal agreement of those proposals. I want to come on to that later, but those issues that were discussed during the full Council meeting—Syria, Cyprus, migration, security and defence, as well as economic and social development—have huge implications for the UK and for our role, whether in or out of the European institutions, in the geographical area of Europe. It would be helpful to have some further clarification on the UK’s role in those discussions.

The Council discussed recent Commission proposals to increase resilience and reduce risk in the banking and financial sector. This clearly has significant relevance for the UK. What role is the UK playing in these ongoing discussions? At a Council meeting prior to the EU referendum, we signed up to some proposals. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether that commitment remains, prior to our departure? What discussions have been had with the banking and financial sector since then and prior to this Council meeting?

Secondly, one of the areas that convinced me that our departure from the EU would not be in the national interest was policing and security. We had debates in your Lordships’ House on the then coalition Government’s proposals on opting out—and then opting back in again—on policing and criminal justice measures. I note the comments in the conclusions of the meeting. Do the Government still intend to adopt the proposals on firearms and anti-money laundering, and to implement the new passenger name recognition legislation? During discussions on this issue, was there any reference to the UK’s role following Brexit and future security initiatives? The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, will be aware of the concerns raised on this issue by Sir Julian King, our European Commissioner for Security, and Claude Moraes MEP, who chairs the Justice and Home Affairs Committee.

Paragraphs 11 to 13 of the conclusions outline the areas on which the EU needs to reach agreement on security issues early next year, and why co-operation within the EU and with NATO is needed on hybrid threats, maritime issues, cybersecurity, strategic communications and defence matters. In signing up to those conclusions, did the Prime Minister or her officials make any reference to how those commitments might be affected by Brexit, or has this not yet been considered?

As we watch the horrors of Aleppo increase daily, we all have to consider how much more those civilians can endure. It must feel to the thousands trying to flee that, having already lost their homes, their possessions and their loved ones, they are now losing hope. They are perhaps also losing faith that anyone really cares. When the Mayor of Aleppo spoke to the Council, he did so in desperate need for more help and more support. The EU is to be praised for its humanitarian support and for how it has sought to co-ordinate it, but the world has to do more. The UN decision and actions today are a welcome step forward, and I hope they lead to many more lives being saved and many more people being rescued, but what is important, as the Statement says, is implementation, not just resolutions passed or words spoken. Will the noble Baroness tell us what the Government will do to ensure implementation, and what is in place to monitor compliance, because we cannot stand more abuse of people in Aleppo? Our hearts go out to all of them.

Paragraph 27 of the Council’s conclusions states:

“The EU is considering all available options”,

with regard to Aleppo. For many in Syria and in Aleppo there are few options left. I welcome the statement in the conclusions about bringing those guilty of war crimes to justice. The EU is right to support political reconstruction, but only once a credible political transition is under way. Did the discussions focus on how to bring additional pressure to achieve this?

Finally, the last part of the meeting was just the 27 other countries discussing our exit from the EU. This was very specific in terms of the process of negotiations and in the comments by the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, after the meeting. It was also very specific on the principle on which the negotiations will be based. The Minister repeated the Prime Minister’s Statement:

“I updated the Council on the UK’s plans for leaving the European Union”.

I think we would all like to be updated on the Government’s plans for leaving the EU. I appreciate that the Government have not yet been specific—or have been very unspecific—but, with commitment to invoke Article 50 by the end of March, she will understand that if we are to get the best deal and arrangements for the UK, there is some anxiety about when the Government are going to publish further information. Indeed, we could not get exact information from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, about when that information is going to be available. The noble Baroness tried her best to be helpful, but it is difficult in these circumstances.

This becomes even more important when there appears to be confusion at the heart of government about whether we can be half in, half out of the customs union, about how long negotiations will take and about whether a transitional period for negotiation or implementation will be needed. The noble Lord, Lord Lawson, huffs and puffs over there and shakes his head. However, questioning how this will be done is absolutely essential for the Government to get it right. It really cannot be the position that, every time somebody questions how it is going to be done or wants more details, there is some kind of accusation that we are not acting in the national interest. We are absolutely acting in the national interest by trying to get more information to look at. The noble Lord shakes his head. I wonder why those who were the most enthusiastic about Brexit loathe any questions about it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, will understand that this House stands ready to assist and to be helpful. She will have already seen the very helpful, excellent reports from our EU Select Committees. They are identifying issues that need to be addressed to make sure that we have effective and more detailed solutions in the national interest. Can she give an assurance to your Lordships’ House that, despite whatever legislative responsibilities we may have, full and adequate time will be provided for such discussions and debates? As a scrutiny Chamber, we want to play a responsible and helpful role in ensuring the best arrangements for the UK.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, in the spirit of Christmas, I do not intend to dwell on the Brexit-related issues raised in this Statement. It would be wholly against those core British public service values of tolerance and respect for others to inquire at this festive season about the many and various splits in the Cabinet on all the relevant Brexit issues.

The overarching question which strikes me from a perusal of the agenda of this Council relates to the importance of the subject matter. The agenda included migration, security, economic and social development in respect of young people, Cyprus, Ukraine and Syria. These are some of the biggest issues facing the continent in our time, and it is vital that they are considered—as happened—by Europe as a whole in the Council. If Britain leaves the EU, we will not be at those Council meeting discussions. Have the Government given any thought as to how our vital national interest in key foreign policy issues such as this will be addressed if we are outside the EU? How will the British voice be heard when the rest of Europe considers these huge issues?

Of the issues discussed, arguably the two most important, in the short term at least, were migration and Syria. On migration, the Council statement said:

“Member States should further intensify their efforts to accelerate relocation, in particular for unaccompanied minors, and existing resettlement schemes”.

We welcome the Statement by the Government following this up to the effect that,

“we will also deploy 40 additional specialist staff to the Greek islands to accelerate the processing of claims, particularly from Iraqi, Afghan and Eritrean nationals, and to help return those who have no right to stay”.

It says a lot about the Prime Minister that she concentrates on those we are rejecting, not those we are accepting, and that she says nothing about what is happening in terms of the Government’s commitment to accept unaccompanied minors and others from the region. Could the noble Baroness the Leader update us on the position in respect of unaccompanied minors? What is being done following the dispersal of the Calais camps to identify such people in camps elsewhere in France which hold children who we might accept and to bring them to the UK under either the Dublin or Dubs criteria? What are we doing in Greece to identify unaccompanied minors who equally might expect to come to the UK?

The Government have justified their unwillingness to accept a single adult refugee from mainland Europe on the grounds that they would accept 20,000 Syrian refugees directly from the region over the course of this Parliament. Could the noble Baroness the Leader tell us how many have currently been accepted? The last time the Minister gave an answer at the Dispatch Box, we were accepting people at about half the rate needed to reach the 20,000 target. Has that rate increased in recent weeks, and if not, what plans do the Government have to rectify this shortfall?

On Syria, we welcome the additional £20 million expenditure. Is the Leader able to say how this fits into the overall European response and whether such figures are being matched by our principal European partners? The Prime Minister, in her Statement, referred to the meeting which the Foreign Secretary had with the Russian and Iranian ambassadors last week. What do the Government plan to do to maintain pressure on Russia and Iran to prevent any further indiscriminate violence against civilians as the evacuation of east Aleppo continues? Will the Foreign Secretary make sure that he remains in close touch not just with those two ambassadors but with other ambassadors in the region so that we can have direct and continuing input and pressure to ensure that the position in east Aleppo is resolved as smoothly—if such a word is appropriate—as possible?

Finally, the EU Council reiterated its support for the principle that,

“Those responsible for breaches of international law, some of which may amount to war crimes, must be held accountable”.

This can only happen if enough compelling evidence is collected. What steps are the Government taking, including financially, to encourage the collection of such evidence?

Strathclyde Review

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Thursday 17th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the Statement. It came very promptly after the leak last night, and I do not think she expected to be here this morning. The decision not to proceed with legislation is warmly welcomed by your Lordships’ House, as she will have heard. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and to the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip for the way in which they have approached this issue—it is appreciated. I also put on record our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for the diligence and care he took on his report. I welcomed and enjoyed the discussions we had, although I have to say that, knowing the commitment he has shown to this House over many years, I sometimes felt his heart was not quite in it.

Although we welcome the main conclusion that there should not be legislation, we still feel that option 3 in the report is wrong, and that it misunderstands the role of this House and the constitutional position of statutory instruments, which are sent to your Lordships’ House from the Government, not from the House of Commons. This was never about the primacy of the House of Commons but about the primacy of government. We certainly welcome the fact that this has been done in the spirit of looking forward rather than of what has happened in the past, and none of us wants to rerun the old arguments. However, I want to briefly reflect on the constitutional background that led to the Strathclyde review following the votes on the tax credits statutory instrument.

That review and its recommendations were an absurd overreaction from the then Prime Minister and completely unnecessary. But perhaps it did us a great service: for one brief moment in time, statutory instruments became exciting to people who had never heard of them before. This House has an enviable and well-deserved reputation for the way in which it fulfils its duty of scrutiny of government legislation, including secondary legislation. As a House, we recognise those responsibilities but also our limitations as an unelected second Chamber. We also recognise that when it comes to secondary legislation, with our scrutiny committees and our debates, we discharge that duty with both expertise and experience.

We considered that, as a significant policy change, the tax credits proposals should have been dealt with more appropriately and properly as primary legislation. But even then, this House was reluctant to just block them and we rejected a fatal Motion. However, again in the spirit of how this House works best, we sought to find a sustainable way forward to provide the Government with greater detail on the impact of the proposals, and the time and the space to think again, reflect and reconsider. That gained support from all corners of this House and was passed. The Government reconsidered and changed the policy. That was the right and appropriate action to take.

Your Lordships’ House unanimously agreed the report of the Joint Committee on Conventions, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham of Felling, in 2006, which said that in clearly exceptional circumstances this House retains the power to vote against and reject secondary legislation. But the significance of that power is reflected in how rarely it is used: just five times in nearly 70 years. There have been other attempts, but all have failed. That is because it must be exceptional—for example, where the primary legislation is in effect a skeleton Bill or where an SI is being used for a significant policy change, but not where secondary legislation is merely implementing the details of policy from primary legislation. That does not mean we do not challenge the Government or hold them to account but, as the report clearly says, unless there are exceptional circumstances,

“opposition parties should not use their numbers in the House of Lords to defeat an SI simply because they disagree with it”.

The tax credits votes that led to this review were exceptional. They fulfilled the criteria. It was not just a matter of disagreeing, but was completely in line with the history and conventions of this House and the Cunningham report.

The noble Baroness referred to Brexit. Over the past few weeks, there has been considerable speculation about the role of your Lordships’ House in examining Brexit. We have been clear: we will not block; we will not delay. But a Government without a plan do not have a blank cheque. Clearly this House will have an important role, especially if there is considerable secondary legislation that will need us to work together to provide effective scrutiny from all sides of the House in the public interest. I say to the noble Baroness that I hope she and her colleagues in government will see this House as an asset rather than just a challenge.

On these Benches we always considered that the Strathclyde review was evidence that the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, loathed challenge and feared scrutiny. That made life a bit difficult for us because challenge and scrutiny are what we do. However, in warmly welcoming today’s announcement, I thank the noble Baroness and the Chief Whip. I hope this heralds a new, more adult and reasonable approach to government and opposition where challenge and scrutiny are recognised as being in the public interest.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House both for making the Statement and for its content. I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about the sensible approach that she and the Chief Whip have taken over this issue.

At the time, we regarded the Government’s response to the votes on tax credits as being a petulant overreaction. It was part of a general approach that regarded Parliament as a bit of an inconvenience, an approach sadly replicated by their view on parliamentary debates on triggering Article 50. In our view, the House was exercising its scrutiny powers within well-established rules. We rested our case on the Motion proposed by Lord Simon of Glaisdale in 1994, now enshrined in our Companion to the Standing Orders:

“That this House affirms its unfettered freedom to vote on any subordinate legislation submitted for its consideration”.

Our traditional role is to ask the Commons or, as in the case of tax credits, the Government to think again when we believe they have got it wrong. It is worth recalling that in reality, on the question of tax credits, exercising that role produced the rethink that your Lordships’ House was seeking.

The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, undertook his review with his customary energy and wisdom but struggled to find a way forward that was an improvement on the current position. It was extremely interesting when his report was debated in your Lordships’ House what wide agreement there was across the Benches about both the pitfalls of his preferred approach and the other things that could be done to improve secondary legislation and the way that it is scrutinised. The clearest message from that debate, which I strongly endorse, was that many of the problems with secondary legislation arise when the Government use it to implement measures that should be included in primary legislation.

There was also a widespread view in the debate that the way in which we scrutinise secondary legislation could be improved by giving some scope for rethink and amendment. Certainly, both as a party spokesperson and as a Minister, I have found debates on statutory instruments for the most part particularly sterile. Will the Government therefore be prepared to countenance further discussion about how the quality of scrutiny of SIs by your Lordships’ House could be improved? In the light of yesterday’s suggestion that the Brexit process might lead to upwards of 2,000 SIs being produced, could the Government give an assurance now that they will not abuse the SI system in future by including in statutory instruments substantial policy issues that should rightly be the subject of primary legislation?

European Council

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Newby

Monday 24th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Newby, to his first contribution to the House as the new leader of his party group. I am in the slightly strange position of now being the longest serving group leader in your Lordships’ House.

These EU Council meetings are undoubtedly trickier and more awkward for this Prime Minister than they have been for her predecessors. For all the hope and talk of being in until we are out, a worrying picture is emerging of a UK that is already starting to be sidelined. I suppose that it is inevitable and understandable, but it is nevertheless significant and it is of concern. I think that this is the first time that a British Prime Minister has not had important bilateral meetings with key EU leaders such as those of France and Germany. The three bilateral meetings she had were with Estonia, Romania and Greece. They were cordial and important issues were discussed, but they were not those which are central to the UK exit or our future.

When our Prime Minister spoke to the other 27 leaders about Brexit, if the accounts of that meeting or dinner are accurate, she had just five minutes in which to do so. But that may have been just long enough for the key messages she wanted to give because here we are, four months after the referendum result, and we are no closer to understanding the Government’s negotiating position. What is of more concern is that there is no confidence, either at home or in the EU, that the Government are any nearer to clarifying their negotiating position. So our Prime Minister wanders into high-level European Council meetings at a disadvantage even before they start. While such a position might have been understandable for her first or even her second meeting, it cannot continue.

I read the transcript of the Prime Minister’s statement in the press conference. There are only so many times that we can fall back on abstract and general terms about “finding the balance”, “maintaining a good relationship” or “playing a full role in the EU while we remain” before we have to start the serious work of negotiation. Before we do that, the UK has to have a position. We can sense the frustration from the EU in some of the comments made by other leaders, who are as keen as we are to understand the position of the UK Government.

Before I turn to the specific conclusions of the Council, I want to add something about the process in our Parliament. I read reports at the weekend, as did others, that an unnamed Cabinet Minister has responded to concerns raised about Brexit by Members of your Lordships’ House by saying that the Government could do a “Lloyd George” and create another 1,000 Peers. Here we go again.

Let us be clear. There are few in this House who do not have genuine concerns about the future of the UK outside of the EU and the Government’s apparently confused and unsettled approach to negotiating our exit. We take our responsibilities seriously in assisting the Government to make the best possible arrangements for the UK. We will use the expertise and knowledge of this House fully to understand the implications of Brexit, to advise the Government and to do whatever we can to ensure that these issues are effectively addressed, both through our highly regarded EU Committees and on the Floor of your Lordships’ House. We will scrutinise; we will examine; we will not block. But nor will we be bullied into abdicating our responsibilities.

We have to be adult about this. We cannot have the most enthusiastic Brexiters crying foul every time Parliament asks for some details or seeks to scrutinise. This cannot be the only issue on which the Government are allowed a blank cheque without any accountability. It is complex, it is difficult and the Government should see this House as an asset and not try to avoid helpful scrutiny. Their mantra of “No running commentary” is becoming embarrassing and sounds like code for “We haven’t a clue”. Can I suggest that the Government abandon this and see Parliament as a resource for getting this right?

On migration, it seemed that nothing new came out of the Council meeting. The first page of the press release states:

“The European Council took stock of the latest developments … highlighting the importance of implementation”.

It just reads as an update on actions going back, as indicated on page 2, “many years”, and a call for more action on previously agreed policies. Given the scale of the crisis, can the noble Baroness highlight anything new or any real progress that was made on this issue?

In the final paragraphs of the report on external relations and the atrocities waged on civilians in Aleppo, the language is strong, but a statement that:

“The EU is considering all available options, should the … atrocities continue”,

does not appear to have worried President Putin very much as his military flotilla sailed through the English Channel. Can the noble Baroness say anything more about the Prime Minister’s role in these discussions and what action she urged on the EU?

On trade, there were discussions regarding the stalled EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. The Prime Minister has repeated in her Statement today that she is not looking at any existing model for future UK trade agreements but that the UK will create something new and specific to the UK. Although we have been unable to have anything other than very informal discussions with other countries regarding future trade agreements, it is clear that EU negotiations with Canada, Japan and other trade partners, including South America, will impact on the UK and on our future discussions. Just by saying, as the Prime Minister does in her Statement, that it will not have any impact does not make that the case. What role is the UK playing in these negotiations and what serious assessment is being undertaken of the future impact on any UK negotiations with these countries and the EU?

Although the Prime Minister did not have a formal bilateral meeting with the Spanish Prime Minister, was there an opportunity for an informal conversation, either at ministerial or official level, on Gibraltar? I know that the noble Baroness will understand the concerns of the Government and people of Gibraltar. Can she provide reassurance today that they will never be used as bargaining chips in pursuit of a wider settlement?

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her welcome.

Picture the scene: it is one o’clock in the morning—the dinner started five hours earlier. The Heads of Government are texting their chauffeurs to come and pick them up, and almost as an afterthought to the main proceedings, the British Prime Minister is asked to speak about the Government’s approach to Brexit. She speaks for five minutes. The weary Prime Ministers heave a sigh of relief and stagger into the night. This is not regaining control, this is just humiliating.

On the substance of the Prime Minister’s middle-of-the-night performance, can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House explain why it took her so long to deliver it? Given the almost total lack of information that she has provided to Parliament so far, she could have written her presentation on a postage stamp. Why on earth did it take five minutes?

In the discussions earlier in the day, the Prime Minister apparently played a vigorous part: on Syria, on migration and on external trade. She says that she wants to continue to play a full part in such discussions as long as we remain a member of the EU. In recent weeks, however, she and other Ministers have used language that can only harden attitudes towards the UK among the other EU politicians. Can the noble Baroness explain to the House how such rhetoric can do anything other than weaken our negotiating position not just on Brexit but on every other issue as well? Is not this weakness reflected in the fact that, instead of meeting the leaders of France and Germany, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has pointed out, the Prime Minister only had summit bilaterals with the leaders of Estonia, Romania and Greece? Is it not also reflected in the fact that the Prime Minister pleaded with the other 27 member states not to be excluded from meetings, only to be told that she was living on “another planet” if she expected to be involved in discussions that affected the future of Europe after our planned departure date?

In these circumstances, what does the Prime Minister’s statement that she will be a “strong and dependable partner” really mean? Have not the other Heads of Government already decided that, for their purposes, she is actually weak and irrelevant? Is it not the case that with every passing month, our influence with other member states will diminish, and that as they take decisions with long-term implications, they will simply view the British input as increasingly irrelevant? Moreover, does this not foreshadow a longer-term problem for the UK; namely, that as discussions at EU Council meetings increasingly cover actions to be taken after our planned date of departure, our voice will be simply and increasingly ignored? Can the noble Baroness give the House some idea of how, if we are no longer members of the EU, the Government can hope to exercise as much influence as we now have with the 27 other EU member states when we are not even in the room when they discuss issues such as security, foreign policy, migration or the environment?

On the summit issues themselves, can the noble Baroness confirm whether a no-fly zone in Syria is now government policy, given recent comments by the Foreign Secretary? Am I right in thinking that the Prime Minister failed to use the opportunity of the summit to press her French counterpart about how best to protect the hundreds of children currently stuck in the Calais Jungle camp? Will she update the House, given today’s events in Calais, on how many children the UK expects to take as a result of the system initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs? In her discussion with the Prime Minister of Greece, did she take the opportunity to discuss how most effectively we could begin to take unaccompanied refugee children from there, in pursuance of the Dubs amendment?

I believe that the Prime Minister spoke on—and voted at the summit to prevent—the imposition of punitive duties on Chinese steel imports. Was that indeed the case, and if so, how does the Prime Minister justify her stance? Can the noble Baroness imagine that we would take a similar stance if the dumping country were any other than China, with which the Government seem desperate to retain good relations at almost any cost?

This Statement is from a Government who believe they can lecture people into being sympathetic, who are split from top to toe on what they want Brexit to look like, and who now have no admirers and virtually no friends left in Europe. This is not a recipe for a bold new future for our country, this is a recipe for disaster.