G20

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Stoneham of Droxford

Thursday 17th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Lord Stoneham of Droxford

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

I accept the point that the noble Lord makes, but the key issue is that if we are looking for a fair settlement, we have to do something about the cap on donations. That is the issue. If we are dealing with the political levy, we have to do something about the cap. That is why the Conservatives were worried in the debate the other day, because they know that if they make and pursue an attack, as they are, on the Labour Party and the political levy—I will get a laugh for this, because I know that this Bill is not about political funding of particular parties—it is open season. It is very unfair when they have the generous funds that they already have that they are making it easier for themselves.

We would say, however, that there is plenty of scope here. Let us not forget that there is a lot of political funding currently going on from the state. There is the £40 million spent on the post system during the general election, the Short money, subsidies for party conferences and money for policy development. There is a lot of money currently being spent from government funds on political parties.

The other area where we think we could get money from, if we are not going to allow taxpayers to contribute to political parties, is government political funding for advertising. There is a huge pot of money there, and just a few million pounds of it could contribute to solving this problem. If that is in the form of tax incentives, that is fine, but let us also make sure that we have an equitable resolution of these problems that does not give political advantage to one party or another.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I say at the outset that we have got ourselves into a bit of a pickle over procedure; I know that the Government Whip is not in his place at the moment. It is rather unusual for the Minister to agree to answer one debate when responding to another. I hope that that does not mean that she will avoid any of the questions raised in the previous debate, however unusual the procedure that has been adopted may be. I also hope that she has found her folder: she told me in the Ladies that she had lost it, and I think that she would struggle to respond to some of the debates without it.

I thank my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours for raising this issue, which he did with his usual tenacity and also his usual thoughtfulness. There is merit in discussing this further. Surprisingly, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Leigh—although not with his analysis—that this is probably not the right place to debate it. The noble Lord says that the Bill is not about the funding of political parties, but the amendment is about the political levy, which is in the Bill. If the amendment affects political parties because it discusses the political levy, so does the Bill—so that is a curious and tortuous reason he gives for not supporting it.

The wider point is that my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours highlights why the issue of the political levy, which involves party-political funding and political funding of the work of trade unions, should properly be considered in the round, as it was by the Committee on Standards in Public Life when it looked at the issue. If we consider tax relief on those paying their contribution to the unions’ political funds, that has wider implications. To look at it in isolation from the other issues raised by the Committee on Standards in Public Life is wrong—as we have argued that these two clauses are wrong.

My noble friend highlights the inadequacy of the Bill. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, on one point: there is a debate to be had about whether contributions to political parties or the political levy of a trade union are part of wider civic society and should be recognised as such. I suspect that the Minister feels nervous at the idea that trade unions could be regarded as part of civil society, from her earlier comments, but this should be fed into the overall debate on party-political funding. It is worthy of consideration, but today is probably not when we should be discussing these issues; the proper place would be in a debate on party-political funding.