Combating Atrocity Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and Genocide
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, it is pleasure to speak immediately after the right reverend Prelate, and to share these Benches’ support for his call to reinstate the 0.7% for overseas aid as soon possible. If the Minister is able to give any insight into that, that would be very welcome, because, as the right reverend Prelate has just said, words are never enough. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, about the dangers of democratic backsliding and other phenomena. So there is a range of issues that we need to think about this afternoon at the end of a very powerful debate.
As always, I pay tribute to my friend the noble Lord, Lord Alton. We have already heard that the noble Lord, Lord Rook, aspires to be like the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He also wants to be, perhaps, a deputy Bishop and did the work of presenting the words of the former Bishop of Truro and his report very effectively. As many noble Lords will realise, one of the things to which you would have to aspire, to be like the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is to be utterly persistent and to ensure that, whenever there is a scintilla of hope that somebody might be willing to speak in a debate, you will keep coming and saying, “Could you just do this?” The noble Lord is so passionate about the causes that matter.
The causes on which he speaks, including bringing us today’s debate and introducing another Private Member’s Bill, are always of the most profound importance: literally, matters of life and death. They are issues on which we find it very easy to agree that there is a need to speak. Across the Chamber, we may find many points of convergence, but so often there is one person or one group of people who seems to find it so very difficult to support what the noble Lord and other noble Lords have said in the debate. I am hoping today that I might be proved wrong, and that the Government Benches might be willing to say, “You’re right. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has brought such a compelling case and his Private Member’s Bill is so important that we are going to give it a fair wind”.
We have heard this afternoon about the difficulty that we, and the other place, have faced over the years when suggesting that a case may be one of genocide. The response from the Government Front Bench is always, “A very difficult case—we agree there’s a problem, but we can’t name it as a genocide. That is for the courts to decide”. The response of the courts is, “We can’t determine a genocide, because we need some legal basis on which to do that, beyond the general international law norms”. I very much hope that the Minister might be able to suggest that he can be a little more open, and that the Government might welcome a very useful Private Member’s Bill that is on its way.
“Never again” were the words with which I planned to open my speech. My noble friend Lord Hussain did so in his speech, because they were the words that were proclaimed immediately after World War II and after the Holocaust. When we had the convention on genocide, its words had the important contribution of Raphael Lemkin, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, earlier, and there was the work of Hersch Lauterpacht on crimes against humanity. It was “never again”, and yet, 80 years on, we see so frequently cases that are clearly atrocity crimes.
I am very mindful of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. He said that we need to be careful about calling too many things genocide; perhaps we use that word too casually. But it is important for us to find a way, as a country, and to be able to be reassured that the Government are mindful of all their duties under the convention on genocide. It is not simply about naming a genocide or just about punishing one, if a court is eventually able to agree that one has been perpetrated. It is also, as we have heard this afternoon, about preventing genocide.
That might sound a very large demand, and it is. I am very grateful for a briefing that I was sent by Ewelina Ochab, who has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in which there is a reminder that in 2007, in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro, the judgment stated that the duty to prevent genocide is to be triggered when the state
“learns of, or should normally have learned of, the existence of a serious risk that genocide will be committed”.
Even in the 1930s, if the word genocide had existed, people would have been able to see that there was a genocide of the Jewish people—and that was in the days before mass media and mass, instantaneous communication.
We now have many more opportunities to be aware of potential atrocities, crimes against humanity and genocide. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm this afternoon whether he feels that the Government have all the tools they need to be aware of genocides that may be being perpetrated, or where there is a serious risk of genocide, because that is clearly a duty for this Government and for our country. From the first speech by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, onwards, we have heard references to a whole series of cases where there are clearly crimes of atrocity. Whether or not they are genocides, there are crimes that need to be investigated and explored: in Sudan; with the Uyghurs in China; the case of the Rohingya; and the situation in the Middle East, where there are allegations that clearly need to be looked into. If there is nothing to see then no crime will be found, but there is at least a duty to explore cases where perhaps there may be genocide or crimes against humanity.
One case I would like to touch on before I conclude is Afghanistan. Just under five years ago, NATO troops withdrew from Afghanistan. We had played a crucial role there. When we left, we left behind many vulnerable people: women and girls, who have been mentioned, and members of the judiciary, for whom the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, did fantastic work. But the end of May marked 1,717 days since restraints on women’s education began, and over 500 days since women have no longer been able to train as midwives in Afghanistan. On 14 May this year, the Taliban had a decree on the principles of separation between spouses; this legalises child marriage and establishes different standards of consent for girls and boys who are minors. Under the decree, a minor girl’s silence is treated as consent to marriage, whereas a boy at least has explicitly to accept or reject such marriage. There is also a decree that can essentially take away the property of Afghans who are currently out of the country. Why might they be out of the country? It is precisely because they have fled for their lives from the Taliban. As a country, we still owe a duty to many Afghan refugees and to those still in Afghanistan. What is His Majesty’s Government doing to support them?
Ukraine: UK-USA Discussions
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have worked in all multilateral institutions to ensure that the position of the United Kingdom and its allies in support of Ukraine is heard loud and clear. I certainly welcome my noble friend’s report on the OSCE meeting.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
My Lords, we will hear from the Liberal Democrats.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Minister said it is vital that the United Kingdom and our European allies stay in marked support of Ukraine. Does he believe that the United States still gives that vital support to Ukraine? Very often it does not look like that under Donald Trump.
Defence and Security
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments, which come from his experience on the committee. He is right to highlight the threats that exist. People sometimes think that threats in relation to defence issues are happening to other countries and other people—but, no, they happen to us as well. We have seen people attacked in this country because of Russian aggression, including with the Salisbury poisonings. We should not forget that the fundamental first duty of any Government is the safety and security of their own citizens. He also makes the important point that this is not just about the military might of a country; it is also about how we use our equipment and personnel, as well as intelligence and modern technology. Bringing security, in its widest sense, into defence spending—not as part of, but above, the 2.5%—will be very important. Unless we take a stand to show that we are determined and have the ability, the will and the finances to protect our citizens, we will not get respect across the entire world. We have to take the leadership role today that we need to take, and we are able to do so today.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we have plenty of time. We will hear from the Liberal Democrat Benches next, and then we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Howard.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I suspect that it will not surprise anyone in this House that I welcome the Government’s Statement to increase defence expenditure, although I might have taken a slightly different approach to where it comes from in the budget line. Can the Leader of the House tell us what the Government are doing to look at military expenditure in terms of working with the defence sector and recruitment, so that by the time we increase spending we have ensured that we have let the necessary contracts? Increasing the budget is one thing, but expanding our capabilities may not come about unless we get that right.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right: you cannot suddenly turn on a tap for defence expenditure, say it is however many billions of pounds more and then spend it the next day. Supply chains, research and development, and recruitment must be put in place. That is where the work of the strategic defence review that I mentioned will be vital. We totally concur with her important point.
UK Strategy Towards the Arctic (International Relations and Defence Committee Report)
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to wind from these Benches in what has been a fascinating debate. I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, for opening the debate in a magnificent way that really drew out so many key issues about the Arctic: the importance of the Arctic for the United Kingdom, for our security and more generally. It is commonplace to say, “This has been an excellent debate”, but this afternoon we have heard not just from people who have worked on the International Relations and Defence Committee on this report but from people with a genuine interest in the Arctic. I suspect few of us can match the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, in having been to the North Pole. If I were in my normal environment of a university classroom, I would be asking people to put their hands up. It is not the custom or practice in your Lordships’ House to do that, but I am not getting a great sense of noble Lords saying, “Yes, I have been to the North Pole”. Like several noble Lords, I have been to Bardufoss, to the cold weather training with the Royal Marines.
I declare my interests as a member of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme and as a trustee of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust, under the auspices of which several noble Lords, and in particular Members of the other place, have had the opportunity of engaging in cold weather training with our colleagues in Norway. The Dutch were there as well. In particular, I am very grateful to the Norwegians because they gave me a pair of army boots that were much more comfortable than the NATO-issue army boots. That really was co-operation in practice in a practical sense.
Clearly, there are very serious issues at stake with the Arctic. I was slightly taken aback by the Library’s opening line in its briefing for today’s debate, which reminds us that there is not really a technical definition of what constitutes the Arctic or what the region is. The Arctic Circle is very clear, but what do we count as Arctic? Clearly, we take eight countries as being Arctic states, and the closest neighbour then, after the seven NATO Arctic countries and Russia, is the United Kingdom. We genuinely have a claim to be a near neighbour—unlike China, whose geographical relationship is rather more distant. Yet in 2017 Russia and China were already talking about a polar silk road. Just days before the Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine in 2022, they carried on discussions of a polar silk road. The Russia-China relationship—in particular relating to the Arctic—has significant ramifications for the region. That includes the United Kingdom.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, reminded us, we might now be a medium-sized state that may have global aspirations, but we are a state that has very long-standing and deep commitments to the North Atlantic area and to the High North. Their security and ours are closely linked, which we discovered, if anyone had forgotten, in the last few days, with former President and President-elect Trump’s view that Greenland is so important. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Teverson and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, for talking at some length about the views of the United States—or at least the views of President-elect Trump, because I doubt that they are the views of the United States. I suspect that there is not, in the rust belt, a sense of people saying: “We’ve got to take Greenland; Greenland is so vital for our security and economic interests”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out, this is not the first time that Donald Trump has talked about wanting to buy Greenland or to have Greenland. Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out, it is the height of irresponsibility to raise the status of Greenland. It is very easy to assume—or it was during the last Trump presidency—that this is just being said in jest and that it is not a serious suggestion. But this time around it is very clear that Donald Trump has an interest in Greenland that goes beyond simply his son, Donald Trump Jr, visiting Greenland and putting on social media—on a platform that I shall not name, owned by somebody who does not need any more airtime than he has had in recent times—that “Greenland is beautiful”. For those Members of your Lordships’ House who have not had the opportunity of visiting Greenland, I strongly recommend it. Greenland is indeed beautiful.
Visit Greenland uses as its slogan “Colourful Nuuk”—that is the capital. It has also just been investing in an international airport to make tourism easier. I raise tourism, which has not come up today, because it is one of the aspects of climate change and changes to global interdependence and co-operation that comes to the fore when we think about both the Antarctic and the Arctic. It is not just the freeing up of shipping lanes for commercial trade that has become increasingly important, but a sense among many people that they want to engage in tourism to the South Pole—or, more likely, somewhere in Antarctica—or the Arctic, which is in easier range for many.
For Greenlanders who want to expand their economy in a way that looks sustainable—without getting into the discussion about rare earths—tourism might seem attractive. But the more tourists they attract, the more in danger are the UNESCO sites in Greenland. The reason for visiting Greenland is precisely the beauty that comes from it being part of the frozen Nordic area, but the more visits there are, the faster climate change will be. So it is vital that we think about not just a general discussion of climate change, but local issues for our Nordic partners.
There is a significant question about the sovereignty of Greenland, which needs to be considered. This report, like His Majesty’s Government’s previous strategic defence reviews and policy on the Arctic, thinks about China and Russia as threats. While I am in no way suggesting that the United States is a threat to the United Kingdom or to any of our NATO allies, the suggestion that one sovereign NATO state has an interest in buying part of another NATO state raises some questions about our alliances and how we work with our partners. I join others in asking the Minister whether he, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, will join the voices from France, Germany and the European Union in reminding President Trump that, actually, Greenland is not for sale and that this is not the way we work with our partners in NATO.
Beyond that, there are clearly questions about the UK’s role in the Arctic and our military contributions in particular. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and others about the lack or inadequacy of military capabilities. I am not, on this occasion, talking about the size of the defence budget, but I ask the Minister—if he is actually listening at the moment—whether he feels that the equipment and capabilities that we are currently able to deploy in the Arctic region and in the NATO area are adequate and fit for purpose. Is there a case for talking to the Treasury to stress the need to bring forward major defence procurements, such as an icebreaker or other ships and patrol vehicles that would be of benefit to our security as well as that of the Arctic?
This has been an important debate which has raised many timely questions. While I would normally agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that a debate should take place as soon as possible after a report has been written, on this occasion this debate is timely. It is a perfect opportunity for us to ask His Majesty’s Government whether they will reiterate our commitments to the Arctic and whether their position changes from that of the previous Government in any way.
Syria
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for producing the Statement for this House.
The previous Conservative Government had called for Assad to go over 10 years ago. There are moments in history when moral clarity is essential and, in refusing to re-engage with a dictator who has brought untold suffering to his own people, this Government made the right choice. We believe that Britain must stand firm against tyranny and in support of freedom, democracy, and the dignity and rights of the individual. The fall of Assad is a moment of profound change, not just for Syria but for the whole region. The announcement of additional funding for humanitarian aid, including support for the White Helmets, underscores this Government’s commitment to the Syrian people, and I welcome it.
I will follow up on a couple of questions that were asked by my right honourable friend the shadow Foreign Secretary in the other place. First, as we have seen, Assad has fled to Russia and claimed asylum. Can the Minister confirm that no asylum claims will be accepted in this country from former members of the Assad regime, many of whom will be associated with human rights abuses?
Secondly, there are concerns about the status of minority faith and ethnic groups under the new regime. Syria is a rich tapestry of faith groups and ethnic groups, and we must ensure that Druze, Alawites, Christians, Kurds and other minority groups must be protected. The Minister’s ministerial colleague the Member of Parliament for Lincoln had conversations with civil society representatives yesterday. Can the Minister update us on which parties these talks were with? Can he also tell the House what assurances the Government are making to these minority groups?
Finally, I am sure that many Syrians will be delighted to return to their country, now that Assad is no longer in charge. On the issue of Syrian resettlement, the Foreign Secretary said that the issue was “premature”. Can the Minister expand on what his right honourable friend meant by that?
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, I welcome the Minister coming to this House to repeat the Statement on Syria. In the past two weeks the changes in Syria have been momentous, and even in the three days since the Statement was given in the other place a lot has happened. As my honourable friend Calum Miller said in the other place, the fall of the Assad regime is momentous for millions of Syrians who have suffered under his brutal rule. The al-Assad dynasty was a family of despots who used chemical weapons against their own people, so its fall is clearly welcome, but there is now potentially a period of great uncertainty and there are a lot of questions for Syria, for the Middle East as a region and for British foreign policy.
As the noble Earl pointed out, the previous Government and His Majesty’s current Government have not had diplomatic relations with Damascus for some time. What are His Majesty’s Government now thinking about beginning to at least have some conversations with Damascus, if not diplomatic relations? We are in a period of flux where it is entirely appropriate for the people of Syria to determine their own future, but there will be consequences for British foreign policy, as the Foreign Secretary said in his Statement, both for the situation in the Middle East and the potential flow of people out of Syria. Are there proposals for some behind-the-scenes conversations with people on the ground in Syria?
Also, what conversations are His Majesty’s Government having with our partners in Turkey, or Türkiye? Because clearly there is significant involvement of the Government of Türkiye in Syria with their concern about the Kurds. That raises a lot of questions about relations between Syria and the wider region that it would be important to understand. There are clearly short-term concerns about instability and minority rights, which we obviously need to stand behind, because although the groups that have toppled the Assad regime have so far said that they are going to look after the minorities, do His Majesty’s Government think that is the case and what support are they hoping to give to minorities in Syria?
There is also an immediate question about aid. Clearly, the £11 million that has just been given to Syria, announced by the Foreign Secretary on Monday, is welcome, but the Foreign Secretary said in his Statement that there are 17 million Syrians in humanitarian need. The quantum that has been given is £11 million; that is about 67 pence per person in need. It does not sound the most generous of offers. Given that we have seen cuts to ODA over recent years, could the Minister tell the House whether there is the opportunity for further funding to go to Syria? At the moment the aid seems to be de minimis.
In the medium to longer term the people of Syria will clearly want justice and it is vital that Assad and his closest allies face justice but, having claimed asylum in Russia, it is quite difficult to see how that can be brought about. Have His Majesty’s Government thought about ways in which those who have perpetrated the worst atrocities in Syria might be brought to justice? What support are His Majesty’s Government planning to offer to assist Syrians in rebuilding and revitalising their own institutions, ideally helping them pave the way to democracy? As I said earlier, this must obviously be done according to their own preferences, because what we clearly should not be doing at this time is saying that we have a blueprint for what people in Syria should be doing. It needs to be led by the Syrians but, as supporters of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, presumably His Majesty’s Government wish to support those in Syria who want to rebuild relations in an appropriate way.
Iran and Israel
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, again I will not comment on specific discussions as to deployment or strategic deployment. Obviously, we are already involved in the protective operations in the Red Sea. I know that the noble Lord loves to talk about the deployment or non-deployment of UK aircraft carriers. I am very proud of the world-leading Royal Navy, which remains a great service and hopefully will be an even greater service as we go forward. I am not going to discuss the potential deployment of HMS “Prince of Wales” in any particular place, but the aircraft carrier, as he knows, will be a part of combined exercises involving NATO forces in Steadfast Defender. Obviously, its availability is obvious, but deployment is a matter for another day.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, has already talked about the brave pilots as part of Operation Shader and asked whether the United Kingdom is sufficiently defended. However, linked to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord West, there is also a question about how much more naval deployment we might need in the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz. Our own service personnel have done a fantastic job, and we must pay them a great tribute. However, as we look to what is happening in the Middle East, do we not need to think about ensuring that we are increasing our defence positions to support trade continuing and to support our allies in the Middle East? I need to declare that I was in Israel as part of a parliamentary delegation just before Easter.
Lord True (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. The Royal Navy is one of the top five in the world. Of course there is a need to defend our country and act co-operatively with other nations. The overall Ministry of Defence equipment plan for the next decade is £288 billion, including £41.5 billion for the Royal Navy. That will include a Dreadnought, Astute and AUKUS submarines, fleet support ships, ocean surveillance capability and Type 26, Type 31 and Type 32 frigates. As far as the RAF is concerned, the plan is that it should become increasingly a digitally empowered force. The future combat air system will provide us with sixth-generation fighter jet capability, building on what is currently provided by typhoons and the F35. We are in a close partnership with the Italian and Japanese Governments in relation to future fighter capacity.
Action Against Houthi Maritime Attacks
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the efforts that we are making with Prosperity Guardian are to seek to secure, so far as we may, the most secure and most effective situation for the movement of traffic by sea. The choice of where to travel in such circumstances is a matter for those who are operating vessels. It is the case that some vessels are diverting and some other vessels are not diverting. The noble Lord is quite right to say that these matters need to be kept under careful examination. We are doing that, and our allies are doing that. The end result we wish to see is that all people operating commercial shipping feel able to continue using these waters, rather than feeling that they have to divert around the Cape.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, in his Statements this week and last week, the Prime Minister suggested that it is wrong to accept that there is any relationship between what is happening in the Red Sea and what is happening in Israel/Gaza, and yet we have already heard from my noble friend Lord Newby and the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, that one of the key links between those two areas is Iran. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the role of Iran in supporting Hamas, the Houthis and Hezbollah and of what response the United Kingdom can make? I may be a lone voice, but however persuasive the Foreign Secretary may be, conversations between him and the Government of Iran may not be sufficient to persuade the Government of Iran to take the decisions that we all need to bring about greater security in that region.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, it is a challenge. In the international world, people in different places make their calculations on different bases. The fundamental point that I have been trying to relay, and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has been trying to relay, is that there is an issue which this country for centuries has been concerned about, which is ensuring freedom of navigation and freedom of movement and trade on the seas. That stands as an integral, vital, independent issue. Noble Lords have referred to the complex and dangerous tapestry of activity around the region and the role of Iran. I can only repeat, without going into specifics, that we have taken action against the Iranian proxies in Yemen, the Houthis. We are on due guard to make sure that we protect our interests in the region as a whole. The British Government do not favour war; it is not the first resort of the British Government to resort to military action, but I assure the noble Baroness that we are watching very carefully the role of the Iranian Government and that they know they are being watched.
Defending the UK and Allies
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, following on from the right reverend Prelate’s question, perhaps I might press the Lord Privy Seal a little further. While it is clearly right that this action was taken, and the fact that it was limited and proportionate is very welcome, we are seeing ever more military engagement, for all sorts of very pertinent reasons. We hear that the defence budget has been increased, and we have heard the figures. We have heard the further commitment to Ukraine; all those are welcome. But do we actually have the reassurance that we have sufficient personnel to man—person—our ships? In particular, do we have sufficient people working in the Navy, and is recruitment adequate, because there are some short-, medium- and long-term questions we need to be reassured about?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, we do have enough people. Not only do we have enough people, we have some of the most outstanding people in our nation, and I know that the noble Baroness would agree with me on that. Recruitment is always a challenge in any walk of life, and certainly in the Armed Forces. We are actively involved in recruitment and will continue to be so. I believe that serving our nation in the Armed Forces is a very high calling, and I am confident that we will be able to sustain the efforts to maintain our forces in the years ahead.
Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill
Baroness Smith of Newnham ExcerptsWednesday 7th December 2022
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 View all Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 30-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (5 Dec 2022)
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I cannot call the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, my noble friend because I am non-affiliated, but outside this House, I call him my friend. He has been my friend for 45 years. I can testify that his well-known nickname is correct and that he does have double the cerebral capacity of the rest of us, so we should all listen very carefully to anything he has to say.
However, although he made many good points, I do disagree with his conclusion. We must not lose sight of the wider context, and I think there is a slight risk that we might do so in some areas of this House. There is a danger of us suffering from what economists call producer capture. By that, I mean that there are a great many people here who are very close to the top of universities. It is not very surprising that they all tend to think that universities are running themselves quite well and that it is all basically all right. However, I think there needs to be a little more power for the voice of the ordinary student and the ordinary, not-very-important academic who is having a rough time. I was very grateful for and impressed by some of the points made about that by the noble Lords, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in particular, who really tried to bring home the reality of these difficulties.
Going back to why the Bill exists at all, it is to do with the fact that the traditional freedom of speech ethos in universities came under threat. In the past, threats to academic life came from without but now they are coming from within. That is the essence of the problem and why the Bill got going. Even though there have been some changes and alterations of behaviour—for example, the establishment in Cambridge University was defeated in its attempt to suppress free speech and real free speech won—there are still examples.
In Cambridge quite recently, the master of Gonville and Caius College—I think she did not fully understand that the word “master” in the Cambridge or Oxford circumstances is a misnomer and you cannot issue orders at all; it is a very unmasterly position—said that the presence of Helen Joyce speaking in that college would be hateful and that, on those grounds, her talk should not take place. I believe that Helen Joyce would not have been allowed to speak had it not been for the fact that Professor Arif Ahmed, the great leader of free speech, was a don in that college and stood up for Helen Joyce, so the meeting finally took place.
There is a problem, and it has not been sufficiently acknowledged by everybody here. Therefore, it seems that there has to be in the Bill—as there was and to some extent still is—some form of deterrent. There has to be something that goes beyond the universities themselves to make them feel a little nervous about where they have got to. Since universities are currently failing in many cases to uphold the duty of free speech, we cannot just depend on people such as the expert regulators, to which the noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, referred.
The idea of a new tort is to change that. The law of tort offers remedy to private citizens when private duties are breached. This is as opposed to the upholding of more general aspirations, as might be achieved, for example, by judicial review. This difference has not been sufficiently acknowledged in some of the things that have been said. If an academic could bring timely action under a statutory tort, that would concentrate the mind of the university at which he or she worked. That university would face a real deterrent to impeding his or her free speech, because a county court could find against it, with legal, financial and reputational consequences. As the noble Baroness, Lady Shafik, said, I do not quite understand how the prospect of some suit about free speech would frighten people who were inviting people in the cause of free speech. If, however, free speech complaints must always be brought first to an internal complaints procedure, the university will be tempted to mark its own homework favourably or to spin out the process. Early complainants will then retire exhausted and later, prospective ones will not even bother to start.
I add that the Office for Students, on which much reliance is being placed, is not necessarily the best arbiter. As its name suggests, it is for students. The people at universities for whom the free speech stakes are highest are not undergraduates but career academics. The statutory tort, pursuant to which injunctive power could be exercised, would give them the strong protection they increasingly need. I therefore oppose the amendment in the name of my real friend, the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I do not want to detain the House too long because I realise that there will be a move to a vote relatively soon. I support Amendment 22 and will politely say a few words against the noble Lord, Lord Moore, if I may respectfully put it that way.
I am an academic at the University of Cambridge, I signed the amendments put forward by Professor Ahmed and I believe in free speech. However, I am concerned that the idea of a tort will do exactly the reverse of what the noble Lord, Lord Moore, just said. If we want to support the junior academics and students, the way to do that is not to have a legal procedure. As a noble Lord on the other Benches mentioned, the people who will benefit most are the lawyers; the people least likely to be able bring these legal cases are students and junior academics, particularly junior academics at an early stage in their careers. Therefore, the whole idea of a tort will do exactly the opposite of what the noble Lord just implied.
I absolutely agree that we need to listen not just to heads of Oxbridge colleges, chancellors and vice-chancellors of universities, and people like me. However, I hope I speak on behalf of students, members of the casualised part of university staff and other academics in saying that this legal provision will not benefit individuals because those who will have the resources to fight are the university bureaucracies, not individuals.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I have attached my name to Amendment 29 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, which was so ably presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. Having heard those two speeches, I will be extremely brief because the case has been very powerfully made. At this stage these are probing amendments, but there is a need for a strong response from the Minister.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, there is very grave concern about the nature of public appointments in many areas. If you combine that with the very grave concern that has been expressed from all sides of your Lordships’ House about the Bill and its operation, it makes this a particularly crucial response from the Minister.
I also note that in Committee there was an amendment to put a sunset clause on the Bill. It was not my amendment, but I attached my name to it. It was not brought back so I have not pushed forward with it, but that would have been an alternative way of tackling this problem; in some ways it would possibly have been a stronger way. Given where we are now, at the end of Report, we need to hear some very strong reassurances.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I support the thrust of both amendments, but I am rising to add to my declaration of interests earlier. I noted my role as an academic at Cambridge University. I am also a non-executive director of the Oxford International Education Group. I neglected that because the previous declaration linked to what I was saying. I was advised by the clerks to pop up at some point today. I declared it appropriately in Committee.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will now address the group of amendments concerning the appointment of the new director for freedom of speech and academic freedom at the Office for Students. Amendment 29, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, and very ably presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, seeks to impose extra requirements on the appointment of the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom and their role once in post. Amendment 30, tabled by noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, similarly focuses on the appointment process.
As I said in Grand Committee, I want to be clear that
“the director for freedom of speech and academic freedom will be appointed in the same way as other members of the OfS board, by the Secretary of State under the Higher Education and Research Act 2017.”—[Official Report, 14/11/22; col. GC 751.]
Although this is not officially a public appointment, it will be done in accordance with the public appointments process. This will ensure the independence of the process.
It is not necessary to include the additional requirement of confirmation of the appointment by the Education Select Committee. Such confirmation is not required for other members of the Office for Students board more generally, including the chief executive and the director for fair access and participation, who has a similar level of responsibility. The only role within the OfS which has involved prospective appointees appearing before the Select Committee is that of the chair. It would therefore be disproportionate and an unnecessary level of scrutiny that would set an unhelpful precedent for appointments to both the OfS and other public bodies, including those outside the higher education sector.
As for the involvement of the higher education sector in the appointment through formal consultation—I am afraid I cannot comfort the noble Lord, Lord Wallace—which is envisaged under his Amendment 30, this conversely would threaten the independence of the role.
I turn to the proposed additional reporting requirements to Parliament in Amendment 29. There are already several provisions in the Bill that provide for scrutiny of the operation of the Bill once enacted. Under Clause 5, the Secretary of State can ask the Office for Students to report on freedom of speech and academic freedom matters in its annual report or in a special report. This report must be laid before Parliament. This is based on the approach in Section 37 of the Higher Education and Research Act as regards equality of opportunity.
Under Clause 9, the annual report must include a summary of information on overseas funding and conclusions on patterns and trends of concern. This is based on Section 68 of the Higher Education and Research Act as regards financial sustainability.
Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill
Baroness Smith of Newnham ExcerptsWednesday 2nd November 2022
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 View all Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 30-II Second marshalled list for Grand Committee - (31 Oct 2022)
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the support that has already been given to Amendment 69 by the noble Baronesses. I can therefore deal with it quite quickly, just to explain what it does.
It would add a new provision to Section 31 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act. The effect would be that the duty imposed under Section 26(1) of that Act, which I will explain in a moment, will not apply to any decision made by a provider, in effect, which directly concerns the content or delivery of curriculum, the provision of library or other teaching resources, or research carried out by academic staff.
The simple way to look at it is this. Section 26(1) of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act applies directly to a specified authority and imposes a duty to
“have … regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism”—
in other words, the Prevent duty. Section 31(2) provides that, when a specified authority—in other words, an academic institution—is carrying out that duty, it must have regard to the Prevent duty. Such an institution
“must have particular regard to the duty to ensure freedom of speech, if it is subject to that duty”
and
“must have particular regard to the importance of academic freedom”.
Amendment 69 would clarify what is to be encompassed in that on a more express basis by making it absolutely clear that, where the specified authority is directly concerned with content or delivery of curriculum, the provision of library and teaching resources, or research, the Prevent duty will not apply. That is all it does. It is very simple and clear, and it protects academic freedom. I think that is all I need to say in the light of the speeches that have been made.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, on this occasion I speak as myself—I do not think I have to go quite as far as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, in saying that I speak as myself and not as a Cambridge academic. And I do not have to channel my noble friend Lord Wallace, because he did not give me any briefing notes for these amendments.
The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mann, are potentially helpful but I assume that, as with any legislation, the Government are extremely unlikely to say, “That’s a really good amendment. We’ll just take it lock, stock and barrel and put it into the legislation”. That normally does not happen. Even if a Minister agrees in Committee that an amendment might have some validity and value, there is usually a reason why its wording or a particular idea in it would not be quite right. I therefore ask the Minister, in responding to the amendments, to respond instead to the sentiment of what the noble Lord, Lord Mann, is saying.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in this debate as I am not an academic. I look on the wording of the provisions in the Bill as a simple lawyer. For my part, I like the very simple wording of the existing provision in new Section A3. It is capable of accommodating changing circumstances and the various situations that academic institutions have to deal with.
The problem, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is that he complicates that simple expression in new Section A3 with a serious of steps that are to be taken. I am not sure that anything he has said is inconsistent with what we find in new Section A3, but I would much rather keep it in the simple form that is already in the Bill without adding to the complication. To put it another way, the noble Lord, with great respect and with very good intention, is perhaps trying to do too much by expanding and trying to explain the duty already in new Section A3.
I do not object to the addition suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, but I do not think it is necessary as, if it is a relevant legal duty, it is already there to be performed; it does not need to be said. As a lawyer, I prefer simplicity—not all lawyers do—and I would like to keep it simple in the way it is already expressed in the Bill.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches we have relatively little to add. I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said on various issues, not least about academic excellence because it is not just about academic freedom. Part of the purpose of a university is about educating and engaging in debate, but we are also trying to ensure that the minds of students are being stimulated. It is not just about academic freedom but that is part of it. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has said, Amendment 31 seems somewhat unnecessary. While on these Benches we support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Willetts and Lord Stevens, if the Minister can persuade us that they are all implicit in the Bill and are not necessary, then perhaps they could not be moved.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I have to say that I am sinking in sympathy on the general principle in this Committee, which is coming at me from every side. Nobody lacks sympathy with what I am saying—in general. It is only in the particular that they object to what might be put forward to practical effect—I am always open to the charge that I may have erred in drafting and may have got the wrong approach, and all that—but without substituting any particular proposal for the ones that they particularly find objectionable in my case. I agree that it is not a suitable parallel. Coercive police powers are not a suitable parallel with pedagogy—I picked it off the shelf—but they are perhaps a suitable parallel with somebody being driven out of their job because of particular views, because that too is a coercive act. If they are not defended from being driven out of their job, and we are simply saying that it will be dealt with by guidance and not in the Bill, what are we doing? They are skewered, because they now admit the need for change but they want it done by somebody else.
I now come to my noble friend the Minister, because I really must wrap up, and we have to move on.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, surely there is a difference between something that is appropriate as guidance, where right-minded people would think that guidance was appropriate, versus Henry VIII clauses, where Ministers are seeking to grant themselves sweeping powers over which there is no scrutiny. What we are saying here is not, “Let’s grant Henry VIII powers to a Secretary of State”, but rather that there are appropriate places for things, and on this occasion, guidance is the appropriate place.
Lord Moylan (Con)
It is absolutely clear that of course there is a difference between guidance and Henry VIII powers but we are not in that field here. We are talking about what our contribution is as legislators and the fact that, on what we acknowledge to be tricky and difficult issues on which the public and leaders of universities would like to know our views, we are saying, “We aren’t going to agree on any of that. We’re going to give it to a body where we have no say and where there is no supervision for us at all, and we will trust them.” Frankly, it is a cop-out.
None the less, I am going to move to a close and thank my noble friend the Minister for the careful consideration that he gave to my amendment. I think that in some ways he is encouraging me to redraft it better for Report, as he pointed out its various flaws. He somewhat failed the acid test I set him of how his clause as currently drafted would deal with the situation of Professor Kathleen Stock. The noble Lord, Lord Grabiner, said that frankly it did not need to because existing provisions already do so and it was simply a failure of the university to apply them. If that is the Minister’s view, I think he should say so. Still, I am grateful to him because he gave very careful consideration to the amendment. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I realise that people have been declaring interests at various points during proceedings. As an academic I assumed, having declared my interests at the start of proceedings on Monday for the same Committee that I did not need to rehearse them again. If necessary, I am happy to rehearse my interests at Cambridge University and associations with other higher education organisations.
The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, has begun to flesh out slightly that there is a difference between two types of funding. There is research grant funding which might come from UKRI, where one would imagine it should be funding blue-sky thinking. The ideas in the amendments proposed today—whether they have appropriate wording or not—are that people’s academic freedoms should not be damaged, everyone should have an equal chance to secure funding and that should not be constrained in any way, for example, by one’s political beliefs. It is difficult for anyone to refute that suggestion. However, if an academic proposes to do research for a third party, where that party is looking for findings in a certain area and wants certain things to be done, if they are then engaged in a contract the person providing funding might reasonably say “Actually, I don’t wish this research to be funded”.
This goes back to “unintended consequences”. I wonder whether these amendments work for the contracts or consultancy that academics might be undertaking, which is quite different. If you undertake consultancy, its funder might not want to publish the findings because they do not meet what they expected. It is quite difficult to see how you could constrain a funder in that way, when it is a different sort of research funding to that which a university or UKRI might provide to individual academics. I am not opposing the amendments but I wonder whether some of these things need to be explored a little further.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I should take the noble Baroness’s prompt and declare my interest as an honorary fellow at Balliol. I was prompted to speak by what has just been said in respect of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. He makes a very important point but, were this to progress beyond Committee, it would require very careful attention to the wording so as not to produce completely counterproductive results.
I was looking it up as the noble Lord was speaking, and I think I am correct in saying that, in 2019, about a quarter of R&D was via the higher education sector and about two-thirds was through the business sector. There is a sort of make-buy boundary, a decision, for a lot of research funders as to where they will get their research done. It just happens to be a contingent fact that quite a lot of that is done through the university sector, but it need not be. As worded, the amendment would capture, for example, conversations that the Wellcome Trust or Cancer Research UK would want to have with individual academic research teams, particularly about their research methodologies. Those are very productive conversations that improve the quality of research. So I understand the thought, but the precise mechanism perhaps warrants further attention.
More broadly, I oppose Amendment 34 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, specifically in relation to its suggestion that statute should be interfering in the discretion that universities have in grant funding allocations where the amendment says that universities would no longer be able to take into account in those grant allocations the lawfully held principles that individual researchers might adhere to. I get the bit about political opinion, but the “principle” bit is, I think, potentially quite problematic. One of the many dictionary definitions of a “principle” is “a general scientific theorem with numerous special applications across a wide field”. If you do not believe in the scientific basis of cell biology and have a particular “principled” adoption of homeopathic beliefs in bio-miasms, you will be driven in a particular direction. It seems to me that universities have a responsibility to say no to putting homeopathy funding on an equal basis with anything else. We want them, in pursuit of their distinctive mission to advance knowledge and education through structured debate and evidence-based reasoning, to be able to say no so that research on certain “principled beliefs” can be disbarred.
This comes back to the confusion that we touched upon on Monday. The Minister dealt with this point in respect of the employment of academics but, when it comes to the grant funding, we cannot have a situation in which universities’ hands are tied and they are not able to make judgments as to the merit on which those grants are allocated across their institutions. It is the inclusion of the phrase “the principles” of the contending grant application that ensures that, unfortunately, Amendment 34 as currently worded is fundamentally flawed.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
I think I have said everything that needed to be said from these Benches.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I was tempted to declare my own interest as an assistant general secretary of a trade union that used to commission research. Once I knew the question and its answer, I would commission the research. There is that political side; social science is often involved in that sort of thing.
This has been a worthwhile debate. I am pretty certain that this Bill, or even this debate, is not the right place for these amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, raised some fundamental points. One of my responsibilities is as the shadow FCDO Minister. In global research, how research—particularly medical research—can be innovative, and who controls and pays for it, is an interesting question. I certainly do not relate that to academic freedom; that is a different, commercial issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, made the excellent point that, if you are going to do research in a particular medical area, you are not going to be bound by employing someone who has no interest in pursuing that line of inquiry. For me, whenever these sorts of questions come up, the interesting thing about the sort of research done by my noble friend Lord Sikka is that the key is always transparency. Whenever a piece of research is published, I want to know who has funded it. I want to know who is ultimately responsible. To me, that is absolutely the key to this issue.
I was going to ask the Minister about impact; the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raised this. Students Organising for Sustainability asked whether these duties would present a conflict between some universities’ health departments—at Imperial, for example—that have funding conditional on not recommending big tobacco in their careers service? That relates to advisers and freedom of speech. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s view on that in relation to the debate on these amendments.
I have promoted debates in the Chamber on the broader issue of commercial research, particularly about who at the end of the day owns and controls the—I have a mental block.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
I did not say from these Benches that it was too big to be included. I suggested that there needs to be more discussion and clarification of the issues at stake because they are even broader than the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Sikka, were discussing. That is not to say that they should not be included.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I am very grateful for that clarification, which I take as an encouragement to myself and the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, to enter discussions with the noble Baroness as we prepare for the next stage of the Bill to reach satisfactory wording on the topic.
Finally, I simply say how very grateful I am to everybody who spoke in the debate and managed not to say that it should be dealt with in the code of conduct. With that, and given the lateness of the hour—though I suspect the topic may come back—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Triesman (Lab)
To be very clear, I have no difficulty at all with the concept that people in student unions who impede the free speech and academic freedom of others must be dealt with. For the record, I do not have a second’s question about that. I just want us to do things in this Bill that we can actually do. I wonder whether the noble Earl, Lord Howe, might discuss this offline with some of us who have helped to run these kinds of institutions in the past to see whether there is a practical solution to the problem that my noble friend has just illustrated. I do not know about the LSE, but I will lay odds that most student unions find out what their rugby clubs have done months after the event, if they find out at all.
Earl Howe (Con)
I would hope that a rugby club would not be responsible for inviting somebody to talk about gender politics.