All 4 Debates between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Bethell

Covid-19: Conflicts of Interest

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Bethell
Wednesday 18th November 2020

(4 years, 1 month ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell Portrait Lord Bethell (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, the very large number of advisers, both paid and unpaid, were all processed by the department and their paperwork was then handed on to the Cabinet Office for approval. George Pascoe-Watson, as others, was sent both a declaration of interest form, which he filled in and is on record, and a volunteer agreement, which has the Official Secrets Act built into it. His work was covered by that.

Baroness Smith of Newnham Portrait Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
- Hansard - -

My Lords, could the Minister tell the House whether the Government’s anti-corruption champion, John Penrose MP, has been involved in looking at any conflicts of interest or whether he is in danger of having a conflict of interest himself?

Lord Bethell Portrait Lord Bethell (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am not aware of him being involved in the work to which the noble Baroness refers.

Covid-19: Response

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Bethell
Monday 27th July 2020

(4 years, 4 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Newnham Portrait Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
- Hansard - -

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, raised the issue of the procurement of PPE. Can I press the Minister on the procurement of vaccines? According to the Statement, the Government appear to have secured 190 million doses of vaccine—if they succeed. Could he tell us what procedures have been undertaken to procure the vaccines and reassure the House that the country will not lose money if the vaccines do not, in fact, succeed?

Lord Bethell Portrait Lord Bethell [V]
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am not quite sure of the 190 million number. I think that is possibly an aggregate number of different vaccines. However, the practicalities of vaccine research are extremely expensive, and there are eight, nine or 10 potential runners and riders in the global vaccine market. It is the practice for countries to contribute to those research costs up front in order to have access to the vaccine should it be successful. That is the practice for medical research of many kinds, and these are the practical costs of trying to break the difficult mystery of the disease and providing security for ourselves and for our children.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Bethell
Monday 16th March 2020

(4 years, 9 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell Portrait Lord Bethell
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The noble Baroness is entirely right. As a trustee of Sadler’s Wells, I understand completely the implications of what she is saying, her point about insurance, and the confusion there might be about what the current status is. I simply cannot answer the question right now. I am not trying to avoid a difficult question; I simply do not have the information. When I do, I will be very happy to write to her and to others who have asked about this.

Baroness Smith of Newnham Portrait Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, the Minister has told us several times that the key government priority is to deal with the health crisis of Covid-19. But what work are the Government doing to ensure that the other issues that have been raised, for the self-employed and for small businesses, do not lead to such severe crises that we see an outbreak of suicide because people simply cannot cope and think they do not have a future? It is not only the virus: there needs to be a whole series of decisions around questions that have been raised this evening, to which we have not yet had any answers.

Brexit

Debate between Baroness Smith of Newnham and Lord Bethell
Wednesday 2nd October 2019

(5 years, 2 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Newnham Portrait Baroness Smith of Newnham
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I am delighted to take that intervention, and particularly delighted that I am taking it not from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. Four years ago, when I was speaking from the Front Bench on the referendum Bill, I was intervened upon by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who, when I said I was rather sad to be having to speak in a debate about a referendum, reminded me that the Liberal Democrat position had indeed been to support an in/out referendum. That has been our party policy. Like that of other parties, the Liberal Democrat position is one—

I hear from a sedentary position something about opportunism. I am a Liberal Democrat; I believe in democracy. I did not vote against triggering Article 50. I personally accept the result of the referendum but, as we have already heard, Michael Gove, who is currently responsible for the Government’s no-deal preparations, also said we were not preparing for a no-deal Brexit. That was not what people voted for.

We are in a position in which Parliament is incapable of delivering Brexit unless this Prime Minister manages to pull a rabbit out of a hat with his letter to Jean-Claude Juncker.

I can hear my Whip saying “time”. However, I was intervened on, and nobody else has so far taken any notice of the Clock, so at this stage I am not going to either.

We are in a position in which the Government have not been able to deliver Brexit and Parliament has not been able to come to a solution. The way around that is another referendum. The Liberal Democrat position is that if a general election came first and we had a majority, we would want to revoke—so be it—but we are not at that stage.

I would have had another minute had I not been intervened on. I ask the Minister: what are the Government proposing to do? Unlike other noble Lords, I will assume that the Prime Minister gets his deal on 17 October and we get to the point of the House of Commons accepting the deal. That might be 19 or 21 October. Do we not need a withdrawal implementation Bill to deal with that agreement? How do the Government propose to get that through Parliament? There was filibustering from the Government Benches when we tried to get through a very brief piece of legislation before the non-Prorogation. This would be a much more serious piece of legislation. Do the Government really envisage getting it through both Houses in 10 days—calendar days, not working days? If so, how does the Minister propose to do that?

Lord Bethell Portrait Lord Bethell (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, there is an advisory Back-Bench speaking time of six minutes. We have been consistently over that time. For the fairness of the House, I wonder if we can try to stick to that.